French Roman Polanski backer in controversy of his own

[lalala]

It's what he ment in the book, if he was a certified pedophile he wouldn't write about it

[Shinola]

I disagree. Plenty of pedophiles seem to think there is nothing wrong with what they are doing and that the children enjoy it. There has even been a whole movement to re-legitimize man-boy love; there was a pseudo-academic journal devoted to the subject.

[MohandasKGanja]

Here's another take on it from a writer (Joan Smith) from The Independent:

For his critics, Mitterrand's offence is all the greater because of his acknowledgement that the "boys" he paid for sex were forced into prostitution by poverty, and that their lives were ravaged by drugs and illness. He did himself no favours during an emotional appearance on French television on Thursday evening when he denounced sex tourism as "shameful", but admitted paying for sex with consenting adults in Thai brothels.

I have visited bars in Thailand where girls and boys offer sex to Western tourists, and it is a tragic spectacle; most of them look as though they should be in school, not having paid-for sex with middle-aged (and older) foreigners. The issue here isn't homosexuality; it's the exploitation of vulnerable youngsters of either sex by the commercial sex industry. Even if Mitterrand checked the birth certificates of his sexual partners, he is still guilty of encouraging a trade which wrecks the lives of countless young people. (An "error", he now says, though not a "crime".)

[sharky]

This reminds me of a quote from the movie "The Year Of Living Dangerously": Hunger is a powerful aphrodisiac.

[Pippin69]

I'm not surprised if he wrote about it. He probably didn't think there was anything wrong with it until he got called out on it. He probably still doesn't think he's wrong, he's just trying to backtrack.

[lalala]

Originally Posted by Shinola

I disagree. Plenty of pedophiles seem to think there is nothing wrong with what they are doing and that the children enjoy it. There has even been a whole movement to re-legitimize man-boy love; there was a pseudo-academic journal devoted to the subject.

There is no doubt that pedophiles legitimize their behaviours in their sick minds but they know that they would be arrested if they report stories of their sexual activities with minors, and Mitterrand here is an articulate high profile media guy, his book was published by a well known editor, there is not a chance that anything relating to pedophilia would have been allowed to be published here

[lalala]

Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja

Here's another take on it from a writer (Joan Smith) from The Independent:

For his critics, Mitterrand's offence is all the greater because of his acknowledgement that the "boys" he paid for sex were forced into prostitution by poverty, and that their lives were ravaged by drugs and illness. He did himself no favours during an emotional appearance on French television on Thursday evening when he denounced sex tourism as "shameful", but admitted paying for sex with consenting adults in Thai brothels.

I have visited bars in Thailand where girls and boys offer sex to Western tourists, and it is a tragic spectacle; most of them look as though they should be in school, not having paid-for sex with middle-aged (and older) foreigners. The issue here isn't homosexuality; it's the exploitation of vulnerable youngsters of either sex by the commercial sex industry. Even if Mitterrand checked the birth certificates of his sexual partners, he is still guilty of encouraging a trade which wrecks the lives of countless young people. (An "error", he now says, though not a "crime".)

I agree with that and that's where the shame is, sexual tourism is a disgusting exploitation of misery, but it's not pedophilia

[Shinola]

Originally Posted by lalala

There is no doubt that pedophiles legitimize their behaviours in their sick minds but they know that they would be arrested if they report stories of their sexual activities with minors, and Mitterrand here is an articulate high profile media guy, his book was published by a well known editor, there is not a chance that anything relating to pedophilia would have been allowed to be published here

Maybe you're right. I would only say that book publishing is my own field, and I've found that powerful people with powerful contacts in the industry can sometimes publish what they want. Publishers will certainly draw the line at an author damaging someone else's reputation, but Mitterand here was potentially hurting only himself.

I'll admit that my suspicions--and they are only suspicions--about Mitterand are shaped by stories like the Dutroux case in Belgium, in which it's quite obvious that the government itself harbored violent pedophiles. I never would have thought it was possible until I learned more of the facts of the situation. It's unbelievable.

I also can't help noting how much Mitterand's own attitudes about sex with "boys" mirrors Polanski's own statements about sex with adolescent girls. There's an awful lot of justifying and normalizing, an underlying idea that it's society that's sick and twisted for misunderstanding and judging them, and both have money and occupy positions of power that insulate them.

As someone else implied earlier, if you were going to go to Thailand for sexual-tourism purposes, but you had made a mental point of drawing the line at age, how would you even verify the ages of the boys? If you said you wanted, say, no one younger than eighteen, you know that any pimp/procurer/prostie would be only too happy to lie just to get your money. And at the risk of sounding racist, I find many Asians to be young-looking compared to Westerners, so I think I'd have a hard time judging the boys' age based on their appearance.

[sharky]

Had to "log out" to see how this topic was re-energized from Sputnik's comment.
(Have her on ignore LOL!)
Really? You are trying to extrapolate that I think homosexuality = pedophilia? That's a far reach, even for you.

What is your objective in posting to someone who has you on ignore?

A. Were you chumming the water hoping to start a feeding frenzy with that inflammed comment?
B. Were you hoping that I would respond in a manner to get myself banned?
C. Is negative attention better than no attention?
D. Is there an aspect of stalking involved?

Buh-Bye!!! *hits ignore button AGAIN*

You can post whatever you want, but keep in mind, you are on ignore, so I can't see your posts. A lot of things you post go against the fiber of my being and raise the hairs on the back of my neck. Honestly, some of them make me feel sick. For instance, when you thought eating a fetus was the same as eating a a placenta. So that is why you are on ignore. I have no interest in fighting with you anymore or exchanging thoughts, but you seem to be interested in continuing to fight with me.

So WHATEVER. Have a nice life.

As a compassionate person interested in the good of mankind, I would advise that you go back and read previous posts you have made. You have weird values and are rude over and over. You know you have been called out on this by other posters, saying: "Duh", "That's ignorant", etc. and have even mentioned the ignore button to you. Think about that, for your own good.