Is someone a paedophile if they have sex with a girl under the age of 16?

yeah you were raped by a pedo

Technically paedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children. Since by 15 I assume you hit puberty already, no, he wouldn't be a paedophile. It's perfectly normal for men to be attracted to fertile women. You would have been very capable of bearing a child at 15, more so than a 32 year old, so by nature it makes more sense for him to be attracted to you than to a woman his age.

That being said, most men would see having sex with a woman that young as morally wrong (and probably legally wrong), and so wouldn't do it.

He has normal sexual urges, he just is wrong to act on them. Paedophiles would typically want someone under 12 years old.

To answer your question: the cutoff for paedophilia isn't an age, it's an event. Puberty. If the person has started puberty then it isn't paedophilia.

But also, why is it so important? Maybe you're just curious, and that's fine, learning is good. But if it's important to you, why?

It depends on how much under and there is no definition in law of a paedophile. The law only defines underage sex and doesn't use the word "paedophile" at all. Dictionaries aren't any more help as they just define it as a person sexually attracted to children.

A more useful definition would be a person attracted to prepubescent children, i.e. children who haven't gone through puberty yet. They aren't biologically ready to have sex so we can definitely say there's far more wrong with that. British law actually DOES sort of make this distinction - 16 is the age of consent, but there is also the age of 13. Under 13, a child is deemed to be not capable of consenting to sex, the police will definitely go for a prosecution and the sentence will be much higher than for sex with a child over 13.

13 is chosen because it's when most will have got to the age of puberty, and it's easier for the law to set an age than to define it some other way. OK, a medical examination can tell if puberty has happened, but that's no use if the case doesn't get to court until later - only an examination at the time will be any use. So the law just goes on age because we can be definite about that. Over 13 but under 16, the law makes the assumption that you DO know what sex is and you can consent, you're biologically capable of it, but it's still wrong and you should wait before you start potentially making babies.

Just out of historical interest, the age of consent used to be much lower. It was 14 for boys and 12 for girls, and you could get married at those ages, but Parliament was shocked by a report on the extent of child prostitution in London. It decided it had to put a stop to that and put the age of consent up in 1875, and finally in 1885 increased it to 16. Where it has been ever since.

The police do in fact have official guidance to leave it alone if two teenagers close in age but older than 13 "do what comes naturally" - they're old enough to know what sex is and have sexual feelings, and taking them to court would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Of course that wouldn't apply to 32 and 15 - that's definitely more weird and he's old enough to know better.

At 15 you're a biologically grown woman with breasts and having periods, just a very young one, and you'll be 16 very soon anyway. So it's a bit problematic defining attraction to you at that age as being paedophilia. The problem with him is he just wanted lots of sex with young women and didn't really care about YOU.

Laws are arbitrary. The age of consent is whatever the state says it is, and it is designed to protect young people from exploitation. Majority opinion is that teen girls are particularly emotional, gullible and vulnerable. Did you tell him you were underage? The differences between the faces of a 15 year old and a 16 year old can be hard to distinguish. It's the adult's responsibility, and he should have made sure of your age.
Strictly speaking, pedophilia applies to pre-pubescent children. You were underage, which does mean this was a crime, but it wasn't pedophilia. If you feel he lied to you, take him to court. You might not be able to prove anything, but it will embarrass him.

The definition of paedophile is sexual attraction to pre pubescent children.
You are no doubt the victim of child abuse, yet I'm not making any claim teenagers don't fück.

Yes.

The act of having sex with a minor does not necessary make one a peddophile. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13.
Hebephilia is defined as individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in 11- to 14-year-old pubescents. In addition to hebephilia, some clinicians have proposed other categories that are somewhat or completely distinguished from pedophilia; these include pedohebephilia (a combination of pedophilia and hebephilia) and ephebophilia which is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19 (though ephebophilia is not considered pathological)

No. That's sex under the age of consent.

Paedophilia means sex with children ie pre-pubescent - real children. You weren't a child, you consented, and the fact you wanted more of a relationship doesn't turn it into paedophilia.

You're just jealous, that's all.

Yes, he was using you for sex. That is generally true when adult men go after teen girls- they want someone they can manipulate and control. In the US, they are called sex offenders, and this guy DEFINITELY was one. In the US, he'd be on a list and have to register with the police wherever he went.

Yes in the UK, sex with anyone under 16 is classed as paedophilia, if found out he would have been prosecuted.
The other answers are wrong for the UK.

I worked for HMP with sex offenders.

by law, they are