NationStates Jolt Archive

Ah the wonders of Internet anonymity. If in real life I were to suggest for a second that maybe, just MAYBE society is wrong about the issue of paedophilia, I would immediately have been labelled a paedophile or a "deviant" myself. Well I do not have a sexual attraction to children, what I do have is a rational mindset. Yes, sorry to come across as sick to the easily offended but (shock, horror) not all paedophiles are predators or child rapists. They have an unchangeable attraction towards children. So lets look at the theory that for adults to have sex with children causes deep trauma and misery in its "victims". Did it never occur to anybody that some young people consent to sexual intercourse with adults? I have known people who have lost their virginity at ages as young as 11 and they're just fine and fricking dandy now. As for child rape, it should be regarded as an entirely different thing, victims of any kind of rape suffer from trauma and psychological problems. Also, given the hypothesis that any kind of sex between adults and children causes this kind of trauma, can you even begin to equate that with the horrible feeling of isolation and depression that paedophiles experience throughout their lives. Imagine the stigma of it, knowing that just about anyone would want you dead for expressing your sexual desires, which you can do nothing to change. The thought of it gives me chills. Don't go on to me about the rape of "innocence" either, as if children aren't saturated these days with images of sex and violence. As for the more prudent among people who think children should never be allowed to see such stuff because they don't understand the moral implications of it. I find that funny, because I still see images of mass violence and bloodshed on the news and I don't understand it. But I digress.

Reduce the age of consent to 11 at the most, end of.

Ok....

I'm so freaked out right now.....

NO, I DO NOT THINK LOWERING THE AGE OF CONSENT WOULD BRING ANY POSITIVE EFFECT.

And, umm..... i know you said you do not feel like a pedophile, but after this, i'm not sure i believe you.....

this will get a lot of attention

Yay. 40 year olds impregnating 16 year olds wasn;t bad enough.

Oh God lock lock lock lock this immediately!

A shiver went up my spine reading that.... :eek: :eek: :(

Legalise Paedophilia.NO
reduce age of consentAge of consent should be 21.

If you ever have children you will forever regret this.
I don't need a reason to hate paedophiles.
It is how I feel, our natural instinct to protect our youth, not exploit them for pleasure.
This feeling is far superior to some deviants "unchangeable" lust for children.

NO
Age of consent should be 21.

HA!

NO, I DO NOT THINK LOWERING THE AGE OF CONSENT WOULD BRING ANY POSITIVE EFFECT.Depends...In some countries it should be lowered...

If you ever have children you will forever regret this.
I don't need a reason to hate paedophiles.
It is how I feel, our natural instinct to protect our youth, not exploit them for pleasure.
This feeling is far superior to some deviants "unchangeable" lust for children.

Not supporting the original poster, but where was this so-called natural instinct back when people were marrying their near pre-pubescent daughters off to men twice their age?

this will get a lot of attention
the best kinda threads there is.
BTW, I agree. Lower the age of consent.

How about no, Scott.

I would have to say I agree. But to 11? No. Probably 13.

Pedobear approves this thread.
http://upload.localnetsys.com/upload/september05/pedbear.gif


Now come over here so I can chop your penis off.

Not supporting the original poster, but where was this so-called natural instinct back when people were marrying their near pre-pubescent daughters off to men twice their age?

Did they not do it for power?

Our will to power is greater than our mammilian instincts.

Right. I don't like where this is going. Firstly, why would you post something like this? I, for one, don't trust your agenda. It sounds to me like you're trying to 'lessen the impact' of an adult molesting a child. It is sick, it is wrong, and I don't care if the perpetrators can't help being who they are. If they're pedophiles, fine. They'd just better not act on those urges. Just in case you're wondering, no. I'm a very accepting person. For example, I don't mind homosexuality. I'm not gay but I respect their choices. But homosexual love doesn't hurt anybody. Child-rape does, and the hurt lasts a long, long time.

DEAR GOD LOCK THIS THREAD!!!!!

LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK!!!!!!

LOCK!

lol. Felt good to say that!

Now to kill the poster!

You---> :( :mp5: <---- Me

Pedobear approves this thread.
http://upload.localnetsys.com/upload/september05/pedbear.gif


Now come over here so I can chop your penis off.
:rolleyes:

You are so Childlish

I have counselled young people who have been molested at young ages.

Sex at younger ages causes them to feel less and enjoy sex less in their later years. It does do permanet and lasting damage to them both physically and emotionally.

NO
Age of consent should be 21.NO!
We just swung from one extreme to the other. The age of consent is 14 here, and that is perfectly reasonable.
I was a stacked 14 year old who was often mistaken for a university student, and people actually didn't believe me when I told them my age. Not a single person who I can remember telling was not shocked. Are grown men who were attracted to me pedophiles? No.
Do men who only go for 19 year olds who look like little girls creep me out? Yes.
It's not that complicated. You don't have to be 21 to consent to do anything.

Did they not do it for power?

Our will to power is greater than our mammilian instincts.

Possibly. I'm not entirely sure. I think it was just common practise at the time or so.

DEAR GOD LOCK THIS THREAD!!!!!

LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK!!!!!!

LOCK!

lol. Felt good to say that!

Now to kill the poster!

You---> :( :mp5: <---- Me

That's what I love about a democracy. People really understand the value of FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Wow?

Ok 11 hmmm

While you are at it you might as well
Let them work in factories again.
Let them go to war.
Let them drink.
Execute them for crimes
Three strikes law should apply to them.

Sorry but IMHO a pedophile deserves a sack beating.

Setting an age of consent is idiotic, many people 16 plus can't handle sex, and many people younger than 16 can. I think pedophilia laws should be taken off the books in favor of laws against "uninformed consent", and only individuals involved should be able to bring charges. These laws would punish one party in a sexual encounter if the other could make the case that he/she was manipulated into sex and unable to consent fully and in an informed manner.

This way there would be an informed decision involved, rather than a stupid blanket setting by age that punishes the unusually mature and abandons the unusually immature.

Dumb that down a little for me. I don't understand your point.

EDIT
Sorry. I was refering to the former 'stacked fourteen-year-old'.

Since (as I understand it) the reason for the age of consent is because people before then cannot necessarily make responsible decisions (same reason contracts before age 18 are not legally binding), why don't we create some sort of test to see whether someone is responsible enough to consent to sex? Those who pass said test are above the age of consent, those who don't are below it. As a side benefit this would probably halve the STD rates.

Right. I don't like where this is going. Firstly, why would you post something like this? I, for one, don't trust your agenda. It sounds to me like you're trying to 'lessen the impact' of an adult molesting a child. It is sick, it is wrong, and I don't care if the perpetrators can't help being who they are. If they're pedophiles, fine. They'd just better not act on those urges. Just in case you're wondering, no. I'm a very accepting person. For example, I don't mind homosexuality. I'm not gay but I respect their choices. But homosexual love doesn't hurt anybody. Child-rape does, and the hurt lasts a long, long time.
Pfffft.... When I was 12, I would have been ready to have gay, straight, a threesome, or any other type of sex there is. Don't try to act like the only type of pedophilia there is is when an adult rapes a child. Because you'd be wrong there.

And they say the thought is worse than the deed.

There ARE some countries where it is 12 you know.

12 I could go for.

I don't normally like to gloat, but I am making an exception. It would seem that all of those crazy conservatives weren't so wrong after all when they used the slippery slope argument in other topics. (Such as homosexuals getting married) I knew this would come up eventually. What's next then? Legalizing prostitution? Ok. Then we will have to legalize child prostitution. Hell, why don't we just make rape legal? The slippery slope isn't just a bunch of bull-crap, no matter how much people want to believe it is.

I have counselled young people who have been molested at young ages.

Sex at younger ages causes them to feel less and enjoy sex less in their later years. It does do permanet and lasting damage to them both physically and emotionally.

Omega, interesting that you brought this up. You're the first person on this thread to express what looks like rational disagreement but is it not also true that OTHER rape victims experience permanent damage?

i laud your audacity and candor.

and totally agree. based on the premise that "underage" sex isn't necessarily damaging to the child. i have no idea if this is true. someone provide me some evidence one way or another.

I don't normally like to gloat, but I am making an exception. It would seem that all of those crazy conservatives weren't so wrong after all when they used the slippery slope argument in other topics. (Such as homosexuals getting married) I knew this would come up eventually. What's next then? Legalizing prostitution? Ok. Then we will have to legalize child prostitution. Hell, why don't we just make rape legal? The slippery slope isn't just a bunch of bull-crap, no matter how much people want to believe it is.

*yawn*

I don't normally like to gloat, but I am making an exception. It would seem that all of those crazy conservatives weren't so wrong after all when they used the slippery slope argument in other topics. (Such as homosexuals getting married) I knew this would come up eventually. What's next then? Legalizing prostitution? Ok. Then we will have to legalize child prostitution. Hell, why don't we just make rape legal? The slippery slope isn't just a bunch of bull-crap, no matter how much people want to believe it is.

I was actually thinking of postind something snippy about the "slippery slope" myself.

Now if only we can do something about "strawman".

Worst...Idea...EVAR!

I agree with the author. We should legalise molestation. But why stop there? We could legalise rape to! What about murder? Serial killers have an unchangable mindset? Let's not discriminate people. I frankly can see no reaosn why we can't all go aorund molesting and killing and pillaging and burning shit.

Please... PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD note my sarcasm

That's what I love about a democracy. People really understand the value of FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Well, I don't agree with anything you said, but meh. I think the age of consent should be between 17 or 21 or something. But your opinions are based on wrong things. How many children do you think really do consent for example? :rolleyes:

Pfffft.... When I was 12, I would have been ready to have gay, straight, a threesome, or any other type of sex there is. Don't try to act like the only type of pedophilia there is is when an adult rapes a child. Because you'd be wrong there.

And they say the thought is worse than the deed.

... So pedophilia is not that horrible occurrence when an adult sexually abuses a child? Are you sure? Because I disagree:

Main Entry: pe•do•phil•ia
Pronunciation: "pE-d&-'fi-lE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
- pe•do•phil•i•ac /-'fi-lE-"ak/ or pe•do•phil•ic /-'fi-lik/ adjective

pedophilia is NOT adults having sex with teenagers

its adults having sex with prepubescent children

as in UNDER AGE 10

so you you want to legalize the rape of 5 year olds??

I agree with the author. We should legalise molestation. But why stop there? We could legalise rape to! What about murder? Serial killers have an unchangable mindset? Let's not discriminate people. I frankly can see no reaosn why we can't all go aorund molesting and killing and pillaging and burning shit.

Please... PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD note my sarcasm

Cheers for this. Even in gest, it's a refreshing change to hear hardcore liberal discourse.

Since (as I understand it) the reason for the age of consent is because people before then cannot necessarily make responsible decisions (same reason contracts before age 18 are not legally binding), why don't we create some sort of test to see whether someone is responsible enough to consent to sex? Those who pass said test are above the age of consent, those who don't are below it. As a side benefit this would probably halve the STD rates.
Seems kind of facist to me. I mean, that's probably a bit of an impeadment on our civil rights. It's like testing someone to see if they should have a baby or not.
I don't normally like to gloat, but I am making an exception. It would seem that all of those crazy conservatives weren't so wrong after all when they used the slippery slope argument in other topics. (Such as homosexuals getting married) I knew this would come up eventually. What's next then? Legalizing prostitution? Ok. Then we will have to legalize child prostitution. Hell, why don't we just make rape legal? The slippery slope isn't just a bunch of bull-crap, no matter how much people want to believe it is.
:rolleyes: Yeah. Now lets go burn witches at the stake. As if this would happen.

Besides, prostitution is legal in Nevada. :P

You are feeling better? good.

Now Please explain...
why should this thread be more or less acceptable than the INCEST thread ???

None at all. Come on, no one was ever harmed by incest.

What happens when the child grows up and is no longer attractive? Anyone ever read Lolita?
People may have a fetish for fucking nuns but that doesn't mean a nun who fucks is still a nun. Yeah, whatever. I don't have to make sense.

None at all. Come on, no one was ever harmed by incest.
Except for the people who were coerced into it...

pedophilia is NOT adults having sex with teenagers

its adults having sex with prepubescent children

as in UNDER AGE 10

so you you want to legalize the rape of 5 year olds??

Are you arguing with me, or with someone else?

I started having sex when I was 15 and don't regret it at all. I think 13 would be a good starting point.

There is a difference between consentual sex, even with someone 14, and what a pedophile does. They are manipulative and usually aren't attracted to kids over the age of 11.

14?

how about 19....thats more reasonable.I'm 17, and I like my sex. You'll do no convincing here.
Sexual maturity comes way before 17 (sometimes before 14), and emotional maturity comes way later. It seems pretty obvious to me that safe sex is good, and long term relationships are bad for people my age.

pedophilia is NOT adults having sex with teenagers

its adults having sex with prepubescent children

as in UNDER AGE 10

so you you want to legalize the rape of 5 year olds??I think you are rite Ahsmoria... people missuse the Terms "Pedophile" and "Rape" so often...Its like Blanket terms used on everything sex related

Its like the Word Nazi...It has been watered down...

None at all. Come on, no one was ever harmed by incest.

I dissagree, but I'm almost possitive that you were joking.

I'm 17, and I like my sex. You'll do no convincing here.
Sexual maturity comes way before 17 (sometimes before 14), and emotional maturity comes way later. It seems pretty obvious to me that safe sex is good, and long term relationships are bad for people my age.
The difference is that two 14 year olds experimenting with sex has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia.

I don't have a problem with 12 or 14. Kids often want to have sex with one another, and if they are cogent then it's fine.

The problem is with the emotionally young or immature being coerced. Even when they feel they are not being coerced, children are susceptible to manipulation. Hell, an 18 year old girl is easily coerced into sex acts - just imagine how easily a 12 year old would be coerced. They will undoubtedly regret their actions later on, just as adults would. But we do have a duty to protect them from the world to a certain point.

For me, I know that I was fully rational and cogent by age 12, at the latest. Sure I wasn't as mature as I am now, but neither am I as mature now as I will be at 60. I was responsible for my own actions and could (essentially) take care of myself. Therefore I should have been allowed to have sex if I so desired.

FYI I would not have been having sex at that age anyway, but at the time thought it absurd that I wasn't allowed.

... So pedophilia is not that horrible occurrence when an adult sexually abuses a child? Are you sure? Because I disagree:

Main Entry: pe•do•phil•ia
Pronunciation: "pE-d&-'fi-lE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
- pe•do•phil•i•ac /-'fi-lE-"ak/ or pe•do•phil•ic /-'fi-lik/ adjective

Homosexuality is regarded as a perversion in many countries that aren't afforded the priviledge of enlightenment and liberalism, just as it had been in the US, Canada and Europe many years ago. I'm sorry if I offend anybody by sounding as if I'm equating the two but fear of homosexuals AND paedophile smack of the same witchhunt tone.

I'm 17, and I like my sex. You'll do no convincing here.
Sexual maturity comes way before 17 (sometimes before 14), and emotional maturity comes way later. It seems pretty obvious to me that safe sex is good, and long term relationships are bad for people my age.But maybe you are an exceptional case...

How about other teens at your school???

... So pedophilia is not that horrible occurrence when an adult sexually abuses a child? Are you sure? Because I disagree:

Main Entry: pe•do•phil•ia
Pronunciation: "pE-d&-'fi-lE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
- pe•do•phil•i•ac /-'fi-lE-"ak/ or pe•do•phil•ic /-'fi-lik/ adjective
Pedophilia (Definition) (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/pedophilia)

I don't think this dictionary agrees with you. And neither do I.

Homosexuality is regarded as a perversion in many countries that aren't afforded the priviledge of enlightenment and liberalism, just as it had been in the US, Canada and Europe many years ago. I'm sorry if I offend anybody by sounding as if I'm equating the two but fear of homosexuals AND paedophile smack of the same witchhunt tone.
People with pedophilia need help and they should seek it. I'm not saying they should be castrated (well... unless they resort to rape.)

Homosexuality is regarded as a perversion in many countries that aren't afforded the priviledge of enlightenment and liberalism, just as it had been in the US, Canada and Europe many years ago. I'm sorry if I offend anybody by sounding as if I'm equating the two but fear of homosexuals AND paedophile smack of the same witchhunt tone.
Consensual sex is nothing like rape. Sex with someone who cannot consent is rape.

Besides, prostitution is legal in Nevada. :PAnd Canada.
And most of the rest of the world.

Consensual sex is nothing like rape. Sex with someone who cannot consent is rape.

Define who can and cannot consent. It's simply not black & white.

ped·o·phile (pĕd'ə-fīl', pē'də-) pronunciation
n.

An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.



child (chīld) pronunciation
n., pl. chil·dren (chĭl'drən).

1. A person between birth and puberty.

----------------------------

Last time I looked, we were considering the -age of consent-. Which means that they can CHOOSE whether or not to participate in the act. Anything that happens after a refusal would be considered rape. And rape -does- do harm.

So, as long as the person(s) are capable of judgement, they could express a wish. And if they wish to have sex, then it's their choice.

I think these things have more to do with actual maturity rather than age.

The difference is that two 14 year olds experimenting with sex has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia.how about a 14 years old with a 13 years old?

or a 15-13 or 14-12 the older girl or Boy should automatically be charged with Rape.

I say ...only when they are over 18 they are mature enough

Right. I don't like where this is going. Firstly, why would you post something like this? I, for one, don't trust your agenda. It sounds to me like you're trying to 'lessen the impact' of an adult molesting a child. It is sick, it is wrong, and I don't care if the perpetrators can't help being who they are. If they're pedophiles, fine. They'd just better not act on those urges. Just in case you're wondering, no. I'm a very accepting person. For example, I don't mind homosexuality. I'm not gay but I respect their choices. But homosexual love doesn't hurt anybody. Child-rape does, and the hurt lasts a long, long time.

The author of the thread said that rape is wrong.
What he's talking about is something different... those who are considered "children" now, no longer being considered as such when it comes to agreeing to having sexual interactions.
Whereas I disagree with lowering the age to 11 (imagine for a moment an 11 y/o with a 40y/o? It feels wrong, doesn't it?), I do agree with a slightly decreased age of consent.
I'd have to look at the science of it, because I've heard of girls being permenantly physically damaged after having sex when they are too young... so, the female would have had to have gone through puberty... and I don't think 11 year olds have.
What you might want is an upper limit to the new lower limit, as well. If you lowered the age to 14, say that only up to a certain age (i.e., 18-20?) is legal.
I dunno. Just throwing ideas around. :P

An age of consent does limit our rights, just like many laws. The reason there's an age of consent is so that young people can't get coerced into having sex when they can't really decide whether they want to or not - some, but not all, children's psychology is vastly impregnable. The age law isn't a surefire way of telling those that can decide for themselves and those that can't, but it's the best thing we can do, as it's not subjective and can't be argued. If paedophilia were legalized, some young children would be able to be coerced into having sex they didn't want to have, and they themselves might not think they were raped or forced. It's better to prevent the 10 cases of children being psuedo-raped and stop one child who could handle it than the other way around.

Except for the people who were coerced into it...That is REAL RAPE...They could be both over 40 years old...its REAL RAPE...

not need to even look at the ages.

Nothing good will come of this. How will we be able to tell when a child consents? Also children are more likely to follow what an adult tells them to so it would be easier to coerce them into doing something they really don't want to. Bottom line leave the age of consent at 18.

ped·o·phile (pĕd'ə-fīl', pē'də-) pronunciation
n.

An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.



child (chīld) pronunciation
n., pl. chil·dren (chĭl'drən).

1. A person between birth and puberty.

----------------------------

Last time I looked, we were considering the -age of consent-. Which means that they can CHOOSE whether or not to participate in the act. Anything that happens after a refusal would be considered rape. And rape -does- do harm.

So, as long as the person(s) are capable of judgement, they could express a wish. And if they wish to have sex, then it's their choice.

I think these things have more to do with actual maturity rather than age.

Maturity is subjective

How about leave the age of consent at 17 or 18? Seriously.

Consensual sex is nothing like rape. Sex with someone who cannot consent is rape.

But you must distinguish between the legal age of consent and an individuals ability to consent. If you can speak and think at a fairly basic level you can consent, maybe even before that. But even when people consent it can be on very questionable grounds, and so another standard is needed. I would say that if an individual is prepubescent, or below a certain age(in this case the age limit isn't such a bad thing), he/she would have to desire the act itself in order for it to be considered legal.

You're f*ucking disgusting for even considering this.

But maybe you are an exceptional case...

How about other teens at your school???I don't have sex with other teens, so I don't really know. Obviously, I knew that I would face social censure if people knew that I wasn't a virgin when I was 14, so I didn't talk to kids my age about it. Most of my girlfriends my age aren't virgins. Most of the guys my age are, I think, but I wouldn't have sex with them, so it's not surprising that other people wouldn't want to either.
Like I said, it has nothing to do with age. Sexual maturity comes to different people at different ages, and basically, the only way to judge is by appearance. If you look like an adult, it's not so weird that adults might be attracted to you.

Bottom line leave the age of consent at 18.some teens are not mature enough at 18...to be safe we should keep it at 21...

alcohol age.

how about a 14 years old with a 13 years old?

or a 15-13 or 14-12 the older girl or Boy should automatically be charged with Rape.

I say ...only when they are over 18 they are mature enough
You're insane. I refuse to believe you grew up. Were you in a coma between the ages of 11 and 17?
I'm not saying I wouldn't kick the shit out of a boy who had sex with my 13 year old daughter (which I don't have yet) but I'm also not going to say that it isn't understandable. I say if you are over 18 and you have sex with a 12 year old, that is rape. One is much more sexually mature than the other. One knows what he is doing while the other is just discovering it for the first time.
Charge 15 year olds with rape? I hope you plan on building larger prisons.

how about a 14 years old with a 13 years old?

or a 15-13 or 14-12 the older girl or Boy should automatically be charged with Rape.

I say ...only when they are over 18 they are mature enough
Um... What? Are you crazy?

Let's think about this for a second. If the 14 and 12 year old shouldn't have sex with each other, and the 14 year old should be charged with rape, let's look at this for a second. You're saying that my dad should be charged with rape. He is, after all, 56 and he had sex with my mom, 42. Isn't that illegal, by your terms? I mean, he's 14 years older! That's way above two years, and you want to jail that 14 year old!

Nothing good will come of this. How will we be able to tell when a child consents? Also children are more likely to follow what an adult tells them to so it would be easier to coerce them into doing something they really don't want to. Bottom line leave the age of consent at 18.

Adults are loored into unwanted sex too. They either emotionally or physically incapable of saying no. If children are coerced into sex, it is a form of rape, it should perhaps be treated more seriously than the rape of adults but I still refuse to accept that major-minor sex is necessarily wrong.

Originally Posted by CthulhuFhtagn
Except for the people who were coerced into it...
That is REAL RAPE...They could be both over 40 years old...its REAL RAPE...

not need to even look at the ages.
That's nonsense. Coercion is for 'forcing'. It's convincing. Even tricking. If you tell someone you love them to get sex, that's coercion, but it's not rape. It's trickery, but it's not rape.

Coercion for sex is not illegal.

Personally, I think that 14 is reasonable to become sexually active, but with other 14 year olds, not adults. This is true not because the kids are exploitable but because the kids are unlikely to know/be able to know the adults very well. This may not be too important after you've had some experience, but for a kid just starting out its important to build skill among those you're comfortable with. If you can't identify with someone its hard to talk about sex with them.

If the teen is more socially at home among adults, though, its much more ok.

They're also both adults well over the legal age. That's the difference.

Ok.....scarred for life.... :eek:

NO
Age of consent should be 21.

Aye.

21...

alcohol age.In the US. The rest of the world is laughing at you guys over that, just fyi.

Um... What? Are you crazy?

Let's think about this for a second. If the 14 and 12 year old shouldn't have sex with each other, and the 14 year old should be charged with rape, let's look at this for a second. You're saying that my dad should be charged with rape. He is, after all, 56 and he had sex with my mom, 42. Isn't that illegal, by your terms? I mean, he's 14 years older! That's way above two years, and you want to jail that 14 year old!that 14 years old is a rapist.

Personally, I think that 14 is reasonable to become sexually active, but with other 14 year olds, not adults. This is true not because the kids are exploitable but because the kids are unlikely to know/be able to know the adults very well. This may not be too important after you've had some experience, but for a kid just starting out its important to build skill among those you're comfortable with. If you can't identify with someone its hard to talk about sex with them.

If the teen is more socially at home among adults, though, its much more ok.

There's no reason to be having sex at age 14. It's still too young in my book, though 2nd/3rd base (3rd I'd say wait till you're 15 or 16) is acceptable I guess. I still think 17 or 18 is the more appropriate age.

ped·o·phile (pĕd'ə-fīl', pē'də-) pronunciation
n.

An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.



child (chīld) pronunciation
n., pl. chil·dren (chĭl'drən).

1. A person between birth and puberty.

----------------------------

Last time I looked, we were considering the -age of consent-. Which means that they can CHOOSE whether or not to participate in the act. Anything that happens after a refusal would be considered rape. And rape -does- do harm.

So, as long as the person(s) are capable of judgement, they could express a wish. And if they wish to have sex, then it's their choice.

I think these things have more to do with actual maturity rather than age.
if we are talking about pedophilia we are talking about sex with children not lowering the age of consent

lowering the age of consent may or may not make good sense. legalizing sexual relationships with pre-pubescent children is a bad idea.

I'm 17, and I like my sex. You'll do no convincing here.
Sexual maturity comes way before 17 (sometimes before 14), and emotional maturity comes way later. It seems pretty obvious to me that safe sex is good, and long term relationships are bad for people my age.


lets take a look at this rationally;

at 16;
you can drive a car

at 17;
you can go to war

you can vote

at 18;
you can own a rifle

you can smoke

you can legally have sex with someone over 21

at 21;
you can drink

you can own a pistol


the way I see it;
If your old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to shag a dirty old man.

that 14 years old is a rapist.
I got raped then. Horray for me, since I enjoyed the sex.

Look, the age of consent should at the least be 18. 18 is the age of adulthood and it is the age when we are accountable for ourselves. The argument for sexual freedom under this age is similar to an argument for drug use under the age of 18, it is ultimately giving too much authority to people that are too immature to make the decision and that are not even their own possessions to some degree.

I think 16 or 18 is appropriate. Legalizing pedophilia is a very bad move and is very disgusting. It is not right. It is just downright nasty. First off, I don't have a problem with sexually mature teens to do it, but there is no way in
hell an 11 year old is mature enough.

Paedophiles deserve to be locked up in the general inmate population.

Legalising paedophilia... how disgusting. I never been so disgusted in my life.. the people who propose this should be ashamed of themselves! I know this is an overused line but.... think of the children! Sure they are hit with a lot of sex and violence in TV, but there is no damn way a 20, 30 or 40 year old should be able to take advantage of them and get away with it.

I'm sorry but one who has sex with a minor is only taking advantage of the kid.

some teens are not mature enough at 18...to be safe we should keep it at 21...

alcohol age.

Different countries have different ages for alcohol consumption as well.
Some 25 y/o's aren't mature.
Maybe we should up the age to 30?
Oh, but I know some immature 30 y/o's...
No matter what age you raise it to, there will ALWAYS be those with bad judgement, and mental frailty.
I believe the age of consent here is 16. Lots of the people my age had sex before that... not necessarily with older people, but they were sexually active. Whether it's with someone of their own age, or someone older, and the relationship ultimately fails, they'll be hurt.
Emotional pain doesn't stop at some magical age.

Um... What? Are you crazy?

Let's think about this for a second. If the 14 and 12 year old shouldn't have sex with each other, and the 14 year old should be charged with rape, let's look at this for a second. You're saying that my dad should be charged with rape. He is, after all, 56 and he had sex with my mom, 42. Isn't that illegal, by your terms? I mean, he's 14 years older! That's way above two years, and you want to jail that 14 year old!

Oh yes, and let's let 14 year olds fuck 5 year olds. I mean, after all, the difference is only 9 years, 5 years less than your parents' age difference!

That's nonsense. Coercion is for 'forcing'. It's convincing. Even tricking. If you tell someone you love them to get sex, that's coercion, but it's not rape. It's trickery, but it's not rape.

Coercion for sex is not illegal. coerce

1 : to restrain or dominate by force
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/coercing

That is REAL RAPE.

even in french its REAL RAPE.

Hehe, temper temper. Everything is subjective. Try not to throw your anger around and stat using cuss words. If you'll notice, I was arguing to it for a 14 and 12 year old. I guess I should have clarifyed on my meaning.

Oh yes, and let's let 14 year olds fuck 5 year olds. I mean, after all, the difference is only 9 years, 5 years less than your parents' age difference!

Correct.

He brought up his parents age.. both his parents are grown adults.

Certainly some people are not mature even in their 40s.. take my uncle.. but he is still an adult. A child is not sexually developed yet, therefore current laws should stand.

I agree.

I might not lower it all the way to 11, though, just the age where one hits puberty, because once that happens, the kid has the equipment to have sex, so s/he should be allowed to.

1. dont believe the hype. some kids are abused yes,but then alot of adult women get abused too. the media thrives on suffering and they dont give you the whole story.

2. the experts know the true story about what causes damage and what doesnt(both physically and mentally)but they have been silenced from telling the truth.

3. pedophile is not the same as child molester

4. it happens all the time with no ill effect

5, some kids can consent

do the research instead of believing the lies.

(always obey the laws in your area)

The difference is that two 14 year olds experimenting with sex has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia.I was 14, and my first was 18. Before I turned 15, I'd already gotten tired of teenage boys, though. I was sexually mature. I was fair game.

Correct.

He brought up his parents age.. both his parents are grown adults.

Certainly some people are not mature even in their 40s.. take my uncle.. but he is still an adult. A child is not sexually developed yet, therefore current laws should stand.

Define sexually developed, please. I agree CHILDREN are not, but what about teenagers? After puberty, they are, by definition, sexually developed.

It's still too young in my book, though 2nd/3rd base (3rd I'd say wait till you're 15 or 16) is acceptable I guess. I still think 17 or 18 is the more appropriate ageWhat does this even mean? Not much.

I agree.

I might not lower it all the way to 11, though, just the age where one hits puberty, because once that happens, the kid has the equipment to have sex, so s/he should be allowed to.

It's called masturbation.

There's no reason to be having sex at age 14. It's still too young in my book, though 2nd/3rd base (3rd I'd say wait till you're 15 or 16) is acceptable I guess. I still think 17 or 18 is the more appropriate age.

This is probably (just guessing) because you're older than 17 or 18.

Many of my friends were having sex at 14. It's when you enter high school, its when you become responsible in that respect. There's somehow a huge difference between a freshman and a middle schooler. Once you're in high school, you're a teen. Teens (if they can get it) have sex.

I got raped then. Horray for me, since I enjoyed the sex.

Same here. I was "raped" when I was 16 by a friend of my sister. A most memorable experience.

I can't believe this...I think that the age of consent should be no lower than 15, and CERTAINLY not 11. Legalise paedophilia?! Are you out of your mind?

This is probably (just guessing) because you're older than 17 or 18.

Many of my friends were having sex at 14. It's when you enter high school, its when you become responsible in that respect. There's somehow a huge difference between a freshman and a middle schooler. Once you're in high school, you're a teen. Teens (if they can get it) have sex.

I realize this and btw Im 16. I really don't care if you're 16, but I still consider people who begin having sex at 14 as too young.

It's called masturbation.dont you go blind if you masturbate before your 18th birthday :confused: :confused: :confused:

I was 14, and my first was 18. Before I turned 15, I'd already gotten tired of teenage boys, though. I was sexually mature. I was fair game.

I think we've got a reason here, folks! Having sex with adults turned you off to teenage boys, thus robbing possibly dozens of growing adolescents of what might have been an experience of a lifetime. If that doesn't merit the present age of consent, I don't know what does.

Think of the children! :D

well im glad to see that essentially no one wants to talk about legalizing pedophilia.

as to the age of consent. i am of 2 minds.

1) these days a 13 year old certainly knows what sex is and is capable of making a decision about whether or not to consent to it. not that its a GOOD idea.

2) parents need help in keeping true adults from preying on their young teen children. at least now they can call the cops when a 25 year old man starts sniffing around their 13 year old daughter.

dont you go blind if you masturbate before your 18th birthday :confused: :confused: :confused:

LMAO!!! I love those old wive's tales. I've heard some really crazy ones that guys try to use to get sex... like "blue balls." That one killed me when a young woman I met in university told me she thought it was true. Too funny.

I think we've got a reason here, folks! Having sex with adults turned you off to teenage boys, thus robbing possibly dozens of growing adolescents of what might have been an experience of a lifetime. If that doesn't merit the present age of consent, I don't know what does.

Think of the children! :Dteen boys can always find a young Hot female teacher :eek: :eek: :D :eek:

I used to get strait "A"s with my hot spanish Teacher...

I agree.

I might not lower it all the way to 11, though, just the age where one hits puberty, because once that happens, the kid has the equipment to have sex, so s/he should be allowed to.
You know, 6 year olds have the equipment to smoke and to drink. Should we let them do so?

Children belong to their parents in many respects, 18 year olds are their own people and if they screw up then it is their own fault. I think that 18 should be the lowest age that should even be considered for this privelege.

dont you go blind if you masturbate before your 18th birthday????? :confused: :confused: :confused:

Ahahaha! That's a good one.

-----

Yes, maturity is subjective. Some people in their twenties+ aren't fit to handle sex. Some people who are much younger than that, -could- handle it.

Either way, people still evade the law and do what they want, if they really want it.

However, if they don't want it, then it's rape. I see that word thrown around a lot here, "rape." That's forced sex. Forced sex is bad. Intelligent decisions at a young age, aren't.

Yuuuk, I feel icky just TOUCHING this topic...

But a question for the original poster, and those who are leaning in towards agreement: You state that since some 11 year-olds are no longer virgins and have consented to sexual intercourse, that the age of consent should be lowered.

Tossing aside all harm and damage to children, how do you show that consent was freely given? I'm sorry, but children/early teens at that age are not emotionally/psychologically mature to be considered adults. They are still very easily swayed by deeds, arguments, or peer pressure that would not move an adult. You see abuse, forced or coercion, or quid pro quo sexual relationships. The bar is far too high to show that said 11 year old knew what the hell s/he was doing when consenting for sexual intercourse and was done so under the same mindset an adult would have.

Developmentally, they are not there, not even close (and before the teens on the board jump at me saying how adult THEY are, no, you're not. Get to 22 and then talk to me, AFTER you read human developmental theory m'k?).

Oh, The Jane Does, Nevada does have legalized prostitution, but we would NEVER legalize this.

Now I think I'll make sure to take a bath after I get home. Eeewwww.

teen boys can always find a young Hot female teacher :eek: :eek: :D :eek:

They're fairly rare, willing ones even less so. That guy in the Pamela Roberts case was one lucky kid.

I think we've got a reason here, folks! Having sex with adults turned you off to teenage boys, thus robbing possibly dozens of growing adolescents of what might have been an experience of a lifetime. If that doesn't merit the present age of consent, I don't know what does.

Think of the children! :DOh, I don't know....
I think I've given more teenage boys the "experience of a lifetime" then your average chica. I've done my duty to the young men of my country... :p
And I still do occasionally make a young guy's day (week, year, decade, whatever) when I'm particularily hard up, or if he happens to be one of the few and far between mature young men. I don't discriminate based on age, or anything else.

You know, 6 year olds have the equipment to smoke and to drink. Should we let them do so?The no more have the equipment to smoke or drink than they do to have sex. Their brains, lungs and livers are far from developed.

Once they are finished developing, go for it!

I think Holland had the most sensible approach (Im not sure it continues to be the case). The system there made it a crime to have sex with anyone younger than 16, however in order for you to be prosecuted for having sex with someone between 12 and 16, the parents or the younger partner would have to press charges, the government could not do so on its own. This means that if you have sex with someone aged 12-16 and both partners continue to be happy with the relationship (and the parents dont choose to press charges), it is perfectly fine, but if the younger partner ever feels like he/she was lied to, decieved, coerced, or simply doesnt like you anymore and wants revenge, then you're going to prison.

Oh, I don't know....HA!, your signature rocks :D

BTW...Yes I am as hard as Hardwood...And NO...You will not have your way with me ;)

I repeat; If you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to shag a 30 year old.

As for the broader question of legalizing pedophilia. I dont agree with it, but I do think that we need to de-stigmatize pedophilia. If pedophilia became regarded as a mental condition no different from schizophrenia, depression, or ADHD, many more people would seek treatment before it is too late. It is incredibly difficult to convince someone they need treatment when admitting they have a certain mental condition is synonymous with admitting they are some sort of evil monster who deserves to be castrated.

The no more have the equipment to smoke or drink than they do to have sex. Their brains, lungs and livers are far from developed.

Once they are finished developing, go for it!

Once Im ready to buy a gun, should I go around and start shooting things at will?

I repeat; If you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to shag a 30 year old.WOOHOOH!!! that means I am old enough to shag Sinuhue :fluffle: :D :eek: :D

I repeat; If you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to shag a 30 year old.

And that's how it is. 18 is the age of consent, is it not, in America?

I repeat; If you're old enough to die for your country, you're old enough to shag a 30 year old.

At what age is a person -ready- to die for their country?

What the hell? There's a thread pro-incest and now there's a pro-paedophilia thread. Jesus fucking Christ people, why don't you THINK about where you want people to put their penises. This is why humans are theoretically sentient. They don't have to just see something they like, and oh stick the penis in it.

As for the broader question of legalizing pedophilia. I dont agree with it, but I do think that we need to de-stigmatize pedophilia. If pedophilia became regarded as a mental condition no different from schizophrenia, depression, or ADHD, many more people would seek treatment before it is too late. It is incredibly difficult to convince someone they need treatment when admitting they have a certain mental condition is synonymous with admitting they are some sort of evil monster who deserves to be castrated.
That's the first intelligent thing I've read on this thread. Thank you.

And that's how it is. 18 is the age of consent, is it not, in America?

It varies from 14 to 18 depending on the jurisdiction.

And that's how it is. 18 is the age of consent, is it not, in America?
i've already stated the ages.

at 16;
you can drive a car


at 17;
you can Enlist in the Military

you can vote


at 18;
you can own a rifle

you can smoke

you can legally have sex with someone over 21


at 21;
you can drink

you can own a pistol

I think it would be a good idea to just put 16 or 18 as the "age for everything". Where I live you can screw when you're 14, drive when you're 17, smoke when you're 18 and drink when you're 20. I started doing all of those things on a regular basis before I was even 16...

And to the creater of this topic: I don't think it would be a good idea to lower the age of consent just so a bunch of pedophiles will feel better. It would be like legalizing murder so "Son Of Sam" wouldn't feel left out.

I think the issue here is really one of consent and not of moral judgement. In all honesty if the relationship was consenual there are very few negative side effects according to some longitudal studies (many of which have been suppressed). I used to be a social worker and have been in contact and counseled teens that were molested by people their own age as well as older men, and its not a matter of age that is mentally damaging but the fact that it was not consenual.

The sad fact is that society has always had blanket "deviant" or "untouchable", for a long time it was homosexuals that were viewed as scum of the earth, that they were ALL prevents that predate on everything sight. This might be before your time but when I was a kid (in the late 70's-80's) homosexuals were less than human, sick freaks that just wanted to spread AIDS and "victimize" as many men as possible. This was publicized by emphasing all the bad eggs and generalizing it to the whole population. Now homosexuals are pretty accepted as human beings that are capable of more than just carnal desires. All this in the span of 20 odd years.

Believe it or not but 30+ year differences in relationships (with the girl being as young as 14) and its not for power (as one poster mentioned) were pretty common for a while, the main reason why they have been given a bad rep partly because the "norm" lost a reference for what was morally unfathomable.

I want to protect me children also, I'll tell them not to talk to stangers and get them a mace when they are teenagers. I also hope that I taught them well enough to not do anything stupid, but if the choice is their's going against it is a sure ticket to them doing exactly what you don't want.

And that's how it is. 18 is the age of consent, is it not, in America?
Depends on the actual state. Nevada the age of consent is 16, unless the person is over 18, and unless that person is a teacher, at which case it is illegal even if the student is 18, if both student and teacher are in the Nevada public school system...

If you can't tell, the laws are really confusing and a result of the state legislature adding things after major scandels without bothing to revise the previous laws.

Depends on the actual state. Nevada the age of consent is 16, unless the person is over 18, and unless that person is a teacher, at which case it is illegal even if the student is 18, if both student and teacher are in the Nevada public school system...

If you can't tell, the laws are really confusing and a result of the state legislature adding things after major scandels without bothing to revise the previous laws.

You're right, but I believe generally it's within that area. Forgiveness for any indiscretions.

... counseled teens that were molested by people their own age as well as older men, and its not a matter of age that is mentally damaging but the fact that it was not consenual.Non-consensual sex is REAL-RAPE...I dont care how old they are...They could be both 70 years old...

its REAL-RAPE.

we dont even need to look at the ages.

if pedophiles are sick and need treatment,then so do gays. so do S&M people. so do people who are obsessed with big tits. so do people who like anything other than same sex,same race,same age vanilla sex.

if you are into anything your neighbor feels is weird or perverse(even if it is still legal)you are sick and you need therapy. get it?

mind your own business....

if pedophiles are sick and need treatment,then so do gays. so do S&M people. so do people who are obsessed with big tits. so do people who like anything other than same sex,same race,same age vanilla sex.

if you are into anything your neighbor feels is weird or perverse(even if it is still legal)you are sick and you need therapy. get it?

mind your own business....

The way I see it it all depends on whether A: what you're into is harmful (moreso than S&M, anyway) and B: its a chemical, clinically treatable disease.
For some these things are chemical or even in the case of gays genetic, for others its socialization and Pavlovian training.

You're right, but I believe generally it's within that area. Forgiveness for any indiscretions.
Generally, yes. I think, though I could be wrong, that some of the mid-west, southern states still have it at 14. This isn't a stab at those states as it's a hold over from the 1800's. Hell, Nevada's was 14 until 15 years back.

Loads of youth consent without actually "consenting."

It's undeniable that people can be co-erced into things, I mean, even adults can be.

It's also undeniable that children are more easily co-erced into things when faced with an intimidating or relentless person.

If we suddenly lowered the age of consent, then all the sick men/women who know how to persuade will have a field day with those that they can persuade or intimidate, without the fear of being legally aprehended.

I would wager that we should leave the laws as they are, any move to lower them will make it appear that everyone else is encouraging the pedophiles to take advantage of the opportunity.

Generally, yes. I think, though I could be wrong, that some of the mid-west, southern states still have it at 14. This isn't a stab at those states as it's a hold over from the 1800's. Hell, Nevada's was 14 until 15 years back.Ok..Ok...

Now go take another bath :D :D :cool: :D

Unless you brought your water-Proof laptop to your Bath-tub :p

Omega, interesting that you brought this up. You're the first person on this thread to express what looks like rational disagreement but is it not also true that OTHER rape victims experience permanent damage?

Interesting that in your own words, while you support paedophilia you are likening children involved in paedophilic relationships to rape victims. And you agree that they experience permanent damage.

That would seem to shoot your own argument squarely in the foot.

Once Im ready to buy a gun, should I go around and start shooting things at will?Yeah, you can go to the firing range or gun club or whatever, if you want. Assuming your country has guns for sale.

Ok..Ok...

Now go take another bath :D :D :cool: :D

Unless you brought your water-Proof laptop to your Bath-tub :p
*LOL* As soon as the work day's over. I get enough strange looks around here without attempting to bathe in the middle of a junior high school. :D

A trip to the local onsen sounds good after this... without the lap top though. ;)

if pedophiles are sick and need treatment,then so do gays. so do S&M people. so do people who are obsessed with big tits. so do people who like anything other than same sex,same race,same age vanilla sex.

if you are into anything your neighbor feels is weird or perverse(even if it is still legal)you are sick and you need therapy. get it?

mind your own business....
there is nothing inherently illegal about having intense sexual attraction to children. as you say, that is none of my business

having sex with children is another story and should be punished by good long prison sentences.

Loads of youth consent without actually "consenting."

It's undeniable that people can be co-erced into things, I mean, even adults can be.

It's also undeniable that children are more easily co-erced into things when faced with an intimidating or relentless person.

If we suddenly lowered the age of consent, then all the sick men/women who know how to persuade will have a field day with those that they can persuade or intimidate, without the fear of being legally aprehended.

I would wager that we should leave the laws as they are, any move to lower them will make it appear that everyone else is encouraging the pedophiles to take advantage of the opportunity.

Or we could take my earlier idea and stop basing consent on age but instead base it on ability to be coerced into sex. Even if its a violation of human rights, human rights don't even exist.

Non-consensual sex is REAL-RAPE...I dont care how old they are...They could be both 70 years old...

its REAL-RAPE.

we dont even need to look at the ages.
My thoughts exactly, the rape is rape, its as rediculous as the hate crime laws.

Everyone seems to forget that age of consent is a purely artifical construct and not a very healthy one at that. What is this telling our children? That their decisions are of no consequence because they are not a certain age? That their consent is not real? I feel that this kind of forced protecivism does our kids far more harm than good, and more a product of religious propaganda

It's undeniable that people can be co-erced into things, I mean, even adults can be.You are talking about REAL-RAPE...I dont care how old they are...They could be both 70 years old...

"Co-erced sex" is REAL-RAPE.

we dont even need to look at the ages.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9647227#post9647227

there is nothing inherently illegal about having intense sexual attraction to children. as you say, that is none of my business

having sex with children is another story and should be punished by good long prison sentences.We all agree on that...Jail/Castration/Death sentence... all look good.

I guess the debate is about until what age should they be considered "Children".

and to be honest I am not sure.
over the years...My opinion has changed several times...

ok, what about the greeks who used to think that its okay for a man to have sex with young boys because it is "educational"?

I always wonder that, did those boys suffer psychological turmoils?

I have a few statements to make on this topic.

1. Mary the mother of Jesus was probably about 13 or 14 when she had him. It was normal practice at that time for woman to marry (pardon the pun) at a young age. So historical precedent is there.

2. However just because historical precedent is there doesn't mean it's right.

3. We should judge what's best for our society today.

Are we raising children to handle responsibility at a young age?
Is it needed? Is it hamful? Balance the need with the level of harm.

It seems to me that today we don't raise our children to handle tough responsibility at a young age (indeed we -wrongfully- seperate them from any consequences of thier choices). It also seems to me that years ago people married (notice the word married- it shows a contract of responsibility to each other) earlier for many reasons that don't exist today. There is no "need" to lower it except for the "want" of certain people. However it does cause harm in some cases (you can say "all" if you want, I just don't want the arguement). Therefore why allow something based on the need of a small population that would harm some of our most needful trusting people (children).

Could we have a happy society with people entering into very young relationships? Possibly if we were different and times were different. I understand the logical equation that got you here but I think supporters of this idea need to look at the big picture.

Loads of youth consent without actually "consenting."

It's undeniable that people can be co-erced into things, I mean, even adults can be.

It's also undeniable that children are more easily co-erced into things when faced with an intimidating or relentless person.

If we suddenly lowered the age of consent, then all the sick men/women who know how to persuade will have a field day with those that they can persuade or intimidate, without the fear of being legally aprehended.

I would wager that we should leave the laws as they are, any move to lower them will make it appear that everyone else is encouraging the pedophiles to take advantage of the opportunity.
Coercetion and deceit are not the same thing, if it is coerstion then it's rape (or sexual harrassment) pure and simple. Decieving someone to get them into bed is a naughty thing to do but not illegal, and yes children are easier to decieve than adults.

Your basis that if there was no age of consent (ie all children were considered human beings) that would cause a surge of sexually deviant (morally) behavior is a bit far fetched. This assumes that no pediphile is capable of any emotional attatchment to the kids they have relations to (ie they are all sex crazed monsters), and that they always express these desires in an unhealthy way.

Just for reference, many people though that prohibition was a great idea also and many moral leaders felt that amending it would result in a society of drunks. For the most part this did not happen (excluding college campuses).

I always wonder that, did those boys suffer psychological turmoils?

Err.. if you look at the history of ancient greece, it's kind of obvious that they did.

ok, what about the greeks who used to think that its okay for a man to have sex with young boys because it is "educational"?If there was coercion it was rape. period.

If the boys were "Children"...it was a crime...even without coercion.

Coercetion and deceit are not the same thing, if it is coerstion then it's rape (or sexual harrassment) pure and simple. Decieving someone to get them into bed is a naughty thing to do but not illegal, and yes children are easier to decieve than adults.

Your basis that if there was no age of consent (ie all children were considered human beings) that would cause a surge of sexually deviant (morally) behavior is a bit far fetched. This assumes that no pediphile is capable of any emotional attatchment to the kids they have relations to (ie they are all sex crazed monsters), and that they always express these desires in an unhealthy way.

Just for reference, many people though that prohibition was a great idea also and many moral leaders felt that amending it would result in a society of drunks. For the most part this did not happen (excluding college campuses).

I understand your arguement but i think the origanal poster didn't word himself very well.

The idea is that children can be easily manipulated into doing something. It is undeniable that sex is enjoyable even to very very young children and that without understanding the full implication of this they enter into a sexual experience they they temporarily enjoy but are not ready for.

Children are not capable of making complete decisions. If we raised our children to maturity faster maybe they would be ready at a younger age. We don't.

I have a child and I understand what I would do to someone who manipulated him or "introduced" him. I don't care how old the person is. Many children are molested by other children ... especially nowadays. Personally I think that should be illegal as well. Though I know many of you will scream at this. I think you don't understand it because you haven't experienced the eventual realization of your actions and the shame it brings. It doesn't always destroy the individual but it never fails to harm.

I understand the arguement that the current age is arbitrary and I agree. But it has to be set somewere. The speed limit is arbitrary but we need them set somewhere. I know your thinking of places that don't have one now but every country has them somewhere ... in front of schools etc etc.

I dont come here much, but this thread sickens me.


this remindes me of some ACLU lawyer after a crack binge.


* vomits on keys *

If the boys were "Children"...it was a crime...even without coercion.
That was a long long time ago in a completely different culture. It wasn't a crime there, then. Not saying whether it was better or worse, I'm just saying... that was a couple o' thousand years ago. In what is now Greece.

Just putting it in perspective.

I have a few statements to make on this topic.

1. Mary the mother of Jesus was probably about 13 or 14 when she had him. It was normal practice at that time for woman to marry (pardon the pun) at a young age. So historical precedent is there.

2. However just because historical precedent is there doesn't mean it's right.

3. We should judge what's best for our society today.

Are we raising children to handle responsibility at a young age?
Is it needed? Is it hamful? Balance the need with the level of harm.

It seems to me that today we don't raise our children to handle tough responsibility at a young age (indeed we -wrongfully- seperate them from any consequences of thier choices). It also seems to me that years ago people married (notice the word married- it shows a contract of responsibility to each other) earlier for many reasons that don't exist today. There is no "need" to lower it except for the "want" of certain people. However it does cause harm in some cases (you can say "all" if you want, I just don't want the arguement). Therefore why allow something based on the need of a small population that would harm some of our most needful trusting people (children).

Could we have a happy society with people entering into very young relationships? Possibly if we were different and times were different. I understand the logical equation that got you here but I think supporters of this idea need to look at the big picture.

Again the mere fact that someone would even touch this subject with a 10 foot pole instantly stigmatizes them. Abolishing age of consent is not because of need or wants of a small population, but to empower our youth and make them responsible for their actions, this includes being trialed as an adult for crimes that they commit before 18.
These laws effectivily sehlter the parents and sent the message that "since you can't take care of your own kids we'll do it for you".

Predators and bad eggs exist all over the place, in all ages, races and our children should be protected against all of them not just the old ones.

That was a long long time ago in a completely different culture. It wasn't a crime there, then. Not saying whether it was better or worse, I'm just saying... that was a couple o' thousand years ago. In what is now Greece.

Just putting it in perspective.


I am just asking if having sex with children is an absolutely evil thing, or is it only because of the culture we live in right now. I hate how people immediately want to trash this topic , I am intellecutally curious about this issue although i am not sexually attracted to children.

Again the mere fact that someone would even touch this subject with a 10 foot pole instantly stigmatizes them. Abolishing age of consent is not because of need or wants of a small population, but to empower our youth and make them responsible for their actions, this includes being trialed as an adult for crimes that they commit before 18.
These laws effectivily sehlter the parents and sent the message that "since you can't take care of your own kids we'll do it for you".

Predators and bad eggs exist all over the place, in all ages, races and our children should be protected against all of them not just the old ones.

I've never heard such pseudo-intellectual leftist claptrap in my life.

Abolishing the age of consent would do nothing to "empower" our youth. It is a perfectly sensible measure in place to protect children from perverts. Moreover it does not "shelter" parents, or send the message "since you can't take care of your own kids we'll do it for you", but is in fact part and parcel of criminal sanctions that society has rightly judged should be applied to depraved sex criminals. After all, parents can only do so much to protect their kids on their own, and this is an additional measure put in place to extend that protection.

And of course people who advocate that this be changed are stigmatized. As would be people -if any such exist - that claim rape laws should be repealed.

Strange enough ...

The concept of peodophilia is quite modern. (Not that I am support it or anything ...)

Today, Peodo is a legal lable for "getting it on" with someone under 16yo. Even that is not really fixed ... some places the age of consent is 13 ... in some other places like Japan Pre-1999 there is no age of consent laws.

Pre-1850s it is not uncommon for girls to be married off at 15-16 (12-13 is less common but it happens).

In a lot of tribal societies (and some modernish like India) 9-10yo girls are married away. Guess what they do on thier weddin night ?

It's an interesting dilemma ... the best way to solve this is to have the societies involved make thier own laws. And for other people that are not part of it to BUTT OUT and leave them alone to make thier own laws.

P.S ... I'd rather have mine 18+ personally. More developed if you know what I mean :)

NO!
We just swung from one extreme to the other. The age of consent is 14 here, and that is perfectly reasonable.
I was a stacked 14 year old who was often mistaken for a university student, and people actually didn't believe me when I told them my age. Not a single person who I can remember telling was not shocked. Are grown men who were attracted to me pedophiles? No.
Do men who only go for 19 year olds who look like little girls creep me out? Yes.
It's not that complicated. You don't have to be 21 to consent to do anything.



Umm, no. Physical development =/= emotional/mental development. 18 at the least.

Umm, no. Physical development =/= emotional/mental development. 18 at the least.

On the other hand age also =/= emotional development. Some people are more mature at 15 than they are at 25, emotionally. Personally, I still support an age of consent license.

I understand your arguement but i think the origanal poster didn't word himself very well.

The idea is that children can be easily manipulated into doing something. It is undeniable that sex is enjoyable even to very very young children and that without understanding the full implication of this they enter into a sexual experience they they temporarily enjoy but are not ready for.

Children are not capable of making complete decisions. If we raised our children to maturity faster maybe they would be ready at a younger age. We don't.

I have a child and I understand what I would do to someone who manipulated him or "introduced" him. I don't care how old the person is. Many children are molested by other children ... especially nowadays. Personally I think that should be illegal as well. Though I know many of you will scream at this. I think you don't understand it because you haven't experienced the eventual realization of your actions and the shame it brings. It doesn't always destroy the individual but it never fails to harm.

I understand the arguement that the current age is arbitrary and I agree. But it has to be set somewere. The speed limit is arbitrary but we need them set somewhere. I know your thinking of places that don't have one now but every country has them somewhere ... in front of schools etc etc.

Now that you mention it I really hate having a speed limit and feel it's absolutly unneeded. I live in FL and I can never even reach it much less exceed it, plus accidents can kill you if you're not wearing a seat belt (THE biggest factor in accident survial) even at speeds under the speed limit.

Anyway back OT, I personally would not be pleased if my daughter was dating a guy that was twice her age (which would be 6 atm), but I would like to think that I informed her of all the risks and dangers that such an age difference carries. In the end it is her choice whether I like it or not and my resistance will only make things worse.

Dad (me):"The choice is yours as it always is, but you should know that in this kind of relationship you will most likily be the one that will be taken advantage of and I'll be the one that has to kick that scumbag's ass"
Daughter: "What do you mean 'taken advantage of'?"
Dad: "well.... umm it's like this....."

(the above convo assumes that she inquired about a consenal relation with an older person, not a "Uncle Willy touched me..." type)
Talking to your kids about sex, and relationships isn't easy but that being a parent isn't easy, but I think it's a parent's job to do the educating and enforcing not the governments.

I am just asking if having sex with children is an absolutely evil thing.YES it is.

Children are like under 12.

it seems to be quite awkward we assume that if the child is a girl than it was forced or date rape {intoxicated or druged} yet it seems to really be different if the chld is a boy {in the case of a older woman boy type relation} because really that is unexplored territory. to be simple im 15 male and straight but there are various things i dont get like really some people as said earlier are far more mature than people older than them could be but there are other things such as drinking to me lets say that should be 14 for drinking beer and wine but 18 to buy and 16 for hard liquor and 21 to buy because there are various things people have to look at like drinking can affect you and possibly someone lese but driving you can hit people etc. so wouldn't it be far more intelegent to learn how to drink as in be used to it but not be able to buy it before you can drive because the amount of drunk crashes for people who have just gotten into drinking is not major but its simple lots of crapp can come from that obviously. now that big part right there was to show the logic for sequencing what should be allowed and not but back to the argument at hand of course the sex-limit is complete crap and really should more or less be removed but there should be laws to harden the penalties against child rape which is disgusting and well the perpetrators have given any right to living they might have had in the process so why keep them around?? I also have to agree with what was said about the oh your under 18 your word and agreements don't count and to go to the shelter thing if you can't stop your kid from some things than
a. you suck
b. you really dont care
c. well all of the above and possibly a drunk wreck but more or less covered

im thinken that covers all i want to say so argue on

Umm, no. Physical development =/= emotional/mental development. 18 at the least.Ummm, no, it doesn't. Since when do you need to be emotionally or mentally mature to have sex? And since when are 18 year olds emotionally mature?
Young people should not be in serious romantic relationships because we are not (most of us) ready to handle that.
I'm more than capable of handling sex. Try and make me wait four months (till my 18th birthday) to have sex and you'll end up unable to procreate.

I'm 17, and I like my sex. You'll do no convincing here.
Sexual maturity comes way before 17 (sometimes before 14), and emotional maturity comes way later. It seems pretty obvious to me that safe sex is good, and long term relationships are bad for people my age.


Too bad your long term partner and you will experience less satisfaction due to your sleeping around ;)

Irrespective of whether I agree with the original poster (and I don't want the age of consent lowering to 11) I have a lot more time for them than the people who react with threats of murder and emasculation. This is an important topic and merits proper debate, not kneejerk brainless responses.

As far as I know, paedophilia is already legal. Child molestation isn't. It's an important distinction. People are free to be sexually and romantically attracted to children, they're not free to act on it. Incidentally, studies show the majority of people convicted of raping children aren't paedophiles, they're just generic nasty bastards. Rape is much more often about power and mastery than sex, and this holds true for child rape too. Studies also show most male on male rape is committed by people identifying as heterosexual, supporting this reading of sexual attacks as not being primarily about sex, but more using sex as a means to another end.

People are too often terrified of expressing views that in any way can be taken to support child molestation. This poster doesn't make a compelling case, but at least had the guts to say something, to start a debate. For this, my respect, although we reach different conclusions. And for all you people screaming 'lock, lock!' you should be ashamed of yourselves.

YES it is.

Children are like under 12.Children haven't hit puberty yet. Women can go through puberty as early as 10 or 11.

Ummm, no, it doesn't. Since when do you need to be emotionally or mentally mature to have sex? And since when are 18 year olds emotionally mature?
Young people should not be in serious romantic relationships because we are not (most of us) ready to handle that.
I'm more than capable of handling sex. Try and make me wait four months (till my 18th birthday) to have sex and you'll end up unable to procreate.


Umm, since the dawn of time? Sex is not about the feeling, it's about the love...which you are too young to truly understand and have. You will regret it when you get older.

Too bad your long term partner and you will experience less satisfaction due to your sleeping around ;)I would never want to be with a man who would think less of me because I am sexually liberated. I'll be completely honest about my sexual history (and the fact that I practise safe sex and get tested every six months), and consider myself lucky if that means that I find out right away if the guy is an ass and doesn't want to be with me because of that. I have friends my age who have had 3 or 4 long term relationships.
I, on the other hand, am saving myself. I share my body with as many guys as pleases me, and my heart with one man.

I would never want to be with a man who would think less of me because I am sexually liberated. I'll be completely honest about my sexual history (and the fact that I practise safe sex and get tested every six months), and consider myself lucky if that means that I find out right away if the guy is an ass and doesn't want to be with me because of that. I have friends my age who have had 3 or 4 long term relationships.
I, on the other hand, am saving myself. I share my body with as many guys as pleases me, and my heart with one man.


I seriously doubt many guys would want to be with a woman who thinks so little of herself as to whore herself out to anyone for a little pleasure. Ok, I take that back....a lot would, but not in a long-term relationship :p

Children haven't hit puberty yet. Women can go through puberty as early as 10 or 11.
And at ten or 11 you are STILL not ready mentally or emotionally to give consent. I'm a little iffy at about 16ish really.

You will regret it when you get older.Wow.
You remember the war of 1812 and you can see the future too?
Awsome.

I've never heard such pseudo-intellectual leftist claptrap in my life.

Abolishing the age of consent would do nothing to "empower" our youth. It is a perfectly sensible measure in place to protect children from perverts. Moreover it does not "shelter" parents, or send the message "since you can't take care of your own kids we'll do it for you", but is in fact part and parcel of criminal sanctions that society has rightly judged should be applied to depraved sex criminals. After all, parents can only do so much to protect their kids on their own, and this is an additional measure put in place to extend that protection.

And of course people who advocate that this be changed are stigmatized. As would be people -if any such exist - that claim rape laws should be repealed.

If I feel that I should be the one educating my own child is a leftist view then I'm a leftist (though I am a big fan of nuclear energy and I think teenagers should be trialed as adults). And I agree with you that children should be protected from perverts who try to force themselves on my children.

But what happens when my children WANT to have sex with people older than them? What if this is purely consenual? Should I tell them that their opinions, needs and wants are meaningless because they are not a certain age?
Daughter: I'm going out with Mr. Smith because he makes me happy, and I don't care what you say.

I could say:
Me: Well you can't because it's illegal and you're not 18 so you'll do what I tell you. You're grounded.

or I could say:
Me: I want you to know that in relationships like this you'll be getting the short end of the stick, blah blah blah. Oh and you're grounded..... till you come to your senses

I seriously doubt many guys would want to be with a woman who thinks so little of herself as to whore herself out to anyone for a little pleasure.I hold the views that I do even though the vast majority of people in our society disagree with me.
I'm also great in the sack.
See? I do too think highly of myself.

I hold the views that I do even though the vast majority of people in our society disagree with me.
I'm also great in the sack.
See? I do too think highly of myself.



Well, that's one thing we have in common :D (the first one...let's not get into the second >.>; )

Wow.
You remember the war of 1812 and you can see the future too?
Awsome.


It's just a hypothesis of mine supported by testimonies from various individuals who were like you :D

Women can go through puberty as early as 10 or 11

Going through puberty does not make you a woman! 10 or 11 year olds are not women! They are children for God's sake!

...

And so our youthful selves are so devoted to the seductions of our false god Freedom that we are entirelly unable to see the consequences of our actions.

I can't help but think the teenagers who are demanding to lower the age of consent do so out of homonal irrationality than anything else.
And hormones are not a good basis for laws or morals.

When you have children you will all understand the tremendous burden of responsibility, to not only be responsible for oneself, but for others as well.

It sickens me how base this society has become.

I rest knowing with age you will see it my way, or perish with your lust.

I'm too freaked out to go through 11 pages of this, but I'm going to presume that someone has already brought up the 'fact' that it doesn't hurt the kid that much in the long run.

I would like anyone who thinks this to talk to my friend J, who was sexually abused 4 times as a child, once with her mother's blessing. If you touch her neck, if you even just breathe on it, she has flashbacks. Tell her that it didn't affect her when you're holding her for 12 hours, reassuring her that she is safe.


Or tell that to my boyfriend, who also happens to be J (Using first initials). His biological mother was a prostitute and he lived with her until he was 3. Her clients would pay extra to play with him. I have a fascination with the male bum. It is pretty and soft for grabbing. Except I can't grab his. Can't touch it. Because he screams in pure terror.





Pedophilia is horrible thing. One could make the argument that both of the above cases were rape, but neither of them fought back. Neither of them could or even knew it was wrong. Both of their mother's knew about, and even encouraged it. Pedophilia fucks up lives. It affects those who escape it directly (me, for example). There is NO WAY you can make an argument that it should be legal. Even for 11 year olds! The first J was abused until she was 14. My little sister is 11. She is not physically or emotionally mature enough for sex. I was 15 when I lost my virginity (closer to 16, though) and I was NOT ready. There's just ... no.

But what happens when my children WANT to have sex with people older than them? What if this is purely consenual? Should I tell them that their opinions, needs and wants are meaningless because they are not a certain age?
Daughter: I'm going out with Mr. Smith because he makes me happy, and I don't care what you say.

I could say:
Me: Well you can't because it's illegal and you're not 18 so you'll do what I tell you. You're grounded.

or I could say:
Me: I want you to know that in relationships like this you'll be getting the short end of the stick, blah blah blah. Oh and you're grounded..... till you come to your senses

That's right, your daughter is a child and should have no say. Is the law overinculsive? Yes, but so what. In that sense it is no different from laws that prohibit the sale of alchol to minors. The small subset that they penalize - if any - suffer only a temporary disablity, and this is far outweighed by the general good they accomplish.

Also you are looking at this from only one side. Society has judged - rightly in my opinion - that Mr. Smith is a pervert for wanting to have sex with your minor daughter, so there is a legitimate societal interest in preventing him from doing so. Either through deterence, or through incaceration if he has already been caught engaging in this type of behaviour. Let's make one thing clear in this analysis. Mr. Smith is a sick pervert who needs to be locked up, make no mistake about it. And in any case, you should be happy about this, because it makes any potential illicit liason beyond your control so much less likely than if these laws were not in place.

I think the key point here is, that regardless of the childs feelings, Mr. Smith is a criminal. Does that mean we are treating the child as less than an adult in respect of his or her wishes? Of course, but then that is part and parcel of being a child in the first place. They are not allowed to vote, buy alcholol, or drive cars for similar reasons.

I'm too freaked out to go through 11 pages of this, but I'm going to presume that someone has already brought up the 'fact' that it doesn't hurt the kid that much in the long run.

I would like anyone who thinks this to talk to my friend J, who was sexually abused 4 times as a child, once with her mother's blessing. If you touch her neck, if you even just breathe on it, she has flashbacks. Tell her that it didn't affect her when you're holding her for 12 hours, reassuring her that she is safe.


Or tell that to my boyfriend, who also happens to be J (Using first initials). His biological mother was a prostitute and he lived with her until he was 3. Her clients would pay extra to play with him. I have a fascination with the male bum. It is pretty and soft for grabbing. Except I can't grab his. Can't touch it. Because he screams in pure terror.





Pedophilia is horrible thing. One could make the argument that both of the above cases were rape, but neither of them fought back. Neither of them could or even knew it was wrong. Both of their mother's knew about, and even encouraged it. Pedophilia fucks up lives. It affects those who escape it directly (me, for example). There is NO WAY you can make an argument that it should be legal. Even for 11 year olds! The first J was abused until she was 14. My little sister is 11. She is not physically or emotionally mature enough for sex. I was 15 when I lost my virginity (closer to 16, though) and I was NOT ready. There's just ... no.
I'm really sorry for what happened to you and your friends it is a terrible thing that happened to J & J and it should not have happened. Their mothers should have protected them from harm and they didn't, such parents should be punished. Please don't misunderstand me, I have a daughter myself who's only 3 and I'm already practicing my "sex speech" with her (can't you tell?) and I would kill anyone who tried to force themselves on her. Things get tricky when she wants to do it though, I can only provide her with information and hope she makes the right choice (oh and ground her, it's my right afterall).

Teenagers will make mistakes and as a parent i can only hope they learn from it, I know I make tons of mistakes that I would not have done "if i knew what I know now", but such is youth. I can only hope that I teach her well enough to make good choices and left her up when she makes bad ones.

That's right, your daughter is a child and should have no say. Is the law overinculsive? Yes, but so what. In that sense it is no different from laws that prohibit the sale of alchol to minors. The small subset that they penalize - if any - suffer only a temporary disablity, and this is far outweighed by the general good they accomplish.

Also you are looking at this from only one side. Society has judged - rightly in my opinion - that Mr. Smith is a pervert for wanting to have sex with your minor daughter, so there is a legitimate societal interest in preventing him from doing so. Either through deterence, or through incaceration if he has already been caught engaging in this type of behaviour. Let's make one thing clear in this analysis. Mr. Smith is a sick pervert who needs to be locked up, make no mistake about it. And in any case, you should be happy about this, because it makes any potential illicit liason beyond your control so much less likely than if these laws were not in place.

I think the key point here is, that regardless of the childs feelings, Mr. Smith is a criminal. Does that mean we are treating the child as less than an adult in respect of his or her wishes? Of course, but then that is part and parcel of being a child in the first place. They are not allowed to vote, buy alcholol, or drive cars for similar reasons.

I see what you're saying: in either conversation i get what I want which is for her to stop seeing this guy and grounding her. But while this makes my job as a father easier, and I could relay on the laws to label Mr.Smith and forbid it I would, in the long run, be doing myself and my daughter disadvantage. I want my children to know why thing sort of relation is dangerous, that I don't think it's smart or safe, in short give them tools to make an choice that is wholly their own.

Since you brought up tobacco and beer, I am of age to buy those things, yet I choose not to. Not because it's illegal (because it's not) but because I know how bad it is for me, not because Big Brother said so.

Maybe you disagree with my approach of raising my daughter (daddy loves you!), maybe it is idealistic but I have faith that she'll turn out as a free thinker that can make her choices and gather her own info and not rely on someone else to tell her what to do.

I'm really sorry for what happened to you and your friends it is a terrible thing that happened to J & J and it should not have happened. Their mothers should have protected them from harm and they didn't, such parents should be punished. Please don't misunderstand me, I have a daughter myself who's only 3 and I'm already practicing my "sex speech" with her (can't you tell?) and I would kill anyone who tried to force themselves on her. Things get tricky when she wants to do it though, I can only provide her with information and hope she makes the right choice (oh and ground her, it's my right afterall).

Teenagers will make mistakes and as a parent i can only hope they learn from it, I know I make tons of mistakes that I would not have done "if i knew what I know now", but such is youth. I can only hope that I teach her well enough to make good choices and left her up when she makes bad ones.


I totally lucked out in the mom department. She never really had a 'sex speech,' she just kind of threw information out as I was ready. A few years ago, I learned that in a study of repeat-offending pedophiles, the subjects had almost all said they targeted children who didn't know anything about sex or their genitals because they were less likely to tell their parents (I think it's in Speaking About Sex, by Meg Hickling.) I gave my 14 year old sister a sex talk, but it was like "I know mom's told you some stuff, but this is more stuff I had to find out on my own." and mostly covered masturbation tips (like using lube) and the fact that if any boy touched her, I would kill him. But yeah. Moms like mine and you rock.

Although it is a conversation piece to say that I'm dating the son of a prostitute and a convicted bank robber.

"I'm too freaked out to go through 11 pages of this, but I'm going to presume that someone has already brought up the 'fact' that it doesn't hurt the kid that much in the long run.

"I would like anyone who thinks this to talk to my friend J, who was sexually abused 4 times as a child, once with her mother's blessing. If you touch her neck, if you even just breathe on it, she has flashbacks. Tell her that it didn't affect her when you're holding her for 12 hours, reassuring her that she is safe."


yes,we get it. some kids are abused. but not all sex is abusive. punish the abusers,not the whole population by making draconian laws.


you may not know this,but there are a few public organizations who are working to legalize it,and there are many more who work behind the scenes.
i give it another 20-30 years before they win. it takes time to rationalize with the irrational peoples. takes time to change popular thought.....

Of course, but then that is part and parcel of being a child in the first place. They are not allowed to vote, buy alcholol, or drive cars for similar reasons.
This is the only point that matters. And this here is the problem with pedophiles and their supporters, they choose not to understand this. A child isnt mature enough to kill their bodies with beers and cigarettes, nor handle tons of metal barreling at high speeds, or choose the president, but they should be able to legally bone a 40 year old whose convinced em they sure are the prettiest girl on the block.

Please. Ive dealt with my own personal and emotional issues of attraction to young girls, and Ive gotten help for it. Its a damn sickness is what it is. Kids can choose to do things like this, and they will, but guess what? Kids make stupid decisions. As adults we shouldnt make it easier for them to make stupid decisions. That only benefits the predators.

but where was this so-called natural instinct back when people were marrying their near pre-pubescent daughters off to men twice their age?
That wasnt done so that the man could have his way with her. It was done so that their daughter would be better provided for and likely live to be at least 30. We also treated women like jack crap back then, as just one example, so I dont really think that those times are the right eras to look to for modern ethics.

yes,we get it. some kids are abused. but not all sex is abusive. punish the abusers,not the whole population by making draconian laws.
If needing to have sex with a kid is how the population is being hurt, then those being hurt are abusers and the laws are doing their job.

ZOMG THINK OF THE LOLIS!!! And I hereby give this thread the, http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v207/njshakuras/pedobear-seal.png

Umm, since the dawn of time? Sex is not about the feeling, it's about the love...which you are too young to truly understand and have. You will regret it when you get older.


Eeeeeeeen, wrong. Sex is about procreation, or pleasure. Both, if you're lucky and you want the former. It's only amusing for the first two or three arguments that people instinctually, without even realizing it, put men above women in matters of sex. I fucking dare you to give me a valid argument that justifies the whole, "If she sleeps around, she's a slut, but if he sleeps around, he's cool" mentality. Some people might villify it, but please, do tell me one example that doesn't involve morality or religion in one way or another, because you're just setting up a strawman so you don't have to give a legitimate reason.

Now. If we could somehow test people's actual maturity, common sense, etc then yes, that could be a perfect solution. So would a way to weed out the idiotic people in society. Blind consumers, suburbanites (not the smart ones), or 'sheep' for lack of a better term. I think it's just amazing from an outside standpoint to think about how the whole 'meaning of life' is to advance your species, but we are VOLUNTARILY putting some damn big stumbling blocks in the way of technological and societal advances.


Knowledge by and of itself is purely neutral. It's the connotations and emotional experiences that we associate with knowledge, wether it's via a 'pre-built' structure like (almost) any religion, or personal experience that screws with it. Like, speaking purely hypothetically, if someone suddenly discovered how to harness vast amounts of antimatter and understood how to use it in everything from basic power-producing to transportation. Now, in a perfect world the person would be blessed for giving humankind such an amazing and priceless advance in technology that would, potentially, save our civilizations (whatever worth they may or may not have aside) from crumbling to dust once fossil fuels are consumed. But, let's see what would really happen.

1) Militaries would try to appropriate this to build upon their power, simply for power's sake without thinking about real-world consequences of who or what would be wielding that power.
2) Corporations, (the natural 'big-buisness' target) would try to buy the person out and use it purely for profit no matter what.

I'm just spouting off examples. But the basic idea remains: Knowledge, used without bias or influence, can singularly make things possible that is only written about in science fiction now.


Not that anyone's going to actually read through that, or if they do it's only to pick it apart and take it out of context so that they can prove they've got a bigger e-dick than me. And for you gimps that hit the end button, yeah, I'm 17. Now go ahead and rip on me for being a liberalistic commie 'transcendence' piece of shit. I dare you.

the magic age of consent calculator (patent pending)


half the age plus seven

ex: a 22 year old can have sex with an 18+

ex: 40 year old can have sex with a 27 year old

not perfect...
but it works pretty well

the magic age of consent calculator (patent pending)

half the age plus seven

ex: a 22 year old can have sex with an 18+

ex: 40 year old can have sex with a 27 year old

not perfect...
but it works pretty well
So... a seven-year-old could have sex with a ten-year-old, but the ten-year-old couldn't have sex with the seven-year-old? :confused: :D

Cheers for this. Even in gest, it's a refreshing change to hear hardcore liberal discourse.
All I have left is jest, Euroslavia has banned me from sarcasm, whit, insult and threat.

yes,we get it. some kids are abused. but not all sex is abusive. punish the abusers,not the whole population by making draconian laws.


you may not know this,but there are a few public organizations who are working to legalize it,and there are many more who work behind the scenes.
i give it another 20-30 years before they win. it takes time to rationalize with the irrational peoples. takes time to change popular thought.....


Wouldn't the circumstance of the mother condoning it make it a wee bit difficult to prosecute the abusers? I am well aware of the possibility that there are people out there who have experienced sexual abuse and either weren't affected by it or enjoyed it. However, the fact that in a fairly small circle of friends, 2 of my closest were severely affected by it leads to the conclusion that there are enough who lives ARE destroyed to have the risks far outweigh the happy stories. If you're that much in love, wait 15 years until you can LEGALLY have sex! It wouldn't make that much of a difference, right?

And actually, I do know about these organizations, and I'm sure you can guess what I think of them. The attraction of children is their innocence. In most people, this manifests as loving and caring for children. In some, it manifests as sexual feelings. In a small percentage of those, the need to act on the sexual feelings becomes too strong to resist. However, in defiling a child, you also ruin their innocence.

As far as "Draconian Laws" and "popular thought," they're there to protect those who can't make an informed decision or aren't given the opportunity to. It's why we have laws against rape and bestiality - or do you think these are good ideas, too? I'm all for anything between CONSENTING ADULTS. Consenting meaning that they have the intellectual capacity and depth of experience to make an informed decision. Adults because a child can't have the same depth of experience and understanding.

Anyway, my questions are: Do you support rape? Do you support bestiality? If you support them, how do you justify that? If you don't, why are they different from pedophilia? Personally, I know I sleep a lot better knowing some 60-year-old man can't legally fuck my little brother.

I totally lucked out in the mom department. She never really had a 'sex speech,' she just kind of threw information out as I was ready. A few years ago, I learned that in a study of repeat-offending pedophiles, the subjects had almost all said they targeted children who didn't know anything about sex or their genitals because they were less likely to tell their parents (I think it's in Speaking About Sex, by Meg Hickling.) I gave my 14 year old sister a sex talk, but it was like "I know mom's told you some stuff, but this is more stuff I had to find out on my own." and mostly covered masturbation tips (like using lube) and the fact that if any boy touched her, I would kill him. But yeah. Moms like mine and you rock.

Although it is a conversation piece to say that I'm dating the son of a prostitute and a convicted bank robber.
:p I'm glad it worked out for you!

BTW I'm not a mom, although I'm doing more and more mom roles.....

On another note, I wasn't aware that paedophilia was actually illegal in Canada or the US. Sexual interference with a minor, or statuatory rape, or child abuse, are all illegal... but I don't think being sexually attracted to minors is actually a crime. If it is... isn't that bordering on thought-crime?

So... a seven-year-old could have sex with a ten-year-old, but the ten-year-old couldn't have sex with the seven-year-old?

its not perfect, but its pretty good.

for the lower numbers, i suppose you could just switch them around.

Hell, an 18 year old girl is easily coerced into sex acts - just imagine how easily a 12 year old would be coerced. They will undoubtedly regret their actions later on, just as adults would. But we do have a duty to protect them from the world to a certain point.

It's social conditioning that makes us regret it, remove the social conditioning and there's no reason to feel guilty about sex.

Too bad your long term partner and you will experience less satisfaction due to your sleeping around ;)

Kegels my dear. ;)

How come it's always women who 'saved it' for marriage you see creeping around the supermarket hunting for someone to take home?

And actually, I do know about these organizations, and I'm sure you can guess what I think of them. The attraction of children is their innocence. In most people, this manifests as loving and caring for children. In some, it manifests as sexual feelings. In a small percentage of those, the need to act on the sexual feelings becomes too strong to resist. However, in defiling a child, you also ruin their innocence.

Defiling? Innocence? No offense, but viewing sex as a "perverted", "dirty", "naughty", "nasty" thing is, quite honestly, a completely archaic, useless and obsolete view, and I daresay one that causes far more collective human suffering and psychological damage in children and to society at large than consentual sexual activity involving children could ever do. If anything, children who participate in such relations, whether with other children or with older people, have been proven to be hurt not by the sexual acts themselves, but by the shame and condemnation by family members and the general public when such acts are found to occur by those who don't approve of them.

I don't intend this as a flame, not at all, but as a commentary to a broad social problem: people cling too strongly to an idiotic ideal of children's "innocence", and it does nothing but damage the children by unnaturally restricting their thought and action to an archaic, useless standard of "decency". It's crippling, it's evil, and it's more traumatizing than many other things that have been condemned in this thread.

Rape is rape is rape. Sex does not equal rape. To say that any child that willingly participates in sexual activity has necessarily somehow been tricked, manipulated, deluded into doing an evil thing...
Well, that's the same thing they used to say about black men who were involved with honorable white damisels. And no, I'm not trying to play the race card; I'm just saying the hysteria associated with child sexuality is exactly the same that was used to condemn gays, blacks, non-Christians, and, many centuries ago, Christians themselves. People need to stop seeing the world from the inside of a little bubble of cultural supremacy. People need to see through the paranoia and hysteria. People need to apply reason, not emotion.

Though, to be fair, there are far more sensible responses in this thread than I expected.

:p I'm glad it worked out for you!

BTW I'm not a mom, although I'm doing more and more mom roles.....


Whoops. Nationstates really oughta have a little thing that tells us what gender whoever we're speaking to is. I tend to get it wrong most of the time.

Rape is rape is rape. Sex does not equal rape. To say that any child that willingly participates in sexual activity has necessarily somehow been tricked, manipulated, deluded into doing an evil thing...
Then show me, reasonably, that an 11 year old can approach sex with the same thinking and willingness that an adult can.

They can't, they are not there yet.

I think people should be discussing this with a little more openness. NO, YOU SICK BASTARD doesn't accomplish anything.

Although I don't agree that sex with an 11 year old should be legal, I think there should be a reform in the system. For example less harsh penalties to consentual child sex and stiffer penalties for rape.


I think most of the people who posted in short, negative ways are actually just sexually repressed themselves. Suck on that.

*snip*

Fair enough. I'd like to point out that in both of my cases, they were affected not by societal beliefs, though. In J1's case, her family accepted and encouraged incest and pedophilia, although I think the neck thing is from one particularly violent abuser. In J2's case, he didn't tell anyone about it until he was 16 (to explain why he was going for STD testing when he was still a virgin), and nobody knew anything but that he didn't like having his butt touched.

I stand by the point that children have not had enough experience to make an informed decision, which is what constitutes innocence for me. I can understand the connection between the black man/white woman thing, but that was a different kind of innocence. The white women knew what they were doing, because they had experienced a variety of emotions. The purpose of a family unit is to protect the younger members from harm, physical and emotional. Allowing pedophilia would be like thrusting them into harm's way.

I'm not saying that children are sexually innocent. Not at all. Children are VERY sexual. They 'show privates,' 'play doctor' ... I used to play 'family' with a girl, where we just lay on the bed and humped eachother. I let a local boy touch me when I was 4 or 5. He was the same age. I tried to have sex when I was 8. I can think of plenty more examples - but they were all between children. Any adult who wants to get involved would only be doing so for their own benefit. Children are not sexually interested in adults, and allowing an adult to take advantage of a child's sexuality would only serve the adult. It would basically be turning children into living sex toys.

But enough of the well-thought-out logical argument - what about the logistics? It would be physical abuse, as well as sexual. Think of the size of a full grown man's penis. Then think of the size of a child's entrances. There is NO WAY they won't tear, possibly irreparably. Although I'm being biased towards male perpetrators. J2's mom used to make him put his hand inside her, and I can't think of an amusing response for that one. Also, J2 technically also counts as a sexual abuser, because he wasn't taught societally acceptable sexual behaviour and figured everyone put their penises inside everyone else, which led to him being caught touching his sister when he was 6 or 7. The social workers figured it was because of his mom's profession, but I still don't understand how they couldn't see that he'd been abused...

Children are not sexually interested in adults, and allowing an adult to take advantage of a child's sexuality would only serve the adult. It would basically be turning children into living sex toys.


Oh really? I could introduce you to a classroom full of 11 and 12 year olds who would strongly disagree. Its not pictures of AnnaSophia Robb you find in their notebooks, its pictures of Angelina Jolie and Paris Hilton.

Homosexuality is regarded as a perversion in many countries that aren't afforded the priviledge of enlightenment and liberalism, just as it had been in the US, Canada and Europe many years ago. I'm sorry if I offend anybody by sounding as if I'm equating the two but fear of homosexuals AND paedophile smack of the same witchhunt tone.

That's nonsense and you know it. Homosexuality is on a totally different level.. it is between two consenting individuals. I'm sorry but a child cannot consent.

Any adult who wants to get involved would only be doing so for their own benefit. Children are not sexually interested in adults, and allowing an adult to take advantage of a child's sexuality would only serve the adult. It would basically be turning children into living sex toys.

I don't see why this is necessarily so. Certainly if you judge by the standards of the objectified sexuality prevalent in much of western society nowdays, this would be the case, but it would not be limited to sexual activity between children and adults. Is the attitude you described not exactly the same as that which is pushed by the current image of sex in mainstream, popular culture? Do you see more than living sex toys for men when you see bleached, fake-tanned blondes with, ehm, "tweaked" bodies in the covers of your average porn magazine? This is, after all, what is defined as the acceptable, normal form of sexuality nowdays.

Pedophiles are themselves already deviants from this cookie-cutter sexuality. Granted, there are those that would take advantage and selfishly, even maliciously use children for sex without taking their interests into account. But if harm results from such a relation, there are rape laws to deal with it.

Continuing,

But enough of the well-thought-out logical argument - what about the logistics? It would be physical abuse, as well as sexual. Think of the size of a full grown man's penis. Then think of the size of a child's entrances. There is NO WAY they won't tear, possibly irreparably.

an adult having penetrative sex with a child would pretty obviously be harmful, as you expose, but, again, this would be done by people who have little regard for the well-being of the child, and would certainly be manageable under rape laws. As an aside, the focus on penetrative sex is part of the very wrapped view of sexuality I mentioned above. Much research has been done on the subject, and, even using clinical samples which generally show a lot of bias toward more harmful offenses, penetrative sex represents a rather small portion of all sexual contact between children and adults.

My point is that rape laws should suffice, and age of consent laws generally serve no purpose beyond enforcing an archaic moral standard. If harm is done, it's rape, and rape can be prosecuted quite easely. If there is consent and there is no harm, it is none of the State's business to govern over it.

If you doubt the fact that consentual sexual activity between children and adults is not necessarily harmful and completely traumatizing, I refer you to the Rind et al. studies published some years ago, in the APA of all places.

To say that children are asexual is proposterous, to say that they are not and cannot be attractted to older people is equally laughable ("oh my GOD Justine Timberlake!!!"), but it is reasonable to conclude that they do not know all that sex entails, and that as parents we should inform them (in a way protecting them against themselves).

I don't think sex is a bad thing, I think it's great, as long as you love the person even if that person is much older than you; hell it feels great even if you just think they are hot. But there is a lot of baggages that comes with it dispite what the hippies say. STDs, pregnacies, or just all the emotional roller coasters that a sexual relation goes through is enough turn someone's world upside down. Our kids should be informed of this information instead of being told what a naughty thing it is, because if it was then none of us would be here.



What was that saying? "Guns don't kill people....."

Then show me, reasonably, that an 11 year old can approach sex with the same thinking and willingness that an adult can.

They can't, they are not there yet.

Well in the US children as young as 10 are murdering each other with guns. One would think sex and drugs won't be too far off. :eek:

Well in the US children as young as 10 are murdering each other with guns. One would think sex and drugs won't be too far off. :eek:

This kind of thinking is exactly what I'm talking about. Why does modern society still group sex along with drug addiction and murder?

This kind of thinking is exactly what I'm talking about. Why does modern society still group sex along with drug addiction and murder?
Well to say that sex is completly harmless/cute is overstepping it (see my post above). But for the most part I agree with you.

The basis for demonizing sex a little puzzling...... it is viewed as a primal force that we can't control and if let lose it would destroy the pillars of good behavior and de-evolve us into apes. It's odd because if it wasn't for sex none of us or our precious morals would be here..... wacky stuff if you ask me, I'm attracted to loads of women that are not my wife yet I somehow keep my loins in check. And this is coming from an atheist leftish hippy.

If we can teach children not to play with fire and to look both ways before crossing the road, surely we can teach them all they need to protect themselves from whatever dangers might be associated with sex.

The basis for demonizing sex a little puzzling...... it is viewed as a primal force that we can't control and if let lose it would destroy the pillars of good behavior and de-evolve us into apes.

Ah, but this is generally limited to Judeo-Christian religion. Anthropologically speaking, the portrayal of sex as a bad thing one is to be ashamed of is a powerful tactic to drive cultural action with: in making it the object of anxiety and building a religion around the concept of remorse, you get all the power of sexuality in whatever course of action you define as the path to redemption.

Not that there is any sort of conspiracy or anything silly like that; it's a matter of cultural evolution through natural selection. Much like a totalitarian government has enormous potential for stability (think kings and emperors) over a fragile democracy controlled by an easely swayed public (think of 1930s Germany's decadence into nationalist extremism and racial supremacy), a strong cultural system is far more likely to survive through the years and catch on like wildfire. The history of Christianity confirms this rather easely, especially when seen as a mutated form of Judaism: while Judaism was closed and kept to itself, Christianism was open and quickly assimilated collossal empires.

Back on topic, it's important to keep in mind sex is not the object of anxiety in every culture. Particularily, in certain branches of hinduist religion, sex is seen as a divine, life-giving force that brings pleasure to everyone involved; not coincidentially, cultures of this sort have a lot less trouble with random acts of violence, widespread mysoginism, and a sense of moral righteousness that cripples personal experience. I'm not saying we should all switch to some obscure religion from south Asia, but perhaps we can learn from them.

This problem spreads far, far beyond the issue of pedophilia.

This kind of thinking is exactly what I'm talking about. Why does modern society still group sex along with drug addiction and murder?

Well sex and drugs have been married since the 60s. As for murder, I think it joined in when crack-cocaine first hit the streets in the 70s. Now all three do a strange sort of dance together in the inner city.

I find it amusing that people who are supposedly against pedophilia use this "pedobear" image to show their contempt for said peoples. They contradict themselves by triviliasing the issue of pedophillia and actually further the cause of pedophiles by giving them a friendly/non-threatening face of this bear character.

This is an odd topic, and an uncomfortable one.

As the mother of a very young daughter my first response is to recoil and call everyone who wants to touch her before she's 16 big ol stinking piles of useless shit and beat their head in. Mother bear response, I guess.

Here in Sweden, I think it works like this. The legal age of consent is pretty high for things like drivers' lisences and sex with adults and etc, it's like 18 or 20. But say, if a 16 and a 15 got together and had sex that's legal. You can't cross the adult age barrier, but if you're both under it it's ok. That makes it so some sick fuck isn't going to take advantage of a 9 year old, but if the kids wanna 'explore' or take high school dating further they can.

Course, Sweden has some very good education and sex-ed and medical care is almost totally free, so even with these kinds of freedoms there's fewer teenage pregnancies and STDs floating around.

Personally, I'd have major problems if my daughter was sexually active at 13. Or 16 to be honest. I'm going to encourage her to keep her virginity the way I didn't, it really is something I regret and would have enjoyed. The person you spend your life with deserves to be the only or one of the very few who has had access to your most intimate regions. If she starts sleeping around before her boobs are fully grown in then what kind of answer is she going to be giving the one she wants to spend her life with when they ask 'so what's your magic number?'

If we can teach children not to play with fire and to look both ways before crossing the road, surely we can teach them all they need to protect themselves from whatever dangers might be associated with sex.
Yes, and what we teach them is NO!

You can argue that if the child is willing till the cows come home, but a child cannot consent to sex. They do not have the mental/emotional capabilities to actually make a judgement on this. They are not physically ready for it either.

The bar to prove that a child readily consented and knew what that meant, knew all the dangers, was not under any infulance when making this decision, is too damn high. Since we cannot show that the child consented, and even you admit that forced consent damanges a child, there is no way to make sure that any sexual contact was handled in a way that did not scar that child.

WTF? Why did this last 14 pages without being locked?


You can argue that if the child is willing till the cows come home, but a child cannot consent to sex. They do not have the mental/emotional capabilities to actually make a judgement on this. They are not physically ready for it either.

EXACTLY.

Yes, and what we teach them is NO!

Ah, yes, teaching abstention. It is, as we all know, a wonderful way of preventing unwanted pregnancy and STDs.

Oh wait.

First Post

If I have an 11 year old kid and you try something like that on them I will break every bone in your body.

I'm so disturbed I feel ill, but rational debate is important so here is my response.

Basically sometimes things are just plain right or wrong. In the case of children, they need to be protected until they are able to make responsible decisions. If they are too young to drive or vote until 18 or even older in some cases, they should not be legal sexual partners until then as well. Furthermore, it shows gross irresponsibility as well as in my opinion an evil disregard for a child's future life to suggest such things.

The age of consent where I am is 16. I have always wondered 'what happens over that day?' Why is it illegal for someone to have sex the day before their 16th birthday but it is just fine the day after? What changes in those 24 hours that makes them more hysically and mentally capable to have have sex? I have the same argument for all age restrictions. I think it should be taken on an individual basis. If one 14 year old is ready but another isn't, then the one who is ready should be alowed to do it while the one who isn't waits.

pedophilia is NOT adults having sex with teenagers

its adults having sex with prepubescent children

as in UNDER AGE 10

so you you want to legalize the rape of 5 year olds??


Actually the legal meaning of paedophilia is ANYONE ABOVE THE AGE OF CONSENT engaging in any form of sexual activity with ANYONE UNDER THE AGE OF CONSENT.

I'm not quite sure where to stand on that issue...

While I do find it somehow preposterous of the state to declare one fixed date as the age of consent, given the fact that most sexual encounters will take place years before that age is reached anyway, I do see the legal necessity of it.
I tend to be a bit of a special case in that matter, but most of my friends lost their virginity well before the age of 16, which is the legal age of consent in Germany (native country). And none of them was any the worse for it.

If it was up to me, I guess I would change the law regarding "age of consent" to the effect that the only person who actually can file a law suit on that would be the person who had sex while not being of age yet.

I know girls who've lost their virginity at the age of 13 in full consent (in most cases the boys were 4+ years older than them) but have later on regretted losing it in such an early age and wish they would have waited at least another year or two.

I had my first boyfriend when I was 14, just about to turn 15. He was about 6 or 7 years older than me. I had no interest what so ever in having sex with him, but I had no problem kissing and luckily he never got around trying to force me into doing anything I didn't want (though sex was clearly in his agenda). Our relationship lasted only a few months as I eventually got sick and tired of him.

Just as a side note.

Basically, I think the age of consent should be around 16 or 17.

pedophilia is NOT adults having sex with teenagers

its adults having sex with prepubescent children

as in UNDER AGE 10

so you you want to legalize the rape of 5 year olds??

I was under the impression that pedophilia was an adult having sex with anyone under the legal age of consent.

Legalising paedophilia is a terrible thing to do!! People should do whatever tey want regarding to sex, but having adults with 30 or 40 years old having sex with a 12/13 year old boy or girl is just sick! :sniper: :gundge:

I know girls who've lost their virginity at the age of 13 in full consent (in most cases the boys were 4+ years older than them) but have later on regretted losing it in such an early age and wish they would have waited at least another year or two.

Uh, they can't consent if the person they are doing it with is over the age of consent, and they are under. That is classified in the US as statutory rape. I find it shocking that this thread has not been closed. I think the age of consent should be 16 or 17. This thread most definitely should be locked. I'm shocked by some deluded individuals on here who want to lower to the age of consent to like 11, 12, 13 or 14.. I feel that's very disgusting. I'm also dismayed that people tried to compare paedophilia with sexuality in general. Paedophilia is a sickness. Yes homosexuality was viewed as such twenty years ago, but there are fundamental differences. Homosexuality is more comparable to heterosexuality (as it is between two consenting adults). Paedophilia is about power and abuse (it can be directed towards underage females or males). The current laws are great as they go after the paedophiles who ruin the lives of children (anyone under the age of consent). I can't see why anyone except the criminal themself would want to strike those laws down.

There is no justification for lowering the age of consent below 16. No justification what-so-ever. The evidence is rather shoddy and so is the argument. It makes me want to throw up.. I'm so disgusted.

Pedophilia (Definition) (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/pedophilia)

I don't think this dictionary agrees with you. And neither do I.

I think both are right, not mutually exclusive.

This is the way I see it.

Here in England the law states that the minimum age is 16.

Now if you want to sleep with some 12 year old - ok...want it all you want - just don't act on it!

My aunt was a victim of this and it has effect her even today...everytime I hear of a "child-rape" I just want to beat the living hell out of the offender!

And if the child - and that word is key here...CHILD - agrees to have sex? They are misguided!

Forgive me for my puritanical mind-set, but I just think the idea of legalised child-sex is so sick.

Pedophilia (American English), pædophilia/paedophilia (Commonwealth English), or pedosexuality is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent children. The ICD-10 (F65.4) defines it as "a sexual preference for children, boys or girls or both, usually of prepubertal or early pubertal age." The word comes from the Greek paidophilia (παιδοφιλια)—pais (παις, "boy, child") and philia (φιλια, "love, friendship").

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)

I think there is a difference between the pathological term pedophilia and the legal understanding of it.

In a legal/social way, pedophilia seems to describe any sexual acts with persons who haven't reached the age of consent yet, and therefore aren't legal adults. That's a disputable topic, as legislation can be changed.

Pathologically, it's attraction to prepubesent children. Legalising this can have severe consquences, although it is disputable, as there are cases in which the children did consent to sexual activities.

Uh, they can't consent if the person they are doing it with is over the age of consent, and they are under. That is classified in the US as statutory rape.
I used "consent" to mean that they wanted it as much as the guy did, that at that moment they didn't feel forced or coerced into anything and thus weren't raped. I wasn't talking in legal terms.

Ah, yes, teaching abstention. It is, as we all know, a wonderful way of preventing unwanted pregnancy and STDs.

Oh wait.
Completely different situations; in the situation you have listed above, we're talking about teenagers engaging in sexual intercourse and the need for them to practice safe sex if they so choose to engage in it.

We're talking about an adult engaging in sexual intercourse with a bloody child.

Since you will not address my question, let me make it plain for you, perhaps then you can stir yourself up to try and explain your way out of it.

A child, a child before the age of 16ish, cannot give consent. You directed an earlier poster to an APA study, I direct you to Piaget, Skinner, and the great minds of human development. All of whom state that children at that age are barely, BARELY into pre-abstract thought, but are still mainly relying on concrete thoughts. They cannot conceive of things they have no experience with, or their consequences. Personally, working with junior high children as a teacher, I see this. My kids can't really think of what they will do next week, let alone 18 years from now. Their time sense is STILL in the here and now; they have no real sense of the future, future planning, or their own life spans. Reaching 16 seems like forever, reaching 21 is an eternity, reaching 80 is outside of their real conception.

Emotionally, these kids are developing rapidly. They are just starting to achieve an adult sense of self, because this adult sense is developing at this time, along with their physical/sexual selves, they THINK they are adults, but they are not. This leads them to try and engage in adult like behavior to show, and indeed, force adults around them to acknowledge them as adults. Because puberty has now smacked them full in the face, they are dealing with emotional changes that they have never had to deal with before. It's rather like being intoxicated at times and all state laws say ADULTS cannot give legal consent if intoxicated at the time.

Physically they are not ready. A girl MAY have had her first period and a boy MAY have started production of semen, but they have yet to hit their major growth spurts. Any doctor worth his or her salt will tell you that the risks of an 11 year old giving birth are phenomenally higher than if she was 16, 18 would be even better.

Morally, these kids are also wavering between obedience to adults because they are adults and quid pro quo as a moral code. They are self centered and cannot really see the probable results of entering into a sexual relationship with an adult. This also leads to the 'I'm indestructible' notion that these kids have. Condoms and birth control are 99% sure, but kids will take that 99% as 100% as life has to be FAIR to them.

I've seen what happens when that one percent hits.

So, you have a child who cannot be said to be physically ready for this. Mentally and morally they cannot think of what may or may not happen. And emotionally they are easily swayed by arguments that would NEVER move an adult into giving consent for sex.

They cannot give consent. It might be wonderful for them if it is fully consensual, but they cannot give it.

Now respond to THAT!

I used "consent" to mean that they wanted it as much as the guy did, that at that moment they didn't feel forced or coerced into anything and thus weren't raped. I wasn't talking in legal terms.

Sorry but this entire argument spills over into legality. And it is very applicable. A child cannot consent, even if they want it.

And thank you, nervun.

An age of consent does limit our rights, just like many laws. The reason there's an age of consent is so that young people can't get coerced into having sex when they can't really decide whether they want to or not - some, but not all, children's psychology is vastly impregnable. The age law isn't a surefire way of telling those that can decide for themselves and those that can't, but it's the best thing we can do, as it's not subjective and can't be argued. If paedophilia were legalized, some young children would be able to be coerced into having sex they didn't want to have, and they themselves might not think they were raped or forced. It's better to prevent the 10 cases of children being psuedo-raped and stop one child who could handle it than the other way around.

This is by far the best statement I read so far.

And thank you, nervun.
Well, at least we finally found SOMETHING to agree about. ;)

Sorry but this entire argument spills over into legality. And it is very applicable. A child cannot consent, even if they want it.
Ok, fine, whatever. In either case, the important part of that whole sentence I wrote was in the ending: but have later on regretted losing it in such an early age and wish they would have waited at least another year or two.

Well, at least we finally found SOMETHING to agree about. ;)

Well paedophilia is quite a horrid crime.. and I'm sure many other people who I bitterly disagree with a lot, will find a lot of common ground with me.

Okay, here's a major problem that I have with your suggestion of letting children have sex if they want to:

If a child is raped, the burden of proof is then on them to prove that they were raped, and not just merely having sex of their own free will.

You know what? I was repeatedly raped by my stepdad (I'm 16 now, but it began when I was 10 years old) and now that I've stepped forward, I'm having a hard enough time proving that it happened, thank god I'm not trying to prove that I didn't want it on top of all that.

I'm going to court this November, and I guarantee that I'll be thinking of you and thanking my lucky stars that the age is what it is. That will be on my mind the whole time as I try to unearth the memories that I worked so hard and long to forget over the last ten months or so and relay them to complete strangers.

I don't know what the hell the age should be, but I'm glad that people like you aren't in the government. Because guess what? This kids that you are refering to? They're gonna screw each other whether it's legal or not. My fifteen year-old classmate is going to be a mom this Christmas. I feel so sorry for her child. His life is gone before it started.

To my best knowlegde, the current age in the United States of America is 16. Honestly, I don't care. I've never even had a boyfriend, so the only way that law affects me is that is says that I don't have to prove that it wasn't consentual. *shudders*

You are saying that these are two different things. And you are correct, they are. BUT I have just illustrated how they tie in to affect each other. How could you tell the difference between rape and consentual sex? You wouldn't always be able to.

Well there is statutory rape.. where the child does not have to prove they were raped. If the child wanted it, and the adult followed through.. the adult can be prosecuted under statutory rape laws.

Belgaer, I wish you the best in court, and I hope your stepdad gets what he deserves for what he did. It makes me angry to hear about cases as your own. I again wish you the best in horrid circumstances.

Yes, I'm glad many of the dim wits here aren't in government, because for the sake of victims.

I'm going to get my rest now. Almost 3:40AM here..

Belgear - I wish you the best of luck with the trial, and afterwards with putting this behind you and getting on with your life.

I see what you're saying: in either conversation i get what I want which is for her to stop seeing this guy and grounding her. But while this makes my job as a father easier, and I could relay on the laws to label Mr.Smith and forbid it I would, in the long run, be doing myself and my daughter disadvantage. I want my children to know why thing sort of relation is dangerous, that I don't think it's smart or safe, in short give them tools to make an choice that is wholly their own.

Since you brought up tobacco and beer, I am of age to buy those things, yet I choose not to. Not because it's illegal (because it's not) but because I know how bad it is for me, not because Big Brother said so.

Maybe you disagree with my approach of raising my daughter (daddy loves you!), maybe it is idealistic but I have faith that she'll turn out as a free thinker that can make her choices and gather her own info and not rely on someone else to tell her what to do.

You frankly sound like a smart person in the way you are bringing up your child - to use Childfree parlance, a PNB (Parent, Not Breeder). Keep with your standards of childraising, they will do you and your child well, and her eventual children as well (people generally raise their children the same as they were raised so anyone who raises a child well is giving that extra advantage to generations after).

:p I'm glad it worked out for you!

BTW I'm not a mom, although I'm doing more and more mom roles.....

Huh? :confused:

In the UK the age of consent is 16. Should probably be lowered to 14 because everyone ignores it anyway and nobody (unless it's an older guy with a younger girl) ever gets prosecuted for breaking it

Wow?

Ok 11 hmmm

While you are at it you might as well
Let them work in factories again.
Let them go to war.
Let them drink.
Execute them for crimes
Three strikes law should apply to them.

Sorry but IMHO a pedophile deserves a sack beating.


While we're at it, dont forget to let them get driver's licenses, be bound by contracts and vote.

Wait-No, thats fucking stupid.

Pedophiles are the underbelly of the scum of the earth. Sack beatings all around, indeed.

An 11 yr old cant consent to what they want for breakfast. Leave it to a manipulative opportunistic pedolphile predator to try to tell people that an 11 yr old can consent to intercourse. funny, they would only be getting the consent of the troubled ones, with low self esteem and emotional problems though.

No-Fuck pedolphiles. Fuck them all to death. And the OP for attempting to make it sound plauasable or normal.

In the UK the age of consent is 16.

There is regular outcry that 14 year olds are getting pregnent or siring children.

What does that tell us? Only that 14 year olds are choosing to have sex and because they are being stigmatised mistakes are happening.

I believe that love conquers all, all you need is love, etc etc etc.

I've had girlfriends 4 years younger than me, gone out with guys 10 years older than me. The thing that matters is a stable, loving, relationship.

Now lowering the age of consent to 11 is just plain crazy talk. I mean seriously, wtf. An adult shouldn't be able to fit inside a 11 year old without some serious pain - and at the age of 11 the child is still in the concrete operational stage (wow I've used that twice in one day, yet when I studied pyschology I never used it) and are unable to grasp abstract thoughts and situations such as love and sexual morality.

Still, I agree with the spirit of the first post. It aint gonna happen in a million years, but in general I think this persons right.

Reduce the age of consent to 11 at the most, end of.
No, Age of consent should be at least 12 years old. Children should reach puberty first. Better if the age of consent around 13-14 years old.
Pedhophilia has to stay illegal.

The reasons why this would be a horrible idea are pretty self explanatory, and have been pretty well covered.
The only thing I pause to wonder is if such a rule, should be mutually universal to every situation.

Im sure there are childen of a near- pubescent age who are emotionally developed or mature enough to have consentual sex with an older partner, but certainly, it has to be an awfully small number.

If such an action could ever be anything but an act of a predatory nature, then I may not be so quick to condemn it, but Ive never really heard of anything like that in the modern world.
Paedophilia is an act of dominating a child, for sex.
Its all about control, and never one of compassion.
Thus....its an evil act.

Children do have sexual fantasies just like adults, and are sometimes moved to act on them with friends, most often its harmless.
Thats about the only kind of sexual experience kids should ever really have until the late teens, I think.

16, 17.

No younger.

Ah, yes, teaching abstention. It is, as we all know, a wonderful way of preventing unwanted pregnancy and STDs.

Oh wait.

Well of everything you have said that is the first thing I really agree with, abstinence only sex education does not do anything to cut the amount of underage sex that happens, it only leaves kids less knowledgable about safety precautions they should take.

If I have an 11 year old kid and you try something like that on them I will break every bone in your body.

I do as well. And I wont even detail what I would do. But it would take a while. And no trace of the predator would ever be seen again.

The age of consent where I am is 16. I have always wondered 'what happens over that day?' Why is it illegal for someone to have sex the day before their 16th birthday but it is just fine the day after? What changes in those 24 hours that makes them more hysically and mentally capable to have have sex? I have the same argument for all age restrictions. I think it should be taken on an individual basis. If one 14 year old is ready but another isn't, then the one who is ready should be alowed to do it while the one who isn't waits.

I know from personal experience that when I was 18 I looked back on my mindset at 16 and could see that even in two years I had changed (keep in mind that my country has 16 as Age of Consent and 18 as Legal Adulthood). Not much may change in the fews days surounding the borthdays in question but it is a rough marker that culture has set for when people have enough instruction and life experience to be about to do certain things.

Well of everything you have said that is the first thing I really agree with, abstinence only sex education does not do anything to cut the amount of underage sex that happens, it only leaves kids less knowledgable about safety precautions they should take.


Yeah, kids are gonna have sex whether we like it or not.
The best thing to do is make them aware of the risks, and encourage protection.

My question is this:

To any parents out there, while the best thing for your child would be not to have sex at all, what if it were "non penitrational fooling around"?
Instead of having sex, per se, what about masturbation and oral?

No one gets pregnant that way.

Reduce the age of consent to 11 at the most, end of.
ELEVEN?!?!?!?! :eek:

I say 13! Just to be sure. ;)

Also, given the hypothesis that any kind of sex between adults and children causes this kind of trauma, can you even begin to equate that with the horrible feeling of isolation and depression that paedophiles experience throughout their lives. Imagine the stigma of it, knowing that just about anyone would want you dead for expressing your sexual desires, which you can do nothing to change.

I'm not even the slightest bit concerned about the feelings of isolation and depression that paedophiles experience. Just like the serial killers need to maim and mutilate-I dont care. Both have surrendered their status as human beings once they have crossed the line from fantasy to acting on those fantasies.
At this point, they need to be eradicated. Feelings? My ass. I dont need even one child as a victim before a paedophiles "feelings" and "needs" are addressed.
You CAN change your pathetic existence. Stop existing. Do society a favor. Do a favor to the next 11 yr old that was feeling down about himself and is made to feel wanted and plied with vieo games and wine-By a manipulative adult FREAK.

Well thats a very good point (the first and main one) and although rape isn't good, what about the people who lose their virginity to someone a year older? eg: legal age is 12. 11 year old and 12 year old. See the problem? I think that each case would therefore be unique and should be treated that way.

Oh god I hope I have a son when the time comes -_-

Dunno, you've got a point defending pedophiles, but why make children the victims of it? They're innocent, why allow them to be lured by some freak into things they wouldn't normally do? An 11-year old usually doesn't even have a sexual desire, not to speak of their sexual immaturity.

That's one thing they can keep the way it is, if ye ask me.

Yeah, kids are gonna have sex whether we like it or not.
The best thing to do is make them aware of the risks, and encourage protection.



Two 13 yr olds having sex is very different from a 35 yr old man having sex with a 13 yr old girl-or boy.

They do have to be made aware of the risks in a more effective manner and they do need more parental supervision and involvement.

I have three kids- the oldest is eleven now and I am doing everything I can to make him comfortable with discussing things with me. I'm his father first and foremost, but trying to be the friend that he can talk about the stuff you usually dont want to talk to your dad about. I've told him I've done it all and could easily help him prevent his problems or solve them if he lets me know.

At the same time I watch and listen to everything. I remember when I was a kid-what I did and when I did it is still fresh in my memory. I'd love to save him some of the grief I brought on myself because I was scared to talk to my parents until it was too late.

Congratulations, I'm actually speechless.

*walks away in horror"

After reading all 17 pages it's funny to see one thing you/we ALL have in common: We can NOT agree on an AoC.

11? TOO EARLY, make it 13. NO, make it 15, NO, make it 21, ARE YOU NUTS, 17 is old enough... (add 17 pages).

And why is that? Different reasons.

First of all, those of us/you who are parents want ... well, 40 as the AoC. Simply 'cause the moment your child starts having sex is also somehow the moment he/she (it?) stops being your child. Having sex is somehow intertwined with growing up, one of those magical steps to adulthood. And who doesn't want their kids to be kids forever?

Second, the whole AoC concept is bollocks. I've seen 13 year old who're more mature than 30 year olds. Judge for yourself, I'm 30. :) Some are indeed "old enough" when they turn 11. Some when they're 13. Some, I wouldn't really trust custody over their own body when they turn 40.

And finally, the funniest part is, at least in my opinion, you're never really ready. No matter how old you get, you think "well, NOW I know it all, now I'm wise and smart, and now I'm really geared to make smart decisions". Bzzzt. Wrong. You grow older, look back and think "Oh gee, what a fool I was! But now, I'm wise and smart...".

Add 5 years and repeat.

Nothing magically changes on that special day when a 17 year old turns 18 (or a 20 year old turns 21...). Still we feel the need to set down a certain age and claim it as the "legal" age. How arbitrary it is can be easily seen by the way how VERY different it is in different countries. If I'm not mistaken, the age range runs from about 12 to 21 these days, depending on what country you look at.

Which automatically raises the question, is a boy/girl in country A, with an AoC of 12, more mature than one in country B where the AoC is 21?

Is one of those countries "wrong"? If so, who sets the standard? Because the way we know countries, they'll claim that, of course, the OTHER one is the one who's wrong.

Whether someone is "ready" for sex is maybe the most subjective thing in the world. It is quite easy, for advocates of either stance, to find examples that "prove" their point, simply because there ARE indeed people who are ready at 11, and other who're not ready at 21.

Thus, the whole discussion is moot. There is simply no "right" Age of Consent. Not one that applies to everyone equally.

i see there are still many ignorant and hateful posters out there who believe all the brainwashing they have gotten over the years. and saying "i will kill that SOB
if he ever touches my kid" is an empty threat that proves nothing except your own lack of intelligence. the world changes rather you like it or not,so hurry up and die with your self-righteous beliefs,that way the next generation can move a little closer to common sense. as for me,this will be my last post on this topic here because its about to turn into a petty flame war.....


"Anyway, my questions are: Do you support rape? Do you support bestiality? If you support them, how do you justify that? If you don't, why are they different from pedophilia? Personally, I know I sleep a lot better knowing some 60-year-old man can't legally fuck my little brother."

1. rape? no,that implies FORCE. get it??? sex is not always abusive.

2. beastiality? (icky!) but hey,to each his own.

3. news flash: not all pedos are old,fat,bald men. thats a stereotype. many younger men and teens are being put in jail for long times for minor infractions. even middleschool kids are being prosecuted for sexual abuse and for making CP now. its insane. and there ARE women who like kids too,so get off your "all men are dirty old bastards" routine.

sooner or later people are going to have to stop throwing rocks at the moon and realize that pedos are not demons. sooner or later people are going to have to look past the political manipulations and come to terms with human sexuality. its going to take awhile because people cling to their delusions with a deathgrip,and most of the population seems dull and sluggish in their thinking.

acceptance of non-violent sex is simply a matter of time...for all ages and orientations. it may not happen in your lifetime,but it will happen,and it has already begun. the discussion on this site is evidence that some people are willing to use their heads. for those that didnt insult the others or resort to religious condemnation and knee-jerk reactions,i commend you. you are proof that there is hope for the future....

G'day......