I have only got to page 4 but I just want to clarify one or two things, and apologies if someone else already has, as will have to rft later:
Firstly (and this is not exactly the point of the thread, but needs saying in light of what tryingreallytrying said on page 4);
the book Lolita by Nabakov was very clearly about perversion, and specifically the delusional obsession of someone who is only capable of seeing events through his own twisted lens.
The narrative states that Humbert is a paedophile, interested only in girls under the age of 13, and to this end he marries a woman with a child, so he can access her daughter.
The whole book is written through Humbert's eyes, from his point of view only, and illustrates how he romanticises his attraction, and interprets Dolores's every action as being seductive.
This is very important, as we as a reader are only ever looking though his eyes, never her's. Later in the book, it is made obvious that Dolores's life has been screwed up, and is living with the effects of her abuse.
It just needs saying, because rarely has a book been so misunderstood, to the point of people describing certain girls as "Lolita's" meaning teen temptress, when, in the book, she was neither a teen, and probably not actually knowingly tempting anyone. That's the point of the book-that we twist the world to reflect what we want to see!
The other thing, is that I wish people would stop using the word paedophilia to describe abuse of teenage girls. Yes, a rock star or radio dj having sexual relations with a 14 yr old is repellent, and really wrong, but it's probably not paedophilia. Calling it that kind of minimizes actual paedophilia, (being the sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children) imo.
WRT the Harriet Harman scandal, I can totally picture the kind of libertarian lefties who would have supported allowing the like of PIE a "voice" as my parents knew many of these types-into sexual liberation and communal non monogamy etc, no rules, and they were always people I (as a child) found a bit creepy.
I can think of one in particular (my friend's dad) who was a twat of the rainbow trouser wearing variety, and full of right-on-ness, who, in hindsight, said some really icky things to me when I slept over at her house.
I think that, yes, the 70's/early 80's were a crazy time politically, and a lot of norms were being torn down and re-built BUT I also think that some people (and by people I generally mean men don't I?) used that turmoil to hide a lot of disturbing views behind.
After all, even mild mannered lefty trendy men can be paedophiles.