Tony M Sep 26, 2012:

@ Rowsie Yes, I do see what you mean, and I gave it a lot of thought; but I can't help feeling that of the two terms, one is slightly less 'lurid' and emotive than the other, and thus more faithful to the source term.

Rowena Fuller (X) Sep 26, 2012:

enticed is nice, but I still prefer lure, as he had set up a real trap with his 'chocolate box farm' and dandyish appearance... and one is more 'lured' into a trap than 'enticed' into one. Enticing, for me, is somehow more of a carrot and stick thing, enticed into a car by the offer of sweeties - see what I mean?

Tony M Sep 26, 2012:

@ Rowsie No problem, I just didn't want to think I was getting at you — simply making a general point about neutrality and register.

Rowena Fuller (X) Sep 26, 2012:

Ah don't worry, just got me on my soap box ;-) I always respect your opinions Tony :-)

Tony M Sep 26, 2012:

'young' and 'pædophile' While there is of course no set definition of what 'young' actually denotes, I'd like to pick up on the point made by Rowsie in response to my original peer comment (now edited):

"but definitely young or he wouldn't be a pedophile"

I think it's important not to generalize here: these could equally well be teenage boys (13–15) — he would still be a pædophile, but I don't think many people would refer to adolescents of this age as 'young boys'. The very use of that emotive term conjures up 'little boys', children of 6 or so in short trousers, etc.

Here, there is no problem, as the source text does actually say 'jeune'; however, as a general principle, I think it is important to avoid adding judgemental colour in a sensitive area like this by adding an extra 'young' if it wasn't already there; this is what I thought Rowsie had done, as I had faile to read the question carefully enough the first time through. Mea culpa!