@lambsy_uk wrote:
Sexual attraction does not necessarily lead to sexual urge and loss of control. Men see sexually attractive women every day but they do not get uncontrolable urges to indecently assault them! Also I'll guarantee that many men find adolescent girls sexually atractive, but this again does not lead to uncontrolable urges. Most men manage to keep themselves under control and to admit an attractraction for someone in no way suggests that they had urges they could not control! To suggest otherwise is to suggest that most men are predators who would assault females of all ages if they thought they wouldn't get caught!
No of course I wasn't suuggesting that at all, quite the opposite in fact. Most men(and women too!) are able to keep their urges under control Even if they do find their neighbour's 13yr old daughter attractive, most men in their late 40s wouldn't give it more than a fleeting thought, they certainly wouldn't earmark her for a relationship in 4-5years whilst assualting her at every opportunity in the meantime.
When giving defence testimony on that 'relationship', he tried to paint a picture(no humour intended)of it as a loving one. Cross examination revealed it to be far from that, I consider it to be no more than a continuation of the abuse that started many years earlier. I can't find a court report of his evidence for the day in question, but this article more or less expresses my thoughts att.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/30/rolf-harris-trial-entertainer-career
The majority of the counts on which Harris was tried related to claims that he began grooming and abusing the childhood best friend of his daughter, Bindi, when the girl was 13. Even if Harris had been acquitted it would have proved the most mixed of courtroom victories, given that his version of events involved confessing to a long sexual relationship with the damaged and vulnerable girl while insisting that the affair began when she was 18.
The Australian-born TV star had no option but to concede the point given that the victim's father kept an abjectly contrite handwritten letterHarris sent him in the 1990s, after she told her family, apologising for the "misery" he had caused the woman.
Under dogged cross-examination from the prosecution QC, Sasha Wass, Harris was apparently at a loss to explain why, as he wrote in the letter, he felt "sickened" by himself over the affair. What he failed to spell out was surely evident to everyone else sitting in the courtroom: even if it is not illegal to have sexual contact with an 18-year-old friend of your daughter, 35 years your junior, who is staying at your home and whom you have known since she was two, for most people it is nonetheless a gross abuse of trust.
Harris tried to characterise the relationship as "loving" as well as mutual, but even his censored version, when picked apart by Wass, appeared stark and mechanical: eight mainly fumbling sexual incidents in 11 years, with barely a conversation otherwise, let alone expressions of interest by the older man in the woman's eventually chaotic and alcohol-fuelled life.
Some of the courtroom exchanges were withering for Harris. "Your relationship had been sexual for 10 years and the only conversation you can remember is about cleaning your sperm off the sheets?" Wass asked him. Harris agreed, somewhat reluctantly summarising the relationship as "sex with no frills, now and again".
The truth, of course, was more damning: he groomed and groped a child, his daughter's friend, gaining a sexual hold over her that lasted till she finally broke away in her late 20s, while also assaulting a series of other young women and children.
7ryMJjyBMgowKMZdQ~~_7.JPG "cee-dee"){kind=avatar}
