Gah, you all still have me wrong.
I wasn't accusing anything, I was searching for clarifitcaiton that Mr. van Galen would not actually consider going anywhere (and I don't just think you have to have sex with a child to be a paedophile) with someone way too young (and I never mentioned a specific age, qq, but anything under 14 is starting to look really dodgy).
It has now become clear to me that Mr. van Galen considers something as simple as small-talk flirting, which is different to how I would define flirting. (Where I would call talking simply talking, I would say to be flirting there would have to be "fluttering eye-lashes" and "touchy-feely" type of behaviour (not necessarily anything sexual, yet again, to make that clear)).
His original post implied that he would be prepared to flirt with anybody, and by how I would define flirting, that would soon lead to how I would define the behaviour of a paedophile.
To be honest, I don't see the problem in the word, all I see is people misinterpreting what I was trying to get at, and then thinking that the word I used to get there was way out of line (and if you expect me to apologise for that, think again. I don't see the problem, it is only a word).
Also, qq, if someone accused me of being a rapist I would laugh at them and say "I'm a virgin so..."
For the record, I don't think you actually have to have sex with someone "too young" to be a paedophile. Even the intention would be enough for me to call someone such.
Mr van Galen: you are probably right, it is very likely that I have extremely bad judgement of character (which further emphasises my separation from all things "social"). (And to clarify, by social I mean out of academic situations, and actually in person).
Ton: no, I'm studying psychology and philosophy. However I do enjoy politics. Out of interest, what exactly does politics have to do with it?
Yet again, to make clear, I wasn't insulting anyone, but if you consider it an insult, that's your problem, I don't care.