Quote

I'm not an expert but being a paedophile is defined in wiki as '...a psychiatric disorder in persons who are 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children'.

Yes.

Prepubescent.

I don't think many people would argue with that.

The stories I heard about Jimmy Savile don't involve prepubescents (unlike the Gary Glitter stories).

Adolesecents past puberty are the grey area.

Laws are in place to protect those society considers mentally immature or vulnerable. But the question of capability, attractivness and desirability has already been decided by millions of years of evolution and a mass or hormones pumping through bodies.

The "age of consent" hasn't always been 16, there used to be no such thing once and it was decided between tribes and familes.

In medieval europe it was 12 to 14.. sometimes 7 (yes) was deemed old enough.

In early American colonial history (1600s) it was not unheard of for 9 year olds to be married, but 12 was generally considered acceptable (the age of puberty).

I don't think actual sex with prepubescents was encouraged though.

It's a very murky area.

Quote
GravityBoy

I'm just saying sex with under 16s is not intrinsically evil (a Catholic phrase) or unnatural.

13, 14 and 15 year olds can be be very attractive and anyone who says no is lying.

Please don't beat me for telling the truth. For the record I have never engaged in under age sex (although when I was underage myself it was my greatest desire).

Millions of under 16s "minors" are having sex right now.. I bet there are a few on this forum who did back then.

I find it intrinsically evil for anyone over 18 to have sex with anyone under 18. I find it intrinsically evil for anyone to have sex with any one under 16.

I find 13, 14 and 15 olds not attractive at all, I think they are children who should be protected against all things that can or might harm them.

Millions of under 16s might be having sex right now, but I sure hope with somebody of their own age, and not with a 50 year old beer-bellied frustrated @#$%& whom tricked them into it.

Mathijs

You don't understand intrinsic.

Mathijs.. I think there is 100% certainty that you are the descendent of people somewhere in your family tree who engaged in what you consider "intrinsically evil".

That's the way God/Nature made us.

Man has decided God/Nature was wrong.

Quote
GravityBoy
You don't understand intrinsic.

Mathijs.. I think there is 100% certainty that you are the descendent of people somewhere in your family tree who engaged in what you consider "intrinsically evil".

That's the way God/Nature made us.

Man has decided God/Nature was wrong.

If you go even further down the line my family lived in a cave. But that's called evolution and development. Since we all live to be older than 45, since women's number one cause of death isn't at child birth anymore we don’t need to become pregnant at 15. We have learned that it is better for both men and women to first grow up and develop mentally and physically and to educate yourself before you start having sex and start having children.

And again: it is damaging for any person to have sex at 14 with a grown-up, especially since it will be under pressure in 99% of all cases.

Mathijs

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
GravityBoy
You don't understand intrinsic.

Mathijs.. I think there is 100% certainty that you are the descendent of people somewhere in your family tree who engaged in what you consider "intrinsically evil".

That's the way God/Nature made us.

Man has decided God/Nature was wrong.

If you go even further down the line my family lived in a cave. But that's called evolution and development. Since we all live to be older than 45, since women's number one cause of death isn't at child birth anymore we don’t need to become pregnant at 15. We have learned that it is better for both men and women to first grow up and develop mentally and physically and to educate yourself before you start having sex and start having children.

And again: it is damaging for any person to have sex at 14 with a grown-up, especially since it will be under pressure in 99% of all cases.

Mathijs

- unless you are the Taliban, of course.

[www.bbc.co.uk]

Quote
Mathijs
We have learned that it is better for both men and women to first grow up and develop mentally and physically and to educate yourself before you start having sex and start having children.

And again: it is damaging for any person to have sex at 14 with a grown-up, especially since it will be under pressure in 99% of all cases.

Mathijs

You're completely missimg my point and are in denial of millions of years of evolution.

Social etiquette v laws of nature.

It's no surprise that millions of under 16s are having sex.

And it's always going to be that way.

That's the truth and everyone knows it.

We are made that way.

Gary Glitter arrested in Jimmy Savile investigation

[www.guardian.co.uk]

Police officers investigating the Jimmy Savile abuse claims have arrested Gary Glitter.

The former pop star was detained on Sunday at 7.15am at an address in central London and taken to a police station in the capital.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "Officers working on Operation Yewtree have today arrested a man in his 60s in connection with the investigation.

"The man, from London, was arrested at approximately 7.15am on suspicion of sexual offences, and has been taken into custody at a London police station.

"The individual falls under the strand of the investigation we have termed 'Savile and others'."

Wow. Who would expected THAT development!

Makes you wonder how many other 'names' will come out of this investigation. It could get quite ugly by the looks of it.

Quote
treaclefingers
Makes you wonder how many other 'names' will come out of this investigation. It could get quite ugly by the looks of it.

It's looking that way ....

[ I want to shout, but I can hardly speak ]

Some of this discussion seems to have descended sadly to the level of 'is it all right for an adult to fancy a 14-year-old'?

But the issue is about the (alleged) systematic abuse of numbers of young girls by a huge media star who used his power to coerce them into supplying sexual favours. He could only get away with it because of his celebrity status, not to mention the prevailing 70s male attitude that any female who wasn't up for it obviously had something wrong with them, making the chances of any of these girls being taken seriously quite slim.

So, yes, there were allegations at the time, but who would listen in that climate? Because the (all male) bosses were cowards and fools, Savile wasn't stopped - even though rumours of his abuse were rife round the BBC.

Not to mention Jonathon King, Gary Glitter and god knows who else....

This is disturbing if true.
As a yank, I had only a vague idea of who this Jimmy Savile - didn't realize he was such a (formerly) beloved personality in the UK...
There seems to be mountains of evidence that he was a creepster pedeophile...
Innocent until proven guilty and all that, but he seems to have been the classic predator: fame, power, charitable activities and a sketchy private life....
Creepy.








Irvine Welsh on Jimmy Savile (the Savile necrophilia rumors) 10.12.201



Like many thousands of others, I was anything but surprised by the recent Jimmy Savile “revelations” – personally, I had long been convinced of the presenter’s profound unwholesomeness ever since reading Irvine Welsh’s 1996 Ecstasy as a teenager, a collection of three mid-length narratives the first of which, “Lorraine Goes to Livingston,” features a character called Freddy Royle, a pedophile, TV presenter and transparent (for want of a better word) homage to Savile. Fiction it may well have been, but I took it very much as fact, which was arguably rather credulous of me, though it looks more and more intuitive with every passing day.


“Freddy Royle had had, by his standards, a tiring day prior to his late afternoon arrival at St. Hubbin’s. He had been in the television studios all morning filming an episode of From Fred With Love. A young boy, whom Fred had sorted out to swim with dolphins at Morecambe’s Marineland, while his grandparents were brought back to the scene of their honeymoon, was all excited in the studio and writhed around in his lap, getting Freddie so aroused and excited that they had to do several takes.”
Due to certain additional aspects of Welsh’s portrait, however, I have continuously expected further revelations regarding Savile, specifically relating to his hospital work. In Welsh’s tale (and I know this detail was consistent with many corresponding rumors about Savile), Royle is a necrophiliac as well as a pederast.

“There was nothing like the sight of a stiff to give Freddy Royle a stiffie.
- Bit bashed about this one, Glen, the path lab technician explained, as he wheeled the body into the hospital mortuary.
- Freddy was finding it hard to maintain steady breathing. He examined the corpse. – She’s bain a roight pretty un n arl, he rasped in his Somerset drawl, - caar accident oi presumes?”
Welsh’s Glen is onto what he considers a good thing with Freddie Royle (whose “Sommerset drawl” is an obvious substitute for Savile’s Yorkshire drone), providing the celebrity donor and volunteer with fresh-ish corpses in exchange for remuneration. While Glen appears to experience some minor moral twinges regarding this undertaking (no pun intended), he assuages them by assuring himself that his own profits are chickenfeed compared to those collected by the hospital trustees.

“Yes, the trustees knew all about Freddy Royle, Glen reflected bitterly. They knew the real secrets of the chat-show host, the authors of several books, including Howzat! – Freddy Royle On Cricket, Freddy Royle’s Somerset, Somerset With a Z: The Wit of the West Country, West Country Walks With Freddy Royle and Freddy Royle’s 101 Magic Party Tricks. Yes, those trustee bastards knew what this distinguished friend, this favorite caring, laconic uncle to the nation did with the stiffs they got in here. The thing was, Freddy brought millions of pounds into the place with his fund-raising activities. This brought kudos to the trustees, and made St Hubbin’s Hospital a flagship for the arm’s-length trusts from the NHS. All they had to do was keep schtumm and indulge Sir Freddy with the odd body.”
I think it’s fair to say that, with Savile (the real-life hospital trustees are another matter – I’m certainly not suggesting anything in that direction), where there’s smoke there’s fire, but it also increasingly looks like common sense that a man who appeared to spend his days working in young people’s television (not to mention his work with various youth charities) so as to simultaneously facilitate and obfuscate his pederasty, would not suddenly, after dark, become the decent and disinterested saint the public habitually imagined him to be, and volunteer as an intern at numerous hospitals - and fundraise for them so extensively - out of the goodness of his heart. No, this was a man who was obviously something of an evil genius when it came to multitasking, and who plotted his entire working existence around the curious and distinctly aberrant tendencies of his libido.

I suppose in this specific area witnesses will be harder to come by (um, no pun intended there either) than in others – as, if Savile was a necrophiliac there would be no victims left to tell the tale, only facilitators, like Welsh’s Glen, who will probably keep their heads down for obvious reasons. Also, I wonder if the mainstream news would consider its teatime audiences ready for a dose of Jimmy Savile Corpse @#$%&. It’s certainly inching closer to the territory mind, not least with the broadcasting of the interview with a former patient at Leeds Hospital where Savile volunteered as a porter, who watched him kiss and then molest a brain damaged patient in an opposite bed. In the account it sounds as if this brain-damaged patient was fairly far-gone, and this would certainly give credence to the idea that for Savile, as for Royle, the ideal sexual partner was as far from being conscious as possible.

Of course, if Savile was indeed a necrophiliac, then it raises a fine irony as well as a hint of poetic justice – if anyone’s been posthumously @#$%&, it’s him…

Quote
Green Lady
This reminds me of the recent MPs' expenses scandal in the UK - a culture where 'everybody does it' to some degree and nobody feels particularly guilty or ashamed, until there is a sea-change in attitudes and a media feeding frenzy - and then very few people are going to come out squeaky clean and smelling of roses.

Most young men who were in the music business in the 60s and 70s must have had the experience of being surrounded by willing girls, not that much younger than themselves, who wanted to be treated as women - even when they were not - and I'd guess that very many of them sometimes took what was on offer without checking ID. As we know from the Stones, some of them did so more often and more enthusiastically than others. John Peel and the Stones were in their mid-20s in 1966.

But there were also those who were predators - who went deliberately looking for the very young and vulnerable of both sexes. Jimmy Saville was already 40 in 1966, and most of the accusations against him date from later than that.

At the time, it was more or less accepted that these things went on, but the papers were more interested in drug scandals than under-age sex. In the current media climate, I'd guess that there will be a lot of Shocking Revelations to come about both the living and the dead, and big money on offer for anyone willing to dish the dirt. And once the British press gets into that sort of mood, there will be no distinction made between the guilty and the very guilty. This could get interesting.

Excellent point - we've all read the stories about these very young groupies hanging out everywhere, willing and ready....and it always seemed like something to brag about for these musicians....although for the life of me I never understood what is enviable about having sexual relations with a girl who probably just started her period. That's just gross...but whatever...
It was immature indulgent behavior and the permissiveness of that culture seemed to accept it... but these musicians were also in their early 20s.....not 30,40,50,60,70-year old men hunting down little girls.
I wonder what they think of all that now, probably see it for what it was - embarassing youthful, wrongheaded behavior....especially, as someone mentioned - someone like Mick who has daughters....
...
Predatory behavior is something different completely. People like Glitter and Savile ...yikes....that's horrific.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-02 01:01 by stupidguy2.

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote

I'm not an expert but being a paedophile is defined in wiki as '...a psychiatric disorder in persons who are 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children'.

Yes.

Prepubescent.

I don't think many people would argue with that.

The stories I heard about Jimmy Savile don't involve prepubescents (unlike the Gary Glitter stories).

Adolesecents past puberty are the grey area.

Laws are in place to protect those society considers mentally immature or vulnerable. But the question of capability, attractivness and desirability has already been decided by millions of years of evolution and a mass or hormones pumping through bodies.

The "age of consent" hasn't always been 16, there used to be no such thing once and it was decided between tribes and familes.

In medieval europe it was 12 to 14.. sometimes 7 (yes) was deemed old enough.

In early American colonial history (1600s) it was not unheard of for 9 year olds to be married, but 12 was generally considered acceptable (the age of puberty).

I don't think actual sex with prepubescents was encouraged though.

It's a very murky area.

Do you understand that forcing or manipulating someone into having sex with you is wrong no matter how old they are or what was socially acceptable in the ancient past?

There is a power play involved in these relationships involving adults and children and the children do not really 'consent'.

Yeah two 16 year olds getting it on is normal and usually both of them want it. This is not what is being talked about here. You're comparing apples and oranges.

You probably have no children yourself or you would understand there is really nothing murky at all in the matter being discussed.

Quote
KeefintheNight82

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote

I'm not an expert but being a paedophile is defined in wiki as '...a psychiatric disorder in persons who are 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children'.

Yes.

Prepubescent.

I don't think many people would argue with that.

The stories I heard about Jimmy Savile don't involve prepubescents (unlike the Gary Glitter stories).

Adolesecents past puberty are the grey area.

Laws are in place to protect those society considers mentally immature or vulnerable. But the question of capability, attractivness and desirability has already been decided by millions of years of evolution and a mass or hormones pumping through bodies.

The "age of consent" hasn't always been 16, there used to be no such thing once and it was decided between tribes and familes.

In medieval europe it was 12 to 14.. sometimes 7 (yes) was deemed old enough.

In early American colonial history (1600s) it was not unheard of for 9 year olds to be married, but 12 was generally considered acceptable (the age of puberty).

I don't think actual sex with prepubescents was encouraged though.

It's a very murky area.

Do you understand that forcing or manipulating someone into having sex with you is wrong no matter how old they are or what was socially acceptable in the ancient past?

There is a power play involved in these relationships involving adults and children and the children do not really 'consent'.

Yeah two 16 year olds getting it on is normal and usually both of them want it. This is not what is being talked about here. You're comparing apples and oranges.

You probably have no children yourself or you would understand there is really nothing murky at all in the matter being discussed.

Did you deliberately misunderstand what I was saying?

Did I say force or manipulation was right?

Nope.

So get off your high horse and read what I said and teach yourself some history.

I understand you fully.

And I know quite a bit of history.

You say that it is it's a 'grey area' because teenage girls are attractive and their bodies can bear children and are full of hormones that make them desire sex and it was socially acceptable many, many, years ago for children, or girls of a younger age, to be sexualized.

Well...umm yeah. There's many reasons for this, not the least of which are the repression of women and shorter life spans. I hope we have moved beyond both of these limitations.

If you look at a 15 year old and think she is hot, and know that they married at 9 in American colonial times, it really has jack shit to do with Jimmy Saville and what he allegedly did.

Quote
KeefintheNight82
If you look at a 15 year old and think she is hot, and know that they married at 9 in American colonial times, it really has jack shit to do with Jimmy Saville and what he allegedly did.

I know would like to think that your little politcally correct straight jacket is the way it's always been.

Sadly for you there is reality.

Some 13, 14, 15 year olds LOOK like 18 and 19 year olds.

Nobody asks for birth certificates.

I know you would like to believe that under 16s never have sex with under 16s but sadly for you there is again reality.

A lot of young kids are at it like rabbits these days - they were when I was at school nearly 40 years ago as well - I do actually remember what it was like being 13, 14, 15...

Hey.. I'm sorry I pointed out some history, some historical legalities and a billion years of evolution to you.

I state again.. NOWHERE did I say force or manipulation are OK.. it ISN'T.

I also have never engaged in underage sex and I never will. However when I was 13 it was my deepest desire (a desire recognised by nearly every male on this board probably).

Was I a pervert at 13?

Are all 13 year olds perverts?

Is there something wrong with them?

No actually.. quite the opposite.

So back off and listen properly to what is being said.

I answered your points in my previous post. I'm not 'politically correct' and I understand the sexual nature of humans.

I know the history a long time before you 'educated' me on this forum.

Yes, underage teens have sex. I thought I said this was true. Please read what I write before responding to me.

Yes, they can be attractive to adult men. Yep.

Yes, evolution has made us want to screw at a yound age. Right.

Yes, history was cruel and oppresive to women. Gotcha.

Yes, these are all straw man arguments from you.

Listen carefully to me: Your points have NOTHING to do with Jimmy Saville and Gary Glitter. Nothing. Zero.

Unless, as you implied in a previous post, you are saying that Jimmy Saville should NOT be condemned for something that was socially acceptable many years ago and could still be technically legal in countries other than the UK.

If that's what you are implying, and it sounds as if you are, then I really hope I did read that incorrectly.

Yes. I am saying there are mitigating circumstances for Jimmy Saville (if what is alleged is true).

If he forced or manipulated anyone then he was wrong to do so, but I strongly suspect that was not always the case. Some people will do anything to connect with celebrity - if the man had been a fork lift driver he would have got very little sex (if any).

Also I notice... his £4 million estate has been frozen.

The scent of money is in the air.

Gary Glitter is a totally different matter as he was involved with prepubesants, something I've never seen Saville accused of.

Some recognition of reality is in order.

A law that says 15 years 363 days = bad and 16 years = good, doesn't change millions of years of human base instinct.

These horrible stories make watching any Stones performances introduced by Saville such as Let's Spend The Night Together pretty much hard work.

Quote
Silver Dagger
These horrible stories make watching any Stones performances introduced by Saville such as Let's Spend The Night Together pretty much hard work.

This reminds me of the Catholic Priest child abuse stories in Ireland.

Whilst I don't doubt some of them were true, what happened was that the Irish Governmnet set up an "independent" board to listen to cases of abuse. The accused were NOT allowed to defend themsleves and all the accuser had to do was convince the board with a good story.

And then they were given money.

The scale of what happened in Ireland is impossible to judge with circumstances like this.

I see the same happening here.

Oh I see, you think most of the sex with Jimmy Saville was consentual (because they wanted to be close to a celebrity) and now the victims/nymphos want a piece of his estate.

And we shouldn't think too badly of him because it's only human nature to be attracted to young girls.

ok.

You are right about the human instinct and nature of attraction part. The rest is warped. This kind of thinking is why it's so difficult for victims to come farward.

To speak so much of evolution this is not a very evolved point of view. In fact, blaming the victim is quite backward and chauvinist. They do this in middle eastern countries too.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that has kept women being traded for sheep and goats like property and abused sexually from the dawn of time till today.

But you pointed that out already.

Quote
KeefintheNight82
Oh I see, you think most of the sex with Jimmy Saville was consentual (because they wanted to be close to a celebrity) and now the victims/nymphos want a piece of his estate.

Actually we'll never know properly because he's dead and can't defend himself.

But anyway... did you accuse me of strawman arguments?

Funny.

Quote

In fact, blaming the victim is quite backward and chauvinist.

So all his "victims" were blameless?

You see how this works?

I'm not getting into a flame fest which is what you obviously want.

Enjoy your black and white world.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-02 11:50 by GravityBoy.

Quote
Silver Dagger
These horrible stories make watching any Stones performances introduced by Saville such as Let's Spend The Night Together pretty much hard work.

Is this deliberate irony?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-11-02 12:12 by GravityBoy.

Quote
GravityBoy
Yes. I am saying there are mitigating circumstances for Jimmy Saville (if what is alleged is true).

No there aren't.

Quote
GravityBoy
Yes. I am saying there are mitigating circumstances for Jimmy Saville (if what is alleged is true).

If he forced or manipulated anyone then he was wrong to do so, but I strongly suspect that was not always the case. Some people will do anything to connect with celebrity - if the man had been a fork lift driver he would have got very little sex (if any).

Also I notice... his £4 million estate has been frozen.

The scent of money is in the air.

Gary Glitter is a totally different matter as he was involved with prepubesants, something I've never seen Saville accused of.

Some recognition of reality is in order.

A law that says 15 years 363 days = bad and 16 years = good, doesn't change millions of years of human base instinct.

When someone cuts me off in traffic my base instinct is to pull them out of the car and slap them. Somehow I manage to control myself.

I guess base instinct can be controlled by some people when necessary, huh?

Quote
Slim Harpo

Quote
GravityBoy
Yes. I am saying there are mitigating circumstances for Jimmy Saville (if what is alleged is true).

No there aren't.

The biggest mitigating circumstance is he's dead and is unable to defend himself.

He's also being judged by the standard of these times and not the standard of the free love, abortion on demand, contraceptive, liberated, rebellious, sex in your face, why don't we do it in the road, I hear the click clack, lets spend the night together 1960s and 70s.

Why is Jimmy Saville being investigated and not John Peel, Bill Wyman, Jimmy Page, Brian Jones and a whole plethora of stars who are cooler than "creepy" Jimmy and Freddie?

Oh and Michelle Breton.. how old was she in 1968? Let's not go there eh?

Let's kick scapegoat Jimmy.

Quote
treaclefingers
When someone cuts me off in traffic my base instinct is to pull them out of the car and slap them. Somehow I manage to control myself.

I guess base instinct can be controlled by some people when necessary, huh?

Getting mad at being cut up in traffic and the human instinct to have sex... how shall we compare them... ?

The human race is really good at controlling sexual impulses... oh wait..

Sex berween a 40+ year old man and an underage girl is by definition 'forced and manipulated.' And to imply that hundreds of girls may have willingly thrown themselves at this guy is beyond ludicrous.

Quote
gimmelittledrink
Sex berween a 40+ year old man and an underage girl is by definition 'forced and manipulated.' And to imply that hundreds of girls may have willingly thrown themselves at this guy is beyond ludicrous.

Gravity Boy has a bit of a bee in his bonnet about this...for some reason taking it upon himself to defend the right for old men to have sex with underage girls.

I'm not sure I get his zeal. Yes it happens, yes it should not happen.

We're (hopefully) a bit more evolved that we can control our base instincts. I don't buy the argument that we shouldn't be accountable for crossing lines placed for the protection of the young.

An old man's urges shouldn't trump the rights of a child.