Apologies Nambo, unreservedly so xxx
i was expecting someone to call the BBC hypcrites i.e. the panorama documentary, totally missing the fundementals of the issue. We had crossed lines there, again sorry.
snare x
BBC using Shepherd the Flock ?
by snare&racket 19 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
NewChapter
Thanks Snare!
We are not discussing a situation wherein a minor who is a willing participant and who is approaching adulthood has sexual relations with an adult who is a few years older than the minor nor, generally speaking, are we discussing situations in which only minors are involved."
I think most people make this distinction, and courts do too. they may call the minor who is a willing participant statutory rape rather than more serious charges leveled against people who abuse younger children. For instance, if a girl is 16 or 17 and gets involed with a 22 year old guy---while it may be illegal---it's not exactly pedophilia. These are cases where society has set an arbitrary line--but that line wasn't always as it is. For instance, if a young woman reaches age of legal consent in one month, can we really call this pedophilia? My mother's generation is a good example. My mother married an older man when she was 17. Her friend did when she was 16. My MIL married an older man when she was 16, had a long and happy marriage, 6 kids and was with him until he died. Is this pedophilia?
Just a generation ago, many women aspired to be married. Today we have more options and have decided that there should be some more time allowed etc.
But I think there is a big difference. Physically, there is not much difference between a 16 and a half year old and a 17-year-old.
I'm not condoning teenage marriage, or taking advantage of less experienced people. I'm simply stating that there is a difference between getting involved with a person near the age of consent and a child that hasn't even reach puberty or only just reached it. It's a different dynamic.
-
mamochan13
NC - I don't mean to derail the thread, but I did want to add a perspective to your observation. I agree with you. But here's another scenario. One of my daughters got involved at age 16 with a guy who was 35. He sees himself as a Svengali, this incredibly wise and experienced older man who taught my daughter everything she knows. He's a nut case and a creep. Anyway, he got his hooks into her when she was young and vulnerable and probably seeking a father image. He completely controlled her and she did not escape for 12 years (and three kids later). While there may not be a huge perceptible difference between 16, 17, or even 18, a large age difference between the man and the girl at that age creates a power imbalance that can leave the girl severely disadvantaged. Is it pedophilia? Not necessarily. But it is certainly wrong and unhealthy.
I've seen cases where a 22 year old is involved with a 16 year old, and the law has branded the guy a rapist. IN reality they were both willing participants, but the girl had not reached the arbitrary age of consent. So it's a difficult grey area.
I think the power imbalance is at play with the BBC, too. Many of these young girls appeared "willing" yet they were victimized by an older man who had star power.
-
snare&racket
Thanks NC,
I know what you mean but you are a smart person. The average elder...not so much and the ones that are... slightly biased. I have an issue with a minor being a "willing participant." They literally have undeveloped temporal lobes and dont make good decisions, that why we have laws like this to protect their vulnerability. It is still an abuse of that minors vulnerability.
Add to that we do dont have lawers or trained councillors working with these words, we have window cleaners, joiners, car salemen and painters deciphering it. This worries me. IF a religion has anything to say at all it should be... phone police in incidents of adults having sexual contact with minors.
In my very humble opinion x
Snare
-
NewChapter
I know Mamo---I think that is what drives SOME of the laws---giving the parents a longer time to protect their children. But something it doesn't protect against, is a very inexperienced, naive, or even immature (we all grow differently) 18-year-old being manipulated by a 40-year-old.
I agree that there are abuses when power balance is the issue---but I think it is different that pedophila.
What you pointed out about the 16 and 22 year old---I think those kinds of things are rather common.
It's impossible to protect everyone, but at least we can protect the very youngest. In some states, 16 is the age of consent, so the 22-year-old would not be branded a rapist---some states the age of consent is even lower. That's why I mentioned that the line was arbitrary---different criteria etc.
I hope you understand that just because I make a distinction, I don't think these relationships are rosy and happy. I fully understand that they often are manipulative and even dangerous. I think it is a case by case kind of thing. Some of them are pretty healthy, while others are heartbreaking, like in the case with your daughter. But as you said, and I agree, not pedophilia----but doesn't make it right either---depending on the players.
-
EntirelyPossible
For those of us in th US who's knowledge of the BBC consists of "they make Dr. Who" and the BBC World News service, who is Jimmy Saville?
-
Nambo
Whilst this debate about the pros and cons of 15 year old girls consenting, let us not lose track of the extent of Savilles crimes.
He had his own key to top security prison Broadmoor, where he would abuse mentally ill patients, he had his own room at Stoke Mandeville hospital diue to the amount of charity money he raised for them, he pretty much lived there, and would abuse the sick children whilst they were helpless in thier beds.
He frequented the Childrens home on the Island of Jersey which was under Police investigation due to the horrendous sexual abuse and subsequent murder of the victims, we are now entering the realms of child snuff porn, a far cry from consenting fully grown children.
He also worked voluntarily as a hospital porter where he was allowed access to the morgue which relates to accusations that he was into necrophilia as well. The main stream media hasnt touched on this yet, but the independant media have for years, just as they have been exposing his pedophillia for years, but it is only now people will listen, now its on the TV!.
Entirely Possible, just google Jimmy Saville, from about 1964 when he hosted the first Top of The Pops, he has risen to becoming perhaps Britains top celebrity, especially in the 70s and 80s, he is very friendly with the Royal family, and some of Britains top MPs, such as Margeret Thatcher whom he would spend Christmas with, he was very good at raising money for various charities.
All these are reasons why his godlike status prevented anybody taking notice of complaints against him when he was alive, especially unwanted Children in homes who had no parents to protect them,this is what the fuss is about, that the British establishment knew perfectly well what he was up to, but didnt dare touch him.
-
Nambo
In fact you can see Mr Saville in the following youtube clip singing a little song.
-
Chariklo
I'm not condoning teenage marriage, or taking advantage of less experienced people. I'm simply stating that there is a difference between getting involved with a person near the age of consent and a child that hasn't even reach puberty or only just reached it. It's a different dynamic.
NC, I think there is even more to this, in fact. Although there is an age limit under wqhich the offence is paedophilia and over which there is deemed to be willing pparticipation, there is another dimension that in the current media climate people are overlooking.
Where someone is in a position that lets them be depended on, such as a priest or minister of religion, or a doctor, or a psychiatrist, or even conceivably teacher or social worker...you can think of other examples...where one person has a duty of care and responsibility, then there can be a very real offence committed. Age in years does not always indicate willing pasrticikpation, even if the "victim", for want of a better word, is well over the age of consent.
Where someone is vulnerable, perhaps seeking and receiving help or advice, then another person can take advantage of them. If the advisor then initiates sexual contact, then an offence is committed.
-
mamochan13
agreed, Chariklo. The power differential is what I was commenting on. Its not just men - it could apply to female teachers who have relationships with younger male students, too. But the JW interpretation does not attempt to address these nuances. They are trying to reduce it to black and white. As Snare points out, these are not educated people enforcing the rules, so perhaps they need a simplistic rendering. I can't imagine a judicial committee trying to arrive at a ruling in a power-rape situation.
and NC I understand completely where you are coming from. It really is a case by case thing.