View Single Post
Old 05.08.2015, 16:49
dodgyken's Avatar
dodgyken dodgyken is offline
Forum Legend
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Democratic Republic Kenistan
Posts: 10,779
Groaned at 283 Times in 233 Posts
Thanked 19,403 Times in 7,402 Posts
dodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond reputedodgyken has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Westminster Paedophile Ring

View Post
When I was a kid in the UK in the 1980s we sometimes used to slip into the adult section at the library to look at some of the sex manuals that were on the shelves there. They tpically had drawings or if you were lucky even photographs of couples having sex. One of these books (albeit with drawings, not photos) actually showed how to have sex with kids.

This was in a public library, payed with tax money and whose purchasing policy was supervised by council employees.

So yes, I definitely agree that there was a cavalier attitude back then in tolerating these things, or pretending you didn't know.
And if you were really lucky the librarian would catch you and flash you her minge

Nothing that went on in the 70s, 80s, 90s or 00s hadn't happened before nor will stop happening now. There are countless different types of sexual gratification or desires - pretty much all of which have -phile names. There is one for people who like to engage in sexual activities while be stung with nettles. Many of these -philes are legal or if not legal, harmless.

So that means we end up talking about those -philes which are illegal and harmful - so we believe that their occurrence is any greater now than it was before? Or that in the 70s it occured any more frequently than it had done in the 20s or 30s? Or even the 1820s or 1830s for that matter?

The chances are that there has always been those in power who have used their position to gain access to those who can satisfy their -phile - whether be a small child or a field of nettles.

What has changed is society's willingness to openly discuss these topics but also society's access to material for which the vast majority would have had little contact. Pornography has existed since the first person figured out you could draw on a cave wall - and what did they draw? Naked people!! The proliferation of it and the ease in which people of all ages can now locate images/videos of people doing exactly what turns them on means we are all now more aware of the wider sexual universe.

There is no doubt in my mind that acting on paedophilic desires is wrong and those involved should be dealt with within the confines of the law. My concern is whether we are applying too much judgement from our position of hindsight and whether society benefits as a whole if 40 year old cases are raked up and aired in public, especially when the person in question is no longer alive.

I also don't believe that an individuals choices necessarily lead them to make incorrect professional decisions, particularly in the case of government policy. If that really was the case, and westminsters corruptions so deep and depraved, then the age of consent would have been revoked, and we would be having a completely different conversation.

Edit again:
Back to my off the cuff opening quip. I "grew up in the 80s" (born in the 70s) and would the quip have happened we'd have probably ran from the library giggling.
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" Abraham Lincoln

Last edited by dodgyken; 05.08.2015 at 17:16.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank dodgyken for this useful post: