to wonder if Jeffrey Epstein really is a paedophile

[GenuineQuery]

I have name changed for this because it's such an emotive subject, and folk are likely to be flamey (quite rightly too). And I am a wimp.

You'll have all seen in the news reference to Prince Andrew's friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, almost universally described as 'the billionaire paedophile'.

When I read the newspaper reports I discovered that he had been convicted of procuring underage girls for sex, some of whom I understand (owing to US consent laws) were 17. Some, of course, were considerably younger: I understand the youngest to have been 14.

AIBU to think that this is not 'paedophilia'? That suggests to me an utterly unnatural, in fact downright evil, sexual preference. Finding post-pubescent girls and young women, who are presenting as adults in the physical essentials, seems to me to be a different matter.

I found myself becoming quite angry. Not because I felt sorry for Epstein (undoubtedly as immoral, sleazy, predatory and abusive a man as you could hope to find, and he well deserves his jail term and worse), but because labelling him a paedophile somehow detracts from quite how appalling, and how absolutely against every fibre of a normal person's nature, paedophilia is.

The article I saw was illustrated by a picture of Epstein with his arm around one of his 'child victims'. She was 17, nearly as tall as him, and very definitely a woman, not a child.

Just to reiterate (in case it gets lost in debate!) I am not saying tht what he did was right. On the contrary I would very much like the opportunity to kick his bollocks off. But I suppose what I think is: a sleazy old man fancying and preying on teenage girls is a revolting controlling abusive prick, but not a paedophile.

There. AIBU? I would genuinely like to know & don't know where else to raise the debate.

bemybebe no of course not - how could I say an 11 year old is 'fair game'? Or anyone for that matter! But I maintain that there is a difference between a man finding someone who looks like a sexually mature young woman sexually attractive, and a man looking at a child and being aroused. The former can be normal sexual function (though heaven knows they shouldn't act on it). The latter is a repulsive abberation that has nothing to do with normal human sexuality. I'm really struggling that people don't see the difference!

QuelleLeJeff - The question is about definitions. Someone who has sex with post-pubescent children has committed a different offence to someone who has sex with pre-pubescent children. Whether or not we think they are morally equivilant the nature of the offender is different - if we treat them the same then we risk making them worse.

No person, whether infant, teenager or fully grown is 'fair game'.

The psychology of people who who sexually abuse people in these groups is not identical, so attaching the same label may not be useful.

Also - to bebe - I started periods at 10 and, also at 10, went straight into a C cup bra. By 12 I was wolf-whistled at. These weren't paedophiles, they were just laddish (albeit sexist and ignorant) young men who saw a tall blonde bouncing lass and thought she was sexually attractive. I strongly doubt the same men would;ve found me attractive at 5.

I don't think anyone has said that anyone is 'fair game' (odd turn of phrase anyway).

And aye, Grimma, I am not saying anyone is 'fair game'. That's a horrible term and I'm not sure why it keeps coming up.

Yes - I noted in your OP:

I am not saying tht what he did was right. On the contrary I would very much like the opportunity to kick his bollocks off.

Genuine - i was wolf whistled at 15 although i was as flat chested as they come. This is not the point. The point is that someone took their Johnny out and stuck it into the places they are not by legal or moral laws are allowed to. No offense, I know you are just asking for opinions, but I think that (she is all curvy, so he got a 'hard on') line of defense should not be acceptable at all.

But bemy - sorry, I don't mean to keep howling the same thing over and over again - this isn't about whether or not it's OK to shag 15 year olds. It's about whether wanting to shag a 15 year old and wanting to shag a 3 year old are the same thing.

And I just don't think so.

Sorry TheCoalition - I don't understand what you mean by " if we treat them the same then we risk making them worse." Worse how? Do you mean that those who rape post pubescent children will start raping pre-pubescent children if they are called "paedophiles" or the other way round or what?

My posts were addressing the original post which, to my understanding, was asking about the fact that the news reports are using the term "paedophile" in relation to Jeffrey Epstein. My answers have been based on the fact that "paedophile" is used in these cases as a shorthand for "child rapist" regardless of the age of the victim.

If it was only 17yos I would understand your point. Where really it is a matter of legality.

But 14/15 yo is young enough to be pretty fucking sick and perverted. They might have boobs but as soon as a 14yo opens their mouth you know they are 14 and there brain is not remotely 'there' yet.

That's why it's just as bad as if they were 3 to me.

I think for one not to be upset or outraged or horrified or want to throw up is a sad indicator of how complacent and accepting we have become of the premature sexulisation of our children

In may ways op and thecoalition I agree with you, but I find myself getting angry that I am agreeing with you and that the line in the sand if you like is so easily wiped away.

I think we should be calling him a paedo and we should be making it very clear that his sexual prefernces are abnormal and abusive and not acceptable.

I used to dress like a hooker at 14,15, 16 for male attention and it would have made my day if an older sophisticated man had desired me. I do not think that I was so unusual in my behaviour. What is that all about then? Culture- We celebrate the young and sexy, place value and desire on youth and beauty. Something has to change.

Genuine I hear (albeit with difficulty) what you are saying, but maybe there is a practical reason why the law is so clear on age and not developmental stage. Due to gradual nature of moving from child- into adulthood it is impossible to pinpoint the precise moment when this sex crime evolves from "terrible" into just "bad". Age is precise and however "unjust" it may seem to perpetrator.

If he's a paedophile then so is Silvio Berlusconi who's been shagging 17yr old prostitutes (allegedly) and the UK should cut all diplomatic ties ASAP. 'Cept they won't.

BTW I saw a Spermyshenanigans username on this thread which is actually lifted from a post of mine on another thread. Can I claim copyright???????????????

QuelleLeJeff - I'm mainly talking about in the context of reducing offending - that will be less effective if you treat both groups the same.

The news reports ARE using the lack of precision in the way they use the term Paedophile in order to make this mans offences appear worse than they would be considered by many people in order to try and make a thin story about a Royal more interesting. The intention is to make it seem that Mr Windsor hangs out with someone who has sex with infants. They are deliberatly using the worst term they can.

The term isn't used in the press in relation to Berlosconi for instance.

If we were more careful with our terminology this partisanship would be harder.

Damn I thought I was getting Berlosconi in first.

Snap Coaliton!

That's a really thoughtful post Ongak, thanks.

bemy yes, there's real difficulties with 'thresholds', I think...I need to think about this more ( a few people have mentioned mental development as against physical development and pointed out that the two things can be far, far apart).

Coalition I did think that it was an example of the press using inflated (IMO) terms to pad out a rather sparse story - that is another aspect of things. It also emphasises how much our thought on these matters are influenced by the press, even if we don't realise it.

He did not rape this 17 year old girl. She was willing and got oodles of cash out of it. Come on now!

It's excellent that she might just manage to bring the fucker down too! Right on Ruby!

The danger in quibbling about whether it is paedophillia or not is a problem for me as it creates shadows of what is acceptable over victims who may well be equally vulnerable.

I was abused at 3 and abused at 13. The real emotional damage was done by the abuse at 13 because I was manipulated into believing that some of it was my fault. My guilt and humiliation remain with me to this day whereas, whilst obviously dreadful, the truth is that the abuse I suffered at 2 and 3 and 4 are distant memories and ones which I can easily feel unencumbered anger about.

A grown man who fancies the notion of a Lolita type girl may be exploring risky fantasies. A grown man who acts upon it is almost inevitably damaging a vulnerable girl and calling it less serious is like saying a stabbing is less serious than a shooting. It isn't in my book.

To be honest this is probably as difficult an issue for me as anyone but name changing seems weak ass. If you want an op on a difficult subject, if you want others to post their opinions, it seems to me you should post in your own name.

I was referring to the Berlusconi case obviously.

I apologise for hasty terminology Lenin and stand corrected, but please don't try to infer that I in some way condone these actions, or consider them less foul than you. The fact that we disagree doesn't make me somehow complicit or approving.