Thread: Pensioner paedo in Pattaya caught with hundreds of kiddy porn pictures

Originally Posted by jimbo

Thai is stepping up to the plate and starting to deal with some of these issues, .

Nah. They are being shoved up to the plate, while not *quite* kicking and screaming, its more of a reaction to international pressure that any real desire or *belief* that "its the right thing to do".

I still maintain that bagging a few sorry arse foreigners is a hell of an easier thing to do that get to grips with the local/asian stuff where they may well find themselves tangling with "people of influence".

However, as an aside, I really get the feeling that many Thai's really don't see it as much as a "crime" as we do. I know my S/O has no real problems with 14 years olds (even 14 year olds on the game) - providing its no coersed, as she puts it "up to them" (so long as its not me banging them of course!). Drop the age a couple of years and she does start to get a bit ansty. Quite honestly she would laugh at the idea of sex with a 17 year old being a "crime". So, we start to get back to the "definition" of what "paedophilia" is. 17 years? 16? 15? 14? 13? 12? lower? Acording to the great Americana, who seem to want to set the rules for the world, it starts at 17 years, 11 months and 29 days. *That* frankly is laughable.
-j-

Originally Posted by josh_ingu

I still maintain that bagging a few sorry arse foreigners is a hell of an easier thing to do that get to grips with the local/asian stuff where they may well find themselves tangling with "people of influence".

Absolutely. An internationally wanted suspect will also grab much, much bigger headlines than arrests of local ring leaders. Perfect for keeping up appearances and saving face.

Originally Posted by Jellybean

Would anyone consider an eighteen year old who had sex with a fifteen year old, a paedophile?

I would however, think that a forty year old, who had sex with a fifteen year old, a paedophile.

As I said earlier in the thread - its age differential that seems a more apt criterion rather than actual age. However, in many places the law does not take this into account. There was a big case in US recently of a 17 year old who got a (consentual) bj off a 15 year old girl - statutory rape and banged up if I recall the details correctly.....

However, just as the devils advocate, at 18 one can fancy 15 year old girls but not at 40- what (apart from age) has changed? As I age, I should start to fancy older women? What we are saying here is that its not a biological imperative - its just what we *feel* should be proper - i.e. a value judgement.

Purely biologically, men are conditioned to go for women at peak child bearing age - thats actually about 15 years old (honestly). Womens eggs are the same from birth to menopause, and so the older the woman - the older the eggs - and the "less fit" the offspring potentially.

Go back 100 year, or even 200 years, and 15 year olds were a perfect norm. Go back further and it would have been even younger. So, biologically, we have not changed - its just our society has changed its perception. hence much of the furor - society versus biology. Interesting stuff......
-j-

^ I actually know quite a few (or did back in the day) younger girls (15 up kind of ting) that were into older man....generally as girls of that age are more mature than their male counterparts (although chance would be a fine thing for me).

Originally Posted by Jellybean

very few girls aged from fifteen to twenty would fancy a forty year old man. No matter what men would like to believe.

How about 33? Still in with a chance?

Originally Posted by josh_ingu

There was a big case in US recently of a 17 year old who got a (consentual) bj off a 15 year old girl - statutory rape and banged up if I recall the details correctly.....

Didja read about the one in Norway when a woman blew a guy who was asleep on a couch at a party? She ended up doing time for rape.

Originally Posted by Jellybean

That depends on what you call 'older women'. We were talking about a fifteen year old.

The thing is, that without some kind of coercion, very few girls aged from fifteen to twenty would fancy a forty year old man. No matter what men would like to believe.

Weeeeellllll. All things being equal? Hmm. Tough one. As noted, younger girls do have their reasons. To be honest, my opinion is that most 40 year old men *should* find 15 year old girls as boring as buggery (if you will excuse the expression). Might as well talk to a tomato in all honesty.

[/quote=Jellybean]
But that aside, there has to be a line somewhere.[/quote]

Yes darlin. But the point here is that what you are talking about is a moral or ethical debate rather than any biological imperative. For example, laws against incest are well founded biologically - there is a *reason* behind them. Drawing the line is an arbitary decison (largely), based on what people *think*. And that changes over time as society changes over time.

Tell me why its ok to have relations with a girl who is 18, but not one who is 17 years, 11 months and 25 days? The only reason is its the law, and that law is based on nothing but *percieved* morality..
-j-

'The world’s youngest parents were 8 and 9 and lived in China.'

just thought i'd throw that in... beyond my imagination it is!!

Breeding wise they are not. See my previous post.
-----

Originally Posted by ruaraidh

'The world’s youngest parents were 8 and 9 and lived in China.'

They would have had to have had a precocious puberty. Both of them. Seems hard to believe.