An article in the Huffington post asserts there is a difference between a rock star having sex with a teen-age girl and a paedophile. A clue as to where the author is coming from with her article may be in the title which is Predatory teen-age girls. In the article she states:
Back in the day teenage groupie sex was epidemic. It was the fuel that drove rock and roll. It is not in the same category as the Belgian paedophile rings or the systemic abuse of children by Catholic priests. It just isn't.
So it is OK for a group of grown men, using the power and influence of their position in society, to use an endless series of impressionable underage girls for their casual sexual gratification as long as they are rock stars or their hangers-on? That it is not paedophilia even if it falls within the legal definition of paedophilia? Why? Because she says 'it just isn't'! Well, there's logic that just can't be argued with!
All those guys caught up in the emerging entertainment industry scandals in the wake of the Jimmy 'Jim'll fix it' Saville shockers should try telling that to the judge: I'm sure he will be impressed ...