The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by aquila on 10.12.11 14:19

@bobbin wrote:Whereas I agree that
taking the law into one’s own hands is, in a civilised society, not acceptable,
I can nevertheless understand that if the law does not perform the task that it
was set up to do, then people will resort to more fundamental methods of seeking
redress.


We pay our taxes to
deliver a policing, judicial and political system to provide security to our
society and to assert on our behalves, a redress for transgressions against our
society either as a whole or as individuals.


If, and we are seeing
more and more daily, those within the legal, policing and political trades, are
found to be corrupt, both corrupting and corruptible, then our subscription to,
and compliance with the ‘law abiding rules’ of society become challenged.


Perhaps the grand ?political?
scheme, at the current time, is to set one part of society against another, to
cause mayhem.


We see video footage,
unquestionable footage, of police infiltrators at peaceful protest rallies,
stirring up violence and then moving in to arrest people innocently caught up
in the stirred up situation (even a death at the G8 protest). This infiltration
is orchestrated and not extinguished by what authority ?


We see huge,
widespread, corporate, fraudulent acts of financial mis-management, crimes
which if perpetrated by the individual, would be pursued until the individual
were imprisoned.


We see people ‘suicided’
with unconvincing, inadequate investigations, secrecy clamps put on essential
and contradicting information, important testaments ignored, prevented from
being heard and it is clear to all, to be tantamount to a high level cover up
for political expediency. (Kelly)


We see paedophilia at
the highest levels (why was Hollie Greig paid a settlement albeit a very
inadequate one).


We see the blind eye being
turned so many times now that it is almost what we have come to expect.


However, barring those
with a sociopathic tendency, the vast majority of people know, by primal
instinct, what is the difference between right and wrong.


As a result, as with
all societies, when the balance shifts too far to one side, there comes a return
swing of the pendulum, which is simply, on the axis of time, a physical
inevitability.


To start with, we see vigilantes,
lynch mobs, witch hunts. In the search for correction or retribution for crimes
perceived, perpetrators can expect to be sought out.


However, corrupt
political expediency can also cause ‘ perceived dissenters’ to be cast into the throng and
people can be falsely accused and dealt blows without just cause or self
defence.


If mayhem should
escalate, or, by design be escalated, if the corrupt politicians, police and
judiciary should consider that it would all go their way, that would be a short
sighted view, for against them stands the populace (their electorate, their
paymasters, their employers).


By primal instinct,
again, is the unstoppable force for ‘protection of the young’.


A paedophile, once
known in society, in prison, wherever, will not enjoy his, or her, liberties for
long.


The vast and high
level ‘cover-ups’, which currently enable paedophiles to continue in their
violation against our children (those least able to defend themselves) will not
in the long term be able to provide a wall strong enough to keep the angry mob at
bay.


History has shown this
time and time again.


Before law and order
can be re-established, there will be a seeking out of paedophiles to deliver
them to justice, once deemed the role of the ‘uncorrupted’ policing and
judicial system which society had formerly subscribed to.


A time bomb is ticking.



It does not matter how
many ‘whistle blowers’, how many courageous individuals, sticking their heads
above the parapets, are ‘expediently’ taken out by those who believe themselves
to be invincibly protected in their bubble of self-obsessed impunity, the
masses are out there.


Their numbers are
beyond counting and each one of them, save the aforementioned sociopathic in
tendency, is armed with a force and a vision of what is right and wrong know and
what needs to be done with wrong-doers.


The time bomb is now a
few seconds closer to the sort of cleansing that the politicians and their
elite circle of friends did not have on their own agenda.


I am pleased to see
the news that Holland is pursuing paedophilia as being deemed a crime. This,
for me, is the sign that the pendulum has already turned.

Wow! wow! wow!

what a bloody geat post.

aquila

Posts : 7952
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 11.12.11 19:00

@aquila wrote:I'm adding to my last post.

Perhaps paedophiles can introduce the word 'romance' to their 'game' - once the age of consent is abolished.
Forget the age of consent issue aquila, as they already try to 'soften' and 'normalise' their vile perversion (it is perversion, not orientation) by using 'romantic' terms:
'Child-lover' - well, sorry, but nothing these 'people' do or fantasize about has anything in common with 'love'
'CL' abbreviation for the above
'GL' Girl lover
'BL' Boy lover
'LGL' Little girl lover
'LBL' Little boy lover

Can't bring myself to list anymore. Makes me want to vomit. These scum don't love children, they ruin them, for life usually. Any chance of happy fulfilled adulthood and good mental health snatched away for the sake of a perverts satisfaction. To equate their actions with love is just, well, wrong. Only a 'Minor-attracted adult(MAA(paedophile)) could possibly rationalise that a three year old 'loves and wants them as an adult would'
Words just fail me...

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 11.12.11 21:10

I just wanted to post a few words here (well, quite a lot of words, actually, I guess! Wink)
I am really concerned by the seeming link between paedophilia, homosexuality and the age of consent. Started off in PeterMac's post, though I'm sure that his intention wasn't that. Yes, homosexuality used to be criminal, yes it is more tolerated now, though obviously not completely judging by some of the posts on this thread. I'll freely admit it absolutely baffles me why anyone would think the age of consent should be higher if you are gay? Surely there is no logical reason - I've wracked my brain and I can only think of reasons that spring from prejudice. Anyway, here is a piece from BBC regarding 'levelling the field' for AOC;

Wednesday, 29 November, 2000, 17:02 GMT

Q and A: The age of consent

​

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill is entering law in the UK. It cuts the age "at which a person, whether male or female, may lawfully consent to a homosexual relationship." Find out more about this historic legislation.

What has changed?

The law means that for the first time in British legal history, the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual men and women is now 16 in England, Wales and Scotland and 17 in Northern Ireland - equalising the age for all.

Until now, the age of consent for homosexual men was 18 while there was no statutory age of consent for lesbian sex.

The second change means that a person under the age of consent will not commit an offence if they have a homosexual relationship with someone over the age of consent.

The final change (see below) introduces a new offence against adults "in positions of trust".

Why has the UK had different ages of consent?

Until the reign of Queen Victoria, gay sex was punishable by death.

Age of consent (heterosexual and homosexual)

France: 15

Germany: 16

Ireland: 16

Italy: 14

Portugal: 14/16

Source: Stonewall

Although the threat of hanging was removed, the law against homosexuality was strengthened. In the 1950's, a Home Office-sponsored report recommended an age of consent of 21.

But it was not until the government of Harold Wilson in 1967 that homosexuality was legalised at 21.

Scotland and Northern Ireland only came into line with the 1967 legislation in 1980 and 1982 respectively.

In 1979, a Home Office group recommended lowering the age to 18 because that was the point when "society deems a young man to be an adult and responsible". Nothing happened.

So how did the age of consent get lowered to 18?

Fifteen years later, Conservative MP Edwina Currie brought forward an amendment to a Bill to equalise the age of consent at 16.

Large numbers of Labour MPs supported Ms Currie, including the then shadow home secretary, Tony Blair.

Outlining the position of the pro-16 camp, Mr Blair said "People are entitled to think that homosexuality is wrong, but they are not entitled to use the criminal law to force that view upon others.

"A society that has learned, over time, racial and sexual equality can surely come to terms with equality of sexuality." The move failed but a compromise amendment of 18 was accepted.

What happened to bring it back on to the agenda?

Many sympathetic MPs vowed to bring the issue back as soon as they could.

But the catalyst for action was the European Court of Human Rights. In May 1996 it began hearing a case alleging that the different ages of consent breached human rights.

In 1997, the case was suspended after the new Labour home secretary, Jack Straw, said that the government would do everything possible to change the law.

So what happened next?

Labour MP Ann Keen introduced an age of consent amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill.

It sailed through a free vote in the Commons with a majority of 207 MPs.

But in July 1998, the Lords threw it out with a majority of 168. Amid bitter exchanges, the amendment's opponents insisted that they were not anti-gay, but seeking to protect children.

Jack Straw dropped the amendment, fearing that the government would lose the entire Bill, a major part of its legislative programme.

And the opponents?

Led by the former Conservative minister Baroness Young, they pledged to scupper future attempts to amend the law.

But Mr Straw reintroduced the measure as the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill in the 1998-99 parliamentary session. The Lords defeated it for a second time in April 1999.

Supporters of the legislation said that the second defeat hit particularly hard, coming only months after the Soho pub bombing aimed at the gay community.

The government reintroduced the legislation again in the 1999 session, threatening to enact the Bill regardless of the opinion of the Lords.

How can they do that?

If the Lords refuse to agree to a Bill that has already been approved by the Commons, the government can pass the Bill into law, after a delay of one year, using the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. These restrict the power of the House of Lords to block the will of the government.

The no-lobby peers ignored threats to use the Parliament Act and threw out the legislation for a third and final time in November 200, claiming that they had public opinion on their side.

With legislative time running out, the Home Secretary used the Parliament Act on Wednesday 28 November.

Couldn't this have been settled less dramatically?

Apparently not. Baroness Young and her supporters regarded the issue as a battle for the defence of family values.

One of the key objections raised in 1998 was that lowering the age of consent would leave 16-year-olds prey to older men.

Campaigners attacked this as an attempt to equate homosexuality with paedophilia. The government sought to neuter this argument by introducing the "abuse of trust" element into the legislation.

How does this work?

If someone is in a position of trust towards a person aged between 16 and 18, for instance a teacher, they are not allowed to have a sexual relationship with the younger party.

In line with other sex offences someone (over 20) convicted of such an offence will be placed on the national register, and could also be subject to a jail sentence.

Are there other sexual equality issues on the political agenda?

Yes. The row over "Section 28", legislation preventing local authorities promoting homosexuality, continues. It's been defeated in the Lords but Labour says it's "unfinished business".

Campaigners also regard the Human Rights Act, incorporated into UK law in October, as a welcome opportunity to test alleged inequality cases before the domestic courts.


I absolutely agree there should be equality. Why do men who love men need more protection regards AOC? It wouldn't have helped in the case of the lad with learning difficulties. At 18 he is likely to be no more mature emotionally than at 16, and this is where I have a problem with any age-related laws. Enforcement is more or less impossible, and if a law cannot be policed and enforced efficiently, is there really much point to it at all? Quite apart from this, physical emotional and mental maturity varies so widely between those of the same 'chronological age' as to make the laws senseless in many ways.
I was very interested in joining the MF until I saw the proposed Madeleines Law, which would make it an offence to leave a child of twelve or under alone. My eldest is twelve, and fine to be left alone, has been for some time. My youngest is ten, and even when he is twelve I won't be able to leave him alone. I envisage that even at sixteen he may not be safe. And here lies my problem. Those 'younger' will still be preyed on. An unscrupulous parent could leave a twelve year old like mine and argue its 'legal' whilst a perfectly good parent could leave a more mature eleven year old, and be prosecuted. The truly vulnerable are not protected by age-related laws. Its sad but those who wish to abuse will always find ways round it.

I think my main point is though, please don't confuse paedophilia and homosexuals. Yes, of course there are gay male and female paedophiles as there are bisexual and heterosexual. Speaking as someone of non-hetero orientation, there is enough prejudice already!
Any paedophile, if convicted a second time, should be locked up for life, IMO, be they street-sweeper, dinner-lady, teacher, doctor, police, banker, government. Anybody who aids abets and shields paedophiles should also face very heavy sentences also.

I think this is a worthwhile subject to cover, just not convinced that homosexuality should come into it. Adult to adult activities are different to paedophilia.

To anyone who read all that to the end, whew. Hope I didn't offend anyone. The subjects are all close to my heart and personal to me.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by Marian on 11.12.11 22:49

Rainbow-Fairy. I think you will have seen from my posting at 9.46 yesterday that I share your concern when homosexuality and paedophilia are linked together.

Marian

Posts : 1147
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by PeterMac on 11.12.11 23:08

As you say, it is a vile perversion.
But male homosexuality was considered to be a vile perversion some years ago.
In Victorian times Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carrol) was presented at Court, and Oscar Wilde was sentenced to two years imprisonment.
In our times we have Lord Mandelson and Sir Elton John, to compare with Gary Glitter.

Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.


Since almost everything we write on this topic is capable of misinterpretation, I shall make no further contribution.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 11.12.11 23:21

@Marian wrote: Rainbow-Fairy. I think you will have seen from my posting at 9.46 yesterday that I share your concern when homosexuality and paedophilia are linked together.
Hi Marian, yes I did, and as you can imagine, I wholeheartedly agree. The only reason why I didn't quote you was because I thought it was a great post and should be able to stand alone - not get hijacked by my rant lol Wink
I really do respect your way of thinking!
However hard I try, I just don't get why some people insist on linking the two things? I overheard in a shop queue the other day two women (not very old, either) discussing a gay male couple fostering kids. Questioning why they could possibly wish to do that - final consensus? 'They must be nonces'. How I held my tongue before I left I will never know!

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 11.12.11 23:39

@PeterMac wrote:As you say, it is a vile perversion.
But male homosexuality was considered to be a vile perversion some years ago.
In Victorian times Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carrol) was presented at Court, and Oscar Wilde was sentenced to two years imprisonment.
In our times we have Lord Mandelson and Sir Elton John, to compare with Gary Glitter.

Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.


Since almost everything we write on this topic is capable of misinterpretation, I shall make no further contribution.
I really hope I haven't upset you PeterMac. I love your posts. As you say, it did used to be considered a vile perversion, yet conversely girls were being married at twelve! Times change, attitudes change... Just I personally cannot compare the two things. One is about love and attraction between two adults, the other is about attraction of and adult, who should be able to control themselves, to a child.
But we are all allowed to have our own opinions! Unless of course you openly doubt Team McCann, in which case you are a vile person who should be sued! Wink

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by PeterMac on 12.12.11 8:01

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
I really hope I haven't upset you PeterMac. SNIP
Not at all. I merely think that this is an area where a sane and balanced view can be taken out of context, quoted and misquoted, and turned back on the speaker.
But we are all allowed to have our own opinions! Unless of course you openly doubt Team McCann, in which case you are a vile person who should be sued! Wink
Quite so. And unless your definition of free speech does not correspond exactly with the somewhat restricted interpretation they have chosen.

Incidentally, the Information Commissioner passed judgment on a blogger recently, who Barnet Council had tried to claim was an unregistered data controller... processing personal data. He rejected the complaint, and said, that such a ruling would have a "hugely disproportionate impact on freedom of expression" and would be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. A blogger, the commissioner said, is ultimately entitled (to express his) low opinion of those he writes about." (Source - Private Eye, 1302, p. 15)




____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 12.12.11 8:42

@PeterMac wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
I really hope I haven't upset you PeterMac. SNIP
Not at all. I merely think that this is an area where a sane and balanced view can be taken out of context, quoted and misquoted, and turned back on the speaker.
But we are all allowed to have our own opinions! Unless of course you openly doubt Team McCann, in which case you are a vile person who should be sued! Wink
Quite so. And unless your definition of free speech does not correspond exactly with the somewhat restricted interpretation they have chosen.

Incidentally, the Information Commissioner passed judgment on a blogger recently, who Barnet Council had tried to claim was an unregistered data controller... processing personal data. He rejected the complaint, and said, that such a ruling would have a "hugely disproportionate impact on freedom of expression" and would be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. A blogger, the commissioner said, is ultimately entitled (to express his) low opinion of those he writes about." (Source - Private Eye, 1302, p. 15)



Absolutely 100% agree. Without freedom of speech, we have lost our first line of defence against fascism etc. I was merely pointing out that we have to be careful comparing being gay with being a paedophile.
No, I'm no Gerry McCann. You are quite correct that comments in a thread like this can be taken out of context. I believe that what you meant in your original post was not to compare paedophilia with homosexuality, merely pointing out that attitudes change.
Let's just hope that we don't next have to accept bestiality, necrophilia etc as 'just another orientation' as the issue I have is with consent. Children, animals and the dead cannot give consent!
I guess some of my comments may bite me on the bum too!

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 12.12.11 8:46

@PeterMac wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
I really hope I haven't upset you PeterMac. SNIP
Not at all. I merely think that this is an area where a sane and balanced view can be taken out of context, quoted and misquoted, and turned back on the speaker.
But we are all allowed to have our own opinions! Unless of course you openly doubt Team McCann, in which case you are a vile person who should be sued! Wink
Quite so. And unless your definition of free speech does not correspond exactly with the somewhat restricted interpretation they have chosen.

Incidentally, the Information Commissioner passed judgment on a blogger recently, who Barnet Council had tried to claim was an unregistered data controller... processing personal data. He rejected the complaint, and said, that such a ruling would have a "hugely disproportionate impact on freedom of expression" and would be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. A blogger, the commissioner said, is ultimately entitled (to express his) low opinion of those he writes about." (Source - Private Eye, 1302, p. 15)



Absolutely 100% agree. Without freedom of speech, we have lost our first line of defence against fascism etc. I was merely pointing out that we need to be careful. To compare being gay with being a paedophile is like comparing an apple with a pork chop. Sometimes they go together but it certainly doesn't follow.
No, I'm no Gerry McCann. Anyone can say pretty much anything they like, I won't seek to censor it, just I may not agree! You are quite correct that comments in a thread like this can be taken out of context. I believe that what you meant in your original post was not to compare paedophilia with homosexuality, merely pointing out that attitudes change.
Let's just hope that we don't next have to accept bestiality, necrophilia etc as 'just another orientation' as the issue I have is with consent. Children, animals and the dead cannot give consent!
I guess some of my comments may bite me on the bum too!

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by aquila on 12.12.11 8:52

@PeterMac wrote:As you say, it is a vile perversion.
But male homosexuality was considered to be a vile perversion some years ago.
In Victorian times Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carrol) was presented at Court, and Oscar Wilde was sentenced to two years imprisonment.
In our times we have Lord Mandelson and Sir Elton John, to compare with Gary Glitter.

Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.


Since almost everything we write on this topic is capable of misinterpretation, I shall make no further contribution.

please, please keep commenting on this topic....this is the one where you have NO fear of being sued. I love the debate. It gives other people's opinions. I'm not apologising for my opinion. You're not apologising for yours. I'm learning from yours. I'm learning from rainbow-fairy's.

Keep it going. It's about time the topic of paedophilia was discussed openly. I happen to think that we need to expose this vile, exponential perversion for exactly what it is.

aquila

Posts : 7952
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by aquila on 12.12.11 8:58

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
I really hope I haven't upset you PeterMac. SNIP
Not at all. I merely think that this is an area where a sane and balanced view can be taken out of context, quoted and misquoted, and turned back on the speaker.
But we are all allowed to have our own opinions! Unless of course you openly doubt Team McCann, in which case you are a vile person who should be sued! Wink
Quite so. And unless your definition of free speech does not correspond exactly with the somewhat restricted interpretation they have chosen.

Incidentally, the Information Commissioner passed judgment on a blogger recently, who Barnet Council had tried to claim was an unregistered data controller... processing personal data. He rejected the complaint, and said, that such a ruling would have a "hugely disproportionate impact on freedom of expression" and would be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. A blogger, the commissioner said, is ultimately entitled (to express his) low opinion of those he writes about." (Source - Private Eye, 1302, p. 15)



Absolutely 100% agree. Without freedom of speech, we have lost our first line of defence against fascism etc. I was merely pointing out that we need to be careful. To compare being gay with being a paedophile is like comparing an apple with a pork chop. Sometimes they go together but it certainly doesn't follow.
No, I'm no Gerry McCann. Anyone can say pretty much anything they like, I won't seek to censor it, just I may not agree! You are quite correct that comments in a thread like this can be taken out of context. I believe that what you meant in your original post was not to compare paedophilia with homosexuality, merely pointing out that attitudes change.
Let's just hope that we don't next have to accept bestiality, necrophilia etc as 'just another orientation' as the issue I have is with consent. Children, animals and the dead cannot give consent!
I guess some of my comments may bite me on the bum too!

I agree with you. The point is that homosexuality must not be linked to paedophilia. There are hetero and homo paedophiles. Just like there are white and black criminals. Go for it...discuss it....this is a liberating forum for such a discussion. It's about time we stopped brushing it all under the carpet for fear of upsetting someone.

aquila

Posts : 7952
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by aquila on 12.12.11 9:09

I forgot to add to my previous post....let's educate each other about paedophilia. Why are we so bloody afraid of it. It's happening in a neighbourhood near YOU...and has been for years. Why are we so afraid to speak about it? learn about it? try to eradicate it? Victims of it are treated like poor souls, perpetrators are just a five minute wonder in the newspaper headlines....and yet no-one wants to expose exactly what paedophilia is. It's not as if anyone has set up 'paedophilia anonymous' is it! because it's not a possibility. What we have is an internet explosion (my goodness they don't need to leave the house now) and then parents told there are 'parental controls' on their children's access to the internet!!!!!!!!!!!!! it's bullshit.

The fact is to me, that parents don't understand paedophilia. BBC...lead the way.

aquila

Posts : 7952
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 12.12.11 9:14

@aquila wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
I really hope I haven't upset you PeterMac. SNIP
Not at all. I merely think that this is an area where a sane and balanced view can be taken out of context, quoted and misquoted, and turned back on the speaker.
But we are all allowed to have our own opinions! Unless of course you openly doubt Team McCann, in which case you are a vile person who should be sued! Wink
Quite so. And unless your definition of free speech does not correspond exactly with the somewhat restricted interpretation they have chosen.

Incidentally, the Information Commissioner passed judgment on a blogger recently, who Barnet Council had tried to claim was an unregistered data controller... processing personal data. He rejected the complaint, and said, that such a ruling would have a "hugely disproportionate impact on freedom of expression" and would be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. A blogger, the commissioner said, is ultimately entitled (to express his) low opinion of those he writes about." (Source - Private Eye, 1302, p. 15)



Absolutely 100% agree. Without freedom of speech, we have lost our first line of defence against fascism etc. I was merely pointing out that we need to be careful. To compare being gay with being a paedophile is like comparing an apple with a pork chop. Sometimes they go together but it certainly doesn't follow.
No, I'm no Gerry McCann. Anyone can say pretty much anything they like, I won't seek to censor it, just I may not agree! You are quite correct that comments in a thread like this can be taken out of context. I believe that what you meant in your original post was not to compare paedophilia with homosexuality, merely pointing out that attitudes change.
Let's just hope that we don't next have to accept bestiality, necrophilia etc as 'just another orientation' as the issue I have is with consent. Children, animals and the dead cannot give consent!
I guess some of my comments may bite me on the bum too!

I agree with you. The point is that homosexuality must not be linked to paedophilia. There are hetero and homo paedophiles. Just like there are white and black criminals. Go for it...discuss it....this is a liberating forum for such a discussion. It's about time we stopped brushing it all under the carpet for fear of upsetting someone.
I could not agree more aquila. I can only say, hand on heart, that if the day ever comes that paedophilia is accepted as an orientation, I am long dead and gone!
Consent, consent, consent. That is key. NO sexual relationship is ok if it negates full consent from the other side, and yes, I do speak from experience and from the heart here. I happened to read on another blog about 'Alice Day' - the day in April set as a 'holiday' to celebrate paedophilia. It was truly, truly vile.
A big, sweaty, beardy man talking about his '3 year old little girl love. She would cuddle me, kiss me passionately like a woman would and I loved her so so much. I know she enjoyed what we did' - Really, beardy man? You really, really sure about that? Give it 12 yrs or so, if she's still with us she'll be drinking, cutting her arms, hating herself, suffering eating disorders, drugs - these rapists really don't have a clue what effects they have on their victims. I aint going to call them 'lovers', no, as long as they get off that is all they care.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by Marian on 12.12.11 9:25

Ugh, what a revolting image has been created (big beardy man). There are two types of paedophiles as far as the media is concerned. The first one includes the stereotypical dirty old man hanging around schools and people like Gary Glitter and Raymond Hewlett. They will be subjected to every insult going and vigilantes may be encouraged to sort them out. Then we have the second group of shall we say a higher class of paedos who have influential contacts and can metaphorically speaking get away with murder.

I imagine that it has always been this way but it's only in recent years that the Internet has allowed it to become known.

Marian

Posts : 1147
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by aquila on 12.12.11 9:27

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
I really hope I haven't upset you PeterMac. SNIP
Not at all. I merely think that this is an area where a sane and balanced view can be taken out of context, quoted and misquoted, and turned back on the speaker.
But we are all allowed to have our own opinions! Unless of course you openly doubt Team McCann, in which case you are a vile person who should be sued! Wink
Quite so. And unless your definition of free speech does not correspond exactly with the somewhat restricted interpretation they have chosen.

Incidentally, the Information Commissioner passed judgment on a blogger recently, who Barnet Council had tried to claim was an unregistered data controller... processing personal data. He rejected the complaint, and said, that such a ruling would have a "hugely disproportionate impact on freedom of expression" and would be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. A blogger, the commissioner said, is ultimately entitled (to express his) low opinion of those he writes about." (Source - Private Eye, 1302, p. 15)



Absolutely 100% agree. Without freedom of speech, we have lost our first line of defence against fascism etc. I was merely pointing out that we need to be careful. To compare being gay with being a paedophile is like comparing an apple with a pork chop. Sometimes they go together but it certainly doesn't follow.
No, I'm no Gerry McCann. Anyone can say pretty much anything they like, I won't seek to censor it, just I may not agree! You are quite correct that comments in a thread like this can be taken out of context. I believe that what you meant in your original post was not to compare paedophilia with homosexuality, merely pointing out that attitudes change.
Let's just hope that we don't next have to accept bestiality, necrophilia etc as 'just another orientation' as the issue I have is with consent. Children, animals and the dead cannot give consent!
I guess some of my comments may bite me on the bum too!

I agree with you. The point is that homosexuality must not be linked to paedophilia. There are hetero and homo paedophiles. Just like there are white and black criminals. Go for it...discuss it....this is a liberating forum for such a discussion. It's about time we stopped brushing it all under the carpet for fear of upsetting someone.
I could not agree more aquila. I can only say, hand on heart, that if the day ever comes that paedophilia is accepted as an orientation, I am long dead and gone!
Consent, consent, consent. That is key. NO sexual relationship is ok if it negates full consent from the other side, and yes, I do speak from experience and from the heart here. I happened to read on another blog about 'Alice Day' - the day in April set as a 'holiday' to celebrate paedophilia. It was truly, truly vile.
A big, sweaty, beardy man talking about his '3 year old little girl love. She would cuddle me, kiss me passionately like a woman would and I loved her so so much. I know she enjoyed what we did' - Really, beardy man? You really, really sure about that? Give it 12 yrs or so, if she's still with us she'll be drinking, cutting her arms, hating herself, suffering eating disorders, drugs - these rapists really don't have a clue what effects they have on their victims. I aint going to call them 'lovers', no, as long as they get off that is all they care.

CONSENT....that's the keyword. Paedophiles perhaps think they have consent - to them that little creature is goading them/accepts their advances/accepts their presents. Why is it covered in dust with the hetero/homo debate? It's another ploy/excuse. Why is paedophilia not recognised for what it is? It's the overpowerment and rape of children. I was a victim of it. It is a stealth attack. So, if in our enlightened age of information and freedom of speech we cannot find anything to do with paedophilia on our internet searches for fear of even typing in that word....how far have we progressed as a society?

Paedophiles in the upper echelons of our society survive on the fear factor of ordinary people. Why not expose paedophilia for what it is?

Thank you for your post.

aquila

Posts : 7952
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 12.12.11 10:28

@aquila wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:
I really hope I haven't upset you PeterMac. SNIP
Not at all. I merely think that this is an area where a sane and balanced view can be taken out of context, quoted and misquoted, and turned back on the speaker.
But we are all allowed to have our own opinions! Unless of course you openly doubt Team McCann, in which case you are a vile person who should be sued! Wink
Quite so. And unless your definition of free speech does not correspond exactly with the somewhat restricted interpretation they have chosen.

Incidentally, the Information Commissioner passed judgment on a blogger recently, who Barnet Council had tried to claim was an unregistered data controller... processing personal data. He rejected the complaint, and said, that such a ruling would have a "hugely disproportionate impact on freedom of expression" and would be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. A blogger, the commissioner said, is ultimately entitled (to express his) low opinion of those he writes about." (Source - Private Eye, 1302, p. 15)



Absolutely 100% agree. Without freedom of speech, we have lost our first line of defence against fascism etc. I was merely pointing out that we need to be careful. To compare being gay with being a paedophile is like comparing an apple with a pork chop. Sometimes they go together but it certainly doesn't follow.
No, I'm no Gerry McCann. Anyone can say pretty much anything they like, I won't seek to censor it, just I may not agree! You are quite correct that comments in a thread like this can be taken out of context. I believe that what you meant in your original post was not to compare paedophilia with homosexuality, merely pointing out that attitudes change.
Let's just hope that we don't next have to accept bestiality, necrophilia etc as 'just another orientation' as the issue I have is with consent. Children, animals and the dead cannot give consent!
I guess some of my comments may bite me on the bum too!

I agree with you. The point is that homosexuality must not be linked to paedophilia. There are hetero and homo paedophiles. Just like there are white and black criminals. Go for it...discuss it....this is a liberating forum for such a discussion. It's about time we stopped brushing it all under the carpet for fear of upsetting someone.
I could not agree more aquila. I can only say, hand on heart, that if the day ever comes that paedophilia is accepted as an orientation, I am long dead and gone by then!
Consent, consent, consent. That is key. NO sexual relationship is ok if it negates full consent from the other side, and yes, I do speak from experience and from the heart here. I happened to read on another blog about 'Alice Day' - the day in April set as a 'holiday' to celebrate paedophilia. It was truly, truly vile.
A big, sweaty, beardy man talking about his '3 year old little girl love. She would cuddle me, kiss me passionately like a woman would and I loved her so so much. I know she enjoyed what we did' - Really, beardy man? You really, really sure about that? Give it 12 yrs or so, if she's still with us she'll be drinking, cutting her arms, hating herself, suffering eating disorders, drugs - these rapists really don't have a clue what effects they have on their victims. I aint going to call them 'lovers', no, as long as they get off that is all they care.

CONSENT....that's the keyword. Paedophiles perhaps think they have consent - to them that little creature is goading them/accepts their advances/accepts their presents. Why is it covered in dust with the hetero/homo debate? It's another ploy/excuse. Why is paedophilia not recognised for what it is? It's the overpowerment and rape of children. I was a victim of it. It is a stealth attack. So, if in our enlightened age of information and freedom of speech we cannot find anything to do with paedophilia on our internet searches for fear of even typing in that word....how far have we progressed as a society?

Paedophiles in the upper echelons of our society survive on the fear factor of ordinary people. Why not expose paedophilia for what it is?

Thank you for your post.
And Thank You also for your post, aquila - I echo it all and there is nothing in it that couldn't be applied to me. It is a sick sick mind that can even think of uttering those words 's/he led me on'. It doesn't wash for rapists talking about grown female or male victims, let alone beasts talking about kids! The one thing that is supposed to set us apart from the animal kingdom is our empathy and reasoning, a by-product of which is self-control! Due to paedophiles being so hidden, we as a society have become almost 'hysterical'. If we have photo's of our tiddly toddlers in the bath or nappy-less, we run the risk of being labelled a nonce. Theses are the kind of photo's parents used to love getting out to embarrass you in front of your first boy/girlfriend! Not now! If we want to work with children, we should have a CRB check. Sorry, but in my view, a clean CRB means absolutely NOTHING. Just you haven't been caught. It doesn't mean no risk is posed BUT parents become lulled into a false sense of security. We need to trust our instincts and gut feelings more. They are there for a reason! How many times have we heard of a molester with a clean CRB? How many times have we heard 'Well, I thought he/she was a bit, you know, but their CRB was clean'. Well, with the best will in the world, they can't all be caught until they offend, by which point its too late for the child. Its always likely to be, as Marian pointed out, those from the 'upper echelons' who can pay people off and appear guilt free. It stinks. I'm happy to expose those who harm kids, but vigilante action is not a good idea. I have never forgotten the 'paediatrician' whose windows were smashed and had to run for his life because some meathead heard the prefix 'paede' and thought he was a sicko. Poor man is a doctor!
We need awareness, but not mob rule. Those who abuse will always get their Karma back in spades. One day! Vigilance, not vigilante, is the word.

Marian,
Apologies for the beardy man image - and before breakfast too Sad
What you said about different social levels is so true. We need to work together to bring this to everybody's attention. Not everyone in a 'flasher-mac' is a paedophile, equally those who 'seem' respectable are not necessarily so!

Just to lighten the mood slightly - what you said about search engines and keywords, aquila?
I ride horses, and have been trying in vain to find a certain bit for the horse I ride, so I tried the internet. Used as few words as possible, bare bones. What I typed into Google was this;
French Link Dutch Gag, 53/4"
Now, maybe I was being naïve at the time, or maybe I'm just a paragon of purity (yeah, right! Wink) but let's just say, I was shocked by the results! Granted, the very first TWO results were horse-related, the rest - well I'll leave that up to your collective imaginations!
I did have a little giggle afterwards, looking at my search term I guess I can see why I got the results I did.
Just goes to show, you can never be too careful... Wink

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by Shibboleth on 12.12.11 11:13

Some years ago, my little boy wanted a picture of the Mr Men. I put Mister Men in the search box, you have no idea of the some of the sites you will see when you put Mister Men in a search box. We both had an education that day.

____________________
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” ~ Joseph Stalin, 1897-1953
"If Adolph Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway." ~ Joe Strummer, 1952-2002

Shibboleth

Posts : 500
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-10-16
Location : Jaffa - Tel Aviv

View user profile

Back to top Go down

To lighten the mood

Post by Marian on 12.12.11 12:16

Yes it's certainly an education what can appear with an Internet search. Whether it's true I don't know but I read of an elderly man who was trying to find the word "onager" in response to a crossword clue "wild Asian ass" - i.e. the four legged variety related to a donkey. However, typing in those three words nearly caused heart failure!

Marian

Posts : 1147
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 13.12.11 8:09

@Marian wrote:Yes it's certainly an education what can appear with an Internet search. Whether it's true I don't know but I read of an elderly man who was trying to find the word "onager" in response to a crossword clue "wild Asian ass" - i.e. the four legged variety related to a donkey. However, typing in those three words nearly caused heart failure!
Oh Marian I did have a giggle reading this! I just had such a clear vision, of an old man, eyes bulging, glasses completely steamed up... fantastic! I can quite imagine some of the results he got Wink

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by aquila on 13.12.11 9:56

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@Marian wrote:Yes it's certainly an education what can appear with an Internet search. Whether it's true I don't know but I read of an elderly man who was trying to find the word "onager" in response to a crossword clue "wild Asian ass" - i.e. the four legged variety related to a donkey. However, typing in those three words nearly caused heart failure!
Oh Marian I did have a giggle reading this! I just had such a clear vision, of an old man, eyes bulging, glasses completely steamed up... fantastic! I can quite imagine some of the results he got Wink

Thanks for the laugh.

aquila

Posts : 7952
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

More mixed messages

Post by Guest on 13.12.11 12:03

Apologies for wandering away from the original topic but the expression "Swedish twins" is also ikely to get some strange answers on Google.

However, has anyone seen this footage before from a BBC programme about Swedish twins who threw themselves in front of traffic on a motorway and lived to tell the tale?

Really incredible and their behavour was not as it was thought due to drink or drugs and they had no history of mental illness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6e3OwOws3I

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by russiandoll on 12.02.14 8:56

Am putting this here because it seems like the most appropriate place to post.  The sad passing of Shirley Temple has meant that the media yesterday were showing re- runs of her most celebrated moments, many of which interestingly were related to her work in public service.

 I wonder what she thought when as a mature woman she watched some of her films when she was a childhood star. There was a statement yesterday, hopefully not true, that at that time she had no real friends, she was so busy working up until she was 10.

 I have not seen any of her films, but after watching a scene on an aeroplane where she sang her famous song about The Good Ship Lollipop, I was affected by seeing her singing to a group of men-only passengers, strutting up and down the aisle and being drawn on to laps.

 I do not as a rule see anything dodgy in adult behaviour denoting affection to children, but I felt uncomfortable watching this clip and will post it after posting this piece of writing, just was curious about what others make of it. Will read the storyline to this film and the context of the song, but for now this clip gives me the creeps.

 I felt rather sad watching a clip of  little ST receiving an award, looking up at her mother and asking " Can we go home now?"

     
 
Going Down With the Good Ship Lollipop
The following article by Jack Trotter is reprinted from the March 2011 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture printed by the Rockford Institute, Rockford, Illinois. http://www.rockfordinstiture.org
As a grandfather of four girls, it reminded me of the absence of Christian culture in America and provoked me to be more critically observe what is happening around me. Admittedly lengthy, it is reprinted here with the hope that it will do the same for y’all.
As long as our country has Shirley Temple, we will be all right.
---Franklin D. Roosevelt

HAVE YOU BEEN TO A TOY STORE LATELY? Barbie’s got some heavy competition these days.  The Bratz collection, for instance: Yasmin, Sasha, Cloe, Jade—all household names for several years now. Check out that hot little number Sasha in her “Glittering Glam Doll” ensemble.  Sasha “loves to get totally ... dolled up when she's ready for a big night out.”  To judge by the yellow stiletto heels, the ultra-skimpy minidress, the puckered lips, and the come-hither makeup, Sasha’s idea of a big night out is parading down the Big Apple’s Lexington Avenue like something out of a sleazy Kojak rerun.  Yet Sasha is recommended for girls six and above.  Six?  Or consider the Bratz Rock Angelz video game for girls between the ages of three and six.  The Rock Angelz are feisty entrepreneurs; they run their own fashionista magazine and roam the globe in search of the latest trends.  Your own little girl can also acquire the Rock Angelz “Tour Bus,” complete with “a working hot tub.”
     Of course, after tween girls acquire their Bratz dolls or their Lollipop Girls (“long, lean and sassy”), they naturally aspire to doll themselves up in similar fashion. Nor is there any shortage of fashion lines targeting them.  Indeed, the 20 million tweens in America have plenty of disposable cash—a fact not lost on all the big female pop stars, most of whom have their own lines targeting tweens or the more ambiguous “juniors.” There's the Material Girl, of course, and her daughter, Lourdes, whose 80’s-inspired, retro-glam line was a hit last year when it debuted in Los Angeles. LAWeekly.com notes that the spokesgirl for the new line is “Gossip Girl actress/rocker Taylor Momsen, who’s known for wearing garters and Lucite stripper heels on stage with her band The Pretty Reckless.”  The Miley “Vanity Fair” Cyrus line is also popular, but for sheer sluttish bravura you can't beat Beyoncé, whose Deréon line is raising eyebrows even in Hollywood.  Visit the website and you will find, among other items, a weird fusion of ghetto/biker/futuristic chic—the dominant motif being skin tight, black latex, and lots of tatted flesh (“Bedtime Tattoo” kits retailing at $16.00).
     OK, the early sexualization of children in American popular culture is hardly news, unless you've been living in an hermetically sealed room without television or internet access.  At least since the sordid murder of child beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey in 1996, the handwringing has been ubiquitous: Dozens of articles and several books have covered the subject at length.  It is widely assumed (especially in conservative circles) that this trend grew out of the Sexual Revolution of the 1960’s, but in fact it dates from a much earlier period.  Long before Barbie and Britney and Paris and Jodie and Katy “I Kissed a Girl” Perry began to strut their stuff, there was America’s Sweetheart, Shirley Temple, the canny orphan with a heart of gold, Hollywood’s answer to the Great Depression, tap-dancing her way across the silver screen in those adorable little frocks.
     YES, YES, I CAN HEAR the chorus of protest rising already.  Surely not Shirley, that polka-dotted paragon of girlish American innocence?  That is invariably the response I receive whenever I raise the topic with students or acquaintances. Recently, I shared with a group of students (ages 17-45) a clip from one of Shirley's best-known performances, the scene in Bright Eyes (1934) where she lisps her way adorably through “On the Good Ship Lollipop.”  Their initial response was “Why are there only old men on that airplane?” and “They've got their hands all over her!” and “She kissed that man on the lips!”  But on second thought, they added, “Of course, were all so jaded now.  No one saw it that way then.”  Well, not quite, but it is true that millions of Americans embraced Shirley without so much as a murmur of disapproval.  Could so many folks across the Heartland have been wrong?
     Whatever we may say about Shirley or her adoring fans, the Hollywood culture that invented her was hardly innocent.  Already in the 1920’s the film studios had made a bundle off of teen flapper-girl stars like Clara Bow, whose appeal, by the way, had a lot to do with her flat-chested, prepubescent look.  Indeed, the Hays Code was enacted in the early 1930’s precisely in response to the widespread perception that movies had become too lewd for popular consumption.  Shirley herself got her start at the age of three in the Baby Burlesks, single-reel parodies featuring toddlers mimicking well-known stars.  In one of these, “War Babies” (1932), she plays a miniature Dolores del Rio, Mexican sex siren of the silent-film era. In her autobiography, Child Star, Temple laments that the Baby Burlesks were “a cynical exploitation of our childish innocence,” but seems to regard her later work as free of such exploitation.
     By the mid-1930’s Temple was the biggest film star in America and had single-handedly rescued Fox studios from bankruptcy.  Her films were also popular in Europe (even Princess Elizabeth was a fan), and it was a British reviewer who was the first (and last) to suggest that Fox’s marketing of the Temple prodigy was anything less than wholesome.  The reviewer was novelist Graham Greene, who published frequently in The Spectator and Night and Day.  In fact, Greene remarked on Temple’s performances in several reviews.  He found her Captain January (1936) “a little depraved” and suggested that her popularity was thanks, in part, to “a cocquetry [sic] quite as mature as Miss Colbert’s,” adding that “her oddly precocious body [was] as voluptuous in grey flannel trousers as Miss Dietrich’s.”  In another instance, Greene called Shirley “a 50-year-old dwarf.”  Such comments have been shrugged off as “snide” expressions of the reviewer’s obvious dislike of the little princess of “uplift,” but Greene's Night and Day review of Wee Willie Winkie (1937) leveled more serious accusations, first of all at Temple's producers: “The owners of a child star are like leaseholders—their property diminishes in value every year.  Time’s chariot is at their back; before them lie acres of anonymity.”  In the peculiar case of Miss Temple, whose value was then at its zenith, childhood innocence is “merely her disguise, her appeal is more secret and more adult.”  Greene comments on the twisting of her “well developed little rump” as she tap dances, and upon the “sidelong searching cocquetry [sic]” of her eyes. Observe, he notes,
her swaggering stride [in a revealing kilt] across the Indian barrack square: hear the gasp of excited expectation from her antique audience when the sergeant's palm is raised: watch the way she measures a man with agile studio eyes, with dimpled depravity. Adult emotions of love and grief glissade across the mask of childhood, a childhood that is only skin deep.
In short, Greene was implicitly accusing Fox of pimping its biggest child star.  Not surprisingly, Fox slapped Night and Day with a libel suit that put the journal out of business.
     Of course, Greene was not seriously asking his readers to believe that Shirley was fully aware of how her façade of innocence and inimitable cuteness disguised an appeal “more secret and more adult.”  But he is suggesting that her producers were aware of the nature of that appeal, and that they exploited it to the hilt.  Some have suggested that Greene was reacting defensively, reeling with Catholic guilt from the stirring of pedophile desire that little Shirley aroused in him. But such subjective argument is unanswerable and evades the real question.  If the Temple product was so unambiguously wholesome, then why are there so many scenes in the films that involve precisely the sort of coquettish dancing and singing to which Greene objected?  Why was she dressed up like a harlot in Polly Tix in Washington (1933)?  Why, in Poor Little Rich Girl (1936), was she given these lines, sung to her on-screen father:
I love to hug you and kiss you.
Marry me and let me be your wife!
In every dream I caress you ...
     And how about all those sweet little frocks that just barely cover her derriere, allowing a few discreet flashes of panty from time to time?  Weren't those outfits typical tot couture for the times?  As it turns out, throughout the 1920’s (when most girls’ dresses were still made by their mothers), girls’ hemlines fell below the knees and were often worn with bloomers that covered most of the lower legs.  According to Miriam Forman-Brunell’s Girlhood in America, the thigh revealing hemlines of the 1930’s were inspired, “in large part, by styles made popular by Shirley Temple.”   But it was not only the movies that inspired the sexier look; the mass-produced Shirley dolls were dressed in the same styles. Most memorable was the 1937 “make-up doll,” featuring a more “grown up” Shirley with darkened lips and mascaraed eyes.  Interestingly, the dresses worn by these dolls were tagged with the National Recovery Administration eagle logo.  The Shirley Temple dolls did their part to stimulate the Great Depression economy, just as, presumably, the Bratz dolls are doing today.
     But what, after all, is the problem here?  The feminist response, and that of the feminist-inspired APA Report on the Sexualization of Girls (2007), recycle the predictably banal “objectification” thesis, according to which a woman’s body is her property.  To objectify her in a purely sexual manner is to rob her of her autonomy.  This is nonsense.  If a woman chooses to tart herself up like a slut, then surely that is an expression of her autonomy.  And if the male “gaze” objectifies her, then is that not an affirmation of her power?
     Little girls are another matter, though.  Feminists carefully avoid any talk of innocence, except to deny its existence.  In our post-Freudian world, it is often assumed that childhood innocence was yet another product of Victorian repression.  There is at least a grain of truth in this.  British philosopher Roger Scruton has noted that the Victorian idealization of childhood (Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, et al.) was in part a barrier erected against the ongoing secularization of Western society.  After all, the concept of innocence is inextricably tied to Christian religious aspirations: The quest for sanctity is a quest for the restoration of a lost moral innocence.  Did not our Lord Himself say, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven”?  No doubt a child’s awareness of herself as a sexual being does begin well before pubescence, but this awareness, under normal circumstances, occurs largely at a subliminal level.  What we have witnessed over the course of the 20th century, and accelerating especially in recent years, is an unseemly haste to awaken carnal knowledge at an earlier and earlier age.  I suggest that there is more at work here than the profit motive and parental permissiveness.  A powerful element of perversity motivates our urge to parade before the public eye little girls in the dishabille of the courtesan.  It is as though we are now flaunting our loss of faith in the very possibility of moral innocence, sacrificing our children upon the altar of our defiant cynicism.  If we do not come to our senses soon, we will all go down with the Good Ship Lollipop, while The Pretty Reckless ease us into oblivion.


           http://youtu.be/wE7m18MRT3w

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Paedophilia. Just 'another sexual orientation'?

Post by russiandoll on 12.02.14 9:43

I defy anyone to argue that the clip below was made in an age of innocence. Have just seen it when reading some views on the child star and what she filmed.

 The adult, a parent , allowing her to be exploited in this way...unbelievable. As for the men behind the studios, no comment needed.

 This is a long clip from a film called War Babies, little ST flirting with bare chested boys dressed as soldiers in a milk bar, imitating the flirtation of adults in an adult bar, Shirley doing a snake hipped dance and the boys calling her hot. Why the lads are not in shirts, I have no idea.

 Not nice viewing and apologies to anyone I offend by thinking that this is a paedo's wet dream. Innocent it is not imo. not in the least.
 Shame on the lot of them,  making children do this.
 
Made to do it they were, behind every child actor is an ambitious, pushy adult.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum