Pedophilia implies a relationship with a pre-pubescent minor, doesn't it? Dating/marrying a 16/17 year old does not make
-
audonamission — 12 years ago(September 25, 2013 11:26 AM)
About a year ago, I started doing a lot of genealogical research for my family. Turns out, two of my great-grandmothers got married at the ripe old age of 14. Both had 2-3 kids by the time they were 20, and these ladies would have been contemporaries of Chaplin's wives. Back then, people weren't as concerned about putting a specific age on being an adult. Once a girl was sexually mature, she would get married, whether she was 14, 16, or 18. Of course, we can make the argument that just because a person is sexually mature doesn't mean that they're emotionally ready for the demands of being a wife and a mother. But it seems a little unfair and myopic to treat Chaplin like a monster when his choices, although arguably unusual, were not too far out of the realm of possibilities.
-
-
DavidW1947 — 11 years ago(February 08, 2015 01:59 AM)
I'd just like to point out the misuse of the word paedophile (or pedophile) in this thread. The word describes someone who is sexually attracted to children who are pre-pubescent, that, is aged 12 years and under. A paedophile would not be interested in teenagers or either sex, certainly not anyone aged 15 or 17. I am amazed at the number of people who don't know this. It has nothing to do with any age of consent. Even if the age of consent were increased to 45, a paedophile still wouldn't be interested in a 44 year old.
A lot of confusion is caused by the authorites insisting that anyone under the age of 18 years, even if they are 17 and married, is a child, when, in fact, they are a young adult. -
Mattfinbell — 11 years ago(February 08, 2015 09:34 AM)
DavidW1947 A lot of confusion is caused by the authorites insisting that anyone under the age of 18 years, even if they are 17 and married, is a child, when, in fact, they are a young adult.
I think the law trumps your card dude