NationStates Jolt Archive

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.....



"Brainwashing" ?- Uh,No, my simple friend- its a natural instinct in a healthy mature parent to protect their own. You're confusing intelligence with what you think is an open minded approach-an open mind that has been shoveled full of crap.
Empty threat? Hardly. If I ever fail to protect my children from a predator, I will do what needs to be done.
You're moderately dangerous because you're so smug in the notion you have it all figured out.

Final post-right.

I got quite a sick feeling when reading this and made it my piority to vioce my opinion.

In my opinion, DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT LEGALISING PAEDOPHILIA. even if the few paedophiles who do not rape little boys, legalising would have it so it WAS legal for the many paedophiles out there TO commit acts upon minors.

11 is definately too young, yes in some circumstances the child may be mentally and in some cases physically able to consent, But LEGALISING it? this destroys all boundarys of whether the child is actually mentally/physically able.

What many of you are saying is - let every single child, above the age of 11, able to have sexual intercourse with any other person. Is it just me or does that sound insane.

perhaps 14 as an age minimum? the child has to have become, not a child, but an adolescent first.

and as to legalise paedophilia, u *** make me sick :gundge:

As far as I know, Peadophila is already legal. It's just the sex part that is not. Unless the government can already intrude upon private thoughts, those who feel sexual attraction towards children, and do not act upon it, are not breaking any laws.

Therefore, there's a huge difference between "legalising peadophila" and lowering the age of consent. I do agree that the age of consent should be lowered. However, 11 is far too young. Far, far too young. Don't give me bullshit about kids that age wanting it - their minds have not yet experienced the alteration that puberty brings. Sexual desire does not mean the same thing to an 11 year old. Their minds are still innocent, and their desires unrelated to sex. To defile that should be illegal, and should remain illegal.

Innocence == Ignorance.

Arm your kids with knowledge. It's the better weapon against abuse.

Q: Why do bad guys wear black? Why is pink a 'girl' colour? Why is it wrong for someone over the age of 16 (or 18 or whatever) to have sex with someone under that age?

The answer to all three of these questions is actually the same.

A: Because it's what we've been told since birth.

Why do so many people fall into the pedophilia equals molestation/rape routine? The original poster was talking about consentual sex. By getting upset and blowing things out of proportion you just invalidate your arguments.
I agree in some parts with the concept of the original poster. Well, now i am an evil child molestor, eh? But even more i see Aggretia having it right, setting an age of consent will not always fit, it has to be a decision based on the individuals involved.
I had sex with my 15yo girlfriend as i was 17. As i got 18 that would have made me an pedophile in the eyes of the law, right? I cant remember going from a loving relationship with physical expression of that love to pervert interested in destroying a childs psyche overnight. And neither did she.
While being 15 i slept with a woman of 20. I didnt feel raped, no sir. I wasnt taken advantage of, i just had a good time with a very hot woman. Now, she certainly must have been a soulless predator with no regards for my feeble mind.
In neither case someone was talked or forced into something, molested, raped nor anything else. I am a productive member of society, dont have the hots for teens, in fact i like my women around 30, nor am i suffering from a trauma.

sick bastard

of course 15 sleeping with a 20yrold is not paedophilia, and same goes with an 18yrold with a 15yrold.

but these are only differences of 3 and 5 years. I suppose you think it is right for a 45yrold man to sleep with a 9yr old girl???

would you like a 45yrold man sleeping with your 9yrold daughter, that you have poured your heart out upon?? your one little girl who you would swim an ocean for???

how would that make you feel. :gundge:

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.I think Rape deserves the Death penalty.

Once more, then I really WILL need that bath.

It is NOT a matter of if the child gave consent or not. The child is incapable of giving consent. The posters who keep equating this to normal sex between consenting adults are missing this point compleatly (they are very, very carefully ignoring it).

To give you an alagory for this, you go to a bar and hit upon a hot member of the oposet sex who is stoned out of his/her mind or roaring drunk (your choice). You convince him or her to come home and you have passionate sex.

The next morning, it doesn't matter if they enjoyed it at the time, when they were incapasitated they were unable to consent to sex. Guess what, if they feel like it, they are quite able to press rape charges against you.

Children are in the same boat, they cannot give consent. I don't care of they act like an adult, I don't care if they say they want to, I don't care if they enjoyed it, they cannot give consent. It's not a legal point as it is a developmental point.

Yes, the AoC is abratary, and many teens at 16 haven't gotten there yet either, but far more have gotten there than they had at 11.

With any luck either this thread will be locked or dropped, though I'm not holding my breath.

I'm sorry but a child cannot consent.Most will agree with you...

But you need to define "Children" age range

0-21 years old?
0-18?
0-12?

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:Not only in the US...

In Africa...Diamond-Trade Private armies enlist some of them them at that age.

An 11 year old doesn't know what he or she is consenting to. They lack the judgement that an older person has. Maybe some of them will be OK if they have sex at that age, but in order to prevent harm to the majority laws must be in place that keep sex with children illegal and punish those adults who violate the law severely.

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. its 18 or 20?

To be effective... Laws must be clear.

would you like a 45yrold man sleeping with your 9yrold daughter, that you have poured your heart out upon?? your one little girl who you would swim an ocean for???

how would that make you feel. :gundge:

Look, i have no 9yo daughter, not am i 45. But before the law what i did was the same, statutory rape. Which is why i dont think that an arbitrary age of consent does work. By the way, what does age difference have to do with this? If i was 60 and a girl of 15 was willing to sleep wih me, would i then be paedophile? Or already at 50?

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 ithow-bout an older girl with a younger boy...like my hot spanish teacher...

I mean she was really hot....she still is hot.

By the way, what does age difference have to do with this? If i was 60 and a girl of 15 was willing to sleep wih me, would i then be paedophile? Or already at 50?

Simple answer, yes you would be a paedophile. But as you may not have noted about my first post, is where i said perhaps age 14 is where an adolescent may be mentally fit to consent to sex with an older partner. It is my belief that in the case of a 15yr old wanting to sleep with a 60yrold, one can only assume that the 15yrold would know what she is doing. However, if it was the other way around, and the 60yrold was having sexual thoughts about a 15yrold, and the 15yrold did not approve, nor make any sort of hint that she did approve, then i would consider that paedophilia.

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?.Actually I am sure I will want My kids to have sex as LATE AS POSSIBLE...so I demand that the age is set at 21...just like alcohol, smoking, and gambling.

Laws should be clear and simple...we set the magic number to 21...for all adulthood "sins".

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 ithow-bout a woman with a younger boy...

:mad: The entire thought process going on here is so disgusting and I really can't believe that although people want to legalize pretty damn much everything that the thought would actually go so far as to go to legalizing sex with children. People really cannot claim that any child is "in the right mindset" with something as serious as this. Never mind when it involves teenagers with others their own age but if anyone wants to say that a 15-yr old girl would fully understand what going with a 30-yr old man is if really deluding themselves. I suppose that the guy can slowly seduce the girl as that is what kiddie rapists do. Find children who are not receiving the attention they need so they take over in their lives. These bastards make children think they love them. I really don't care if the arguement only goes to children who are teenagers the concept is the same. If I had a young daughter affected by such a monster then it would be a situation such as this that would definetly be good for guns to be illegal for I would kill him. Which is really what we should do with all rapists of any kind if we are going to execute anybody. Give them the needle and say "bye, bye you sick fuck!" :mad:

I suppose that the guy can slowly seduce the girl as that is what kiddie rapists do.
You know that you are enraged and beyond reasonable discussion, dont you? Feel free to add in some sniper smilies, so that it is even easier to pick out your post as not readworthy.
How on earth can you combine slow seduction and rape in one sentence and believe what you say? Do you even know what rape is?

Never mind when it involves teenagers with others their own age but if anyone wants to say that a 15-yr old girl would fully understand what going with a 30-yr old man is if really deluding themselves. let me get this straight,
A 15 years old girl can "fully understand what is going on" only if the boy is her own age ?
But...if the Boy is 19 or 21 or whatever...all of a sudden she can NO longer "fully understand what is going on"

your daughters will never believe one word you are saying...You should stop talking to them like children...

Tell them about AIDS and pregnancy...make sense...

You know that you are enraged and beyond reasonable discussion, dont you? Feel free to add in some sniper smilies, so that it is even easier to pick out your post as not readworthy.
How on earth can you combine slow seduction and rape in one sentence and believe what you say? Do you even know what rape is?

Are you expecting the climb through the window kind of guy? The jerk needs to get the kid to LIKE him so he can do what he wants. No matter the age.

let me get this straight,
a 15 years old girl can "fully understand what is going on" only if the boy is her own age ? but if the Boy is 19 or 21 or whatever...all of a sudden she can NO longer "fully understand what is going on"

your daughters will never believe one word you are saying...You should stop talking to them like children...

Tell them about AIDS and pregnancy...make sense...

People try to make an arguement that it is alright for kids to have fun with kids their own age. if both are under 18 then as far as I know it is legal. I hardly approve but if it's legal then its not rape. I didn't mean people in their low 20's.

The jerk needs to get the kid to LIKE him so he can do what he wants.
No, you are wrong as can be. With rape (forced intercourse) there absolutely is no need to be liked on part of the offender. That is like saying a robber needs to build up a relationship to you in order to take you money.

It is truely disturbing how many people seem to feel this is ok, justifying it as an act of love and willing consent from both the adult and child. The arguements remind me of the NAMBLA episode of south park, but are truely horrifying as there are evidently a number fo people who can see nothing wrong with abusing children.
A child cannot give informed consent, they do not have the emotional or social knowlege to make an informed choice. They are highly vulnerable to an adults authority and do not often have the emotional and mental ability to resist. 14/16/18? The debate is a difficult one, and for any age there will be those who will be more mature and those who will be less mature. At 14 some will be emotionally able to have sex, while at 16 others will not, the point is that the line should be drawn at a point where the majority who have crossed it are mature enough to make their choices the line differs from country to country but generally is laid across the mid-late-teen range. OK - some of you may have been mature enough at 12, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

"But they enjoy it"... A date rape victim who is barely conscious due to alcohol (which they may have willingly drunk) may also physically enjoy the act at the time, but this does not mean they gave consent and hence it is rightly rape. Likewise a child may physically gain pleasure from the act of sex, but this is a long way from them giving consent.

Sex with a child is rape whatever way you cut it, not because the child was forced but because they do not have the emotional maturity to give consent.

And I say again, if any of you try to *express your love* with an eleven year old child of mine I will break every bone in your body and not lose a moments sleep over it.

Give them the needle and say "bye, bye you sick fuck!" :mad:

Wow! I love your attitude towards this thread :) .

I have re-considered my standing on this subject, and I have decided to raise my age minimum to 16.

A person should only have sex when they are at an age where they can deal with the outcomes. One should consider having sex as an attempt at having a child. When one is fully capable of supporting the outcomes, one is truely ready to have sexual intercourse, and subsequently ready to have sex with an older partner.

But why you may ask, did I set my age opinion at 16? This is not how i would have liked it, but considering todays youth, where the age whereat a teenager begins sexual contact earlier, than where they would like to have a child.

I would have to say, 15 would be an age where the adolescent should be allowed to explore sexual contact with a member strictly of the same age group; a boyfriend/girlfriend. 15 is an age where sexuality begins, no matter how late we would all like our children to start, this is the age where it happens. Age 15 also gives the person experience with sexuality, so when the time comes for seriousness, that person is a little more prepared.

Age 16 - minimum age for sexual activity with a partner older than he/she is.
Age 15 - minimum age whereat sexual contact is allowed with a partner strictly of the same age group.

unchangeable attraction towards children
Oh it's changeable all right. It changes as soon as you put a bullet in their head. I don't have kids yet, but if I ever caught a pedophile molesting one of my kids, I'd introduce him (or her) to the business end of my shotgun and wouldn't think twice. I'd be sleeping like a baby in my jail cell that night knowing I did the right thing for the good of society.

I'd be sleeping like a baby in my jail cell that night knowing I did the right thing for the good of society.
If ever I'm on the jury dont worry about jail, there is no way you'll get found guilty.

If ever I'm on the jury dont worry about jail, there is no way you'll get found guilty.

I hear that ;)

Quick question:

Would it still be paedophilia when you lower the age of consent?

I'd be sleeping like a baby in my jail cell that night knowing I did the right thing for the good of society.
Well, sleep like a baby, you argue as one as well. But you would be on death row.

If ever I'm on the jury dont worry about jail, there is no way you'll get found guilty.
Same here. Jury nullification can be a very good thing and should be used more often.

If ever I'm on the jury dont worry about jail, there is no way you'll get found guilty.

Same here. Mistrial for sure!

Quick question:

Would it still be paedophilia when you lower the age of consent?
Yeah. Pedophilia is a psychological term, not a legal one if I'm not mistaken, so changes in the law have no impact on the definition of pedophilia.

Quick question:

Would it still be paedophilia when you lower the age of consent?
Lower the age to what? 11? Let's take that example. An eleven year old is still a child. S/he is not yet fully developed physically. So my answer to your question would be yes.

would you like a 45yrold man sleeping with your 9yrold daughter, that you have poured your heart out upon?? your one little girl who you would swim an ocean for???

how would that make you feel. :gundge:

How it would make you feel is far removed from whether or not they can give informed consent.

The child is incapable of giving consent.

I hope you don't mind that I cut your posting down to this one statement, since it is the cornerstone of your statement: It is rape because the child cannot give consent.

What you fail to produce is some proof for this claim. Why is the child unfit to make the decision? Because s/he doesn't have the necessary information? Then provide this information! It is your responsibility, as a parent, to prepare your children for life. Not to shelter them from it and everything.

I see it every day. People turn 18, are allowed to vote, to drive cars, to bear arms and yes, to have sex. And some of them have no idea what life is about. Pampered and sheltered, held under the cheese cover by overprotective parents, and then, BAM, suddenly they're an adult. Unfit to smell a rat when they're hit on by a con man. Unable to discriminate between a scam and a good offer.

But maybe that's what's wanted in corporate America. Oversheltered, pampered people who can't think for themselves, so they willingly and gladly hand over that burdon to someone else.

What you fail to produce is some proof for this claim. Why is the child unfit to make the decision? Because s/he doesn't have the necessary information? Then provide this information! It is your responsibility, as a parent, to prepare your children for life. Not to shelter them from it and everything.

Of everything on this thread this is possibly the sickest comment I have seen. And thats saying something.
So pedophiles are hard done by in having to groom their victims, so now parents should do it for them. It is apparently a parents responsibility to groom a child for abuse.

First of all i just would like to say that the first post and many other things said here scare the hell out of me!
Second if what i say has already been said, well sorry for that, but there was so much nonsense in the thread that i skipped much of it.
Third i always like to hear (or read in this particular case) the comments of americans when it regards children and sex. They forbid children and teenagers for that matter from smoking, drinking, seeing violence and sex (even if it's just some laddie with less cloth on) etc etc. Yet the allow children to somehow get a shotgun and go to school and kill his/her fellow collegues.

Now as for the topic on hands, i believe you are mistaking some concepts. When someone forces someone else to have sexual relations he or she is RAPING he or her. It does not matter if it is a child or not. It is a rape! Plain and simple. If it's a child it is indeed worse for obvious reasons which i'm not going to state here. As for everything else, it is my opinion that EFFECTIVE sexual education at school can prevent all those problems associated with little girls having sex and getting pregnant. As for an adult having sex with an 11 year old boy or girl, ish! Even the thought makes me sick. But a 13/14/15 year old, depending if it is a boy or girl, is neither stupid nor dumb and knows damn well what sex is! And if he or she had the proper sexual education at school then it wouldn't be a problem! And they wouldn't even consider having sex with an adult because they would be looking at people within their respective ages! Finally for those who like little boys and girls, I would recommend an appointment with your psychiatrist! YES, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PROBLEM!

Of everything on this thread this is possibly the sickest comment I have seen. And thats saying something.
So pedophiles are hard done by in having to groom their victims, so now parents should do it for them. It is apparently a parents responsibility to groom a child for abuse.
If i believed in God i would pray for brains. :rolleyes:
What Hinterlutschistan said is that parents should inform their children about issues like sex, so that they can make an informed decision. Not a "No, my mom says i am not old enough" nor a "Sex, what is that?" but a "I'd rather do it with someone of my age, for whom it also is the first time." or "Get lost, you pervert, i am saving myself for marriage".
Keeping several topics away from children is not saving them. It is keeping them stupid and hoping for the best. A child that never ever even knew about sex but believes in the cabbage patch can be abused as well, it is most likely even more naive and therefore easier prey.

What a weird fuckin' thread...

Ok, so let me toss out my thoughts on paedophilia (not something one my list of things I expected to do today).

I think the is massive apprehension about sex today, especially in the US. Really, we're a bunch of crazy bastards. Think about it: Terminator can be aired on daytime television. We can watch the governator gun down cops, get set on fire, blow up office blocks. You can see people get graphically hung, shot, stabbed, eaten, etc. but if those bastards show a nipple, all hell breaks loose. Its dirty and gross and "oh god think of the children!." We have more stringent judgements of sex then we do of genocide. Its rediculous... really.

Obviously, I'm not a stringent conservative. How can you tell? Because I like boobies, and I'm not afraid to admit it. Nor am I intimidated by women in a really serious way. I don't go to strip clubs because I think I should talk to my women, and don't fixate on the object. Why? Because I'm not fucking crazy. A lot of (men in this case, I can't really speak to the perspective of a women) people are so freaked out by sexuality, that they go for the least "dangerous" route. Porn doesn't judge you, children are less threatening than a real woman. Its sick and wrong, and the person behind it is a sad pathetic creature. The fact is, that niether party in a case of paedophilia can consent. The child obviously is being taken advantage of, and the adult is completely unable to relate to the object of his/her desire or the rest of society.

Personally, whether I'm after a fling, or a long term thing, I'm going to want to be with someone that will challenge me as a person, or at least be someone I can talk to in the morning. But then, most men are so incredibly possessive of thier women that it can't be anything BUT insecurity. It makes us an agrivatingly prudish and stupid people. Our collective attitude towards sex is probably the single most unhealthy thing about our society. We spend so much time keeping these impulses in check, that its bound to happen that some of our members find unhealthy and/or unnatural outlets for them. Paedophilia is not a "natural attraction." Paedophilia is a sickness... it is an example of an extreme social disease that begins with partents beating their kids for discovering that the little dangly bits feel good.

Of everything on this thread this is possibly the sickest comment I have seen. And thats saying something.
So pedophiles are hard done by in having to groom their victims, so now parents should do it for them. It is apparently a parents responsibility to groom a child for abuse.

Don't twist my words around, please.

Ok, let me elaborate a bit to make it a little easier to understand.

Most cases of abuse aren't the dirty old man in a dark corner snatching your girl. In an overwhelming amount of abuse cases, it's a person the child trusts and has faith in. A parent, a relative, a close family friend.

Who can a child turn to if one of those simply overpowers the child with guile, guilt, shame and threats? If you don't tell your kids about sex, you are actually inviting such a situation to happen. The child has no inherent defenses against abuse. None at all. Sheltering your child and trying to block out the mere possibility, or just warning them about strangers and candy isn't gonna do the trick.

A child who doesn't know about sex, or only knows "it's a bad touch" is going to feel guilty when it happens, even try to hide it and actually PROTECT his or her abuser, simply because s/he feels that S/HE did something wrong, after all, "it's a bad touch". And s/he let it happen.

Simply saying "DO NOT DO IT!" isn't cutting it. Kids are quite logical, they do understand and they can follow reason. Information is the best shield you can give your children against abuse.

snip.
I took it as : So you say a child cannot give consent...prove they can't give consent and then inform them so they can give consent.

Which given some posts so far seemed like a reasonable way to take it.

I see your next post - inform them so they can say "NO" to someone and to spot a predator and also so they trust their parents to tell them if someone is grooming them.

Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Now this is one odd thread.

I took it as : So you say a child cannot give consent...prove they can't give consent and then inform them so they can give consent.
Dont think the worst of other posters, try the best first. ;)

Dont think the worst of other posters, try the best first. ;)

Too late!

Dont think the worst of other posters, try the best first. ;)
Normally do, apologies again - i put it down to seeing too many posts on here advocating twisted reasons why children can give consent.

What are we supposed to do with pædophiles, though? Just shoot them all for their sexual desires?

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.

11 is too young. Make it 15.

No, I don't think 50 year old men should be allowed to have sex with 12 year old girls. Anyone with an ounce of sense can see how utterly absurd the original posters idea is and I find it difficult to beleive they're not a pedophile themselves.

I was under the impression that pedophilia was an adult having sex with anyone under the legal age of consent.
pedophilia is a psychological definition not a legal one. as has been pointed out, its not illegal to be a pedophile, its illegal to have sex with anyone under the age of consent.

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.

Believe it or not, some of them aren't. Some children have parents who make sure their kids are watching things that are age-appropriate.

Here's my two cents:

As previous posters (sorry you guys, I don't remember your names) pointed out, there is a very, very big difference between "lowering the age of consent" and "pedophilia". "Pedophilia" is, literally, having a sexual attraction to a child, as in, prepubescent, less than 13 years old.

(Which is sick, by the way. If God/nature/evolution had intended for people that young to breed, puberty would have hit them earlier.)

As for lowering the age of consent, Aggretia (I believe, post #26) mentioned maturity as criterion for when someone should be able to offer consent.

I see the reasoning behind this: there are many teenagers who, I believe, will be more mature than some adults. The problem is that we have no objective way to evaluate this. Not yet, anyway, but not within our lifetimes for sure.

I can at least take comfort in the fact that there are so many people who are so vehemently in opposition to the notion of legalizing pedophilia. A very warm thanks, guys: you have restored my faith in humanity.

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.

Hot damn, the Dutch have everything.

What are we supposed to do with pædophiles, though? Just shoot them all for their sexual desires?
Of course not. You shoot them only if they act on those desires. Or better yet, lock them up for life. Further harm is prevented and the state doesn't have blood on it's hands.

an 11 or 14 or 16 year old is not old enough to give consent because their mind has not fully developed. You can look old enough but your mental and emotional state is not ready to deal with the new stresses involved with sex. Children can't give consent for the same reasons drunk, drugged and mentally disabled people can't.

Of course not. You shoot them only if they act on those desires. Or better yet, lock them up for life. Further harm is prevented and the state doesn't have blood on it's hands.the state already has a sea of Blood on it's hands anyways...

execute them....save taxes.

But clearly define the age range for "Children"...before you start executing the evildoers.

an 11 or 14 or 16 year old is not old enough to give consent because their mind has not fully developed. You can look old enough but your mental and emotional state is not ready to deal with the new stresses involved with sex. Children can't give consent for the same reasons drunk, drugged and mentally disabled people can't.18, 19, 20...still not mature enough for Sex...or alcohol

Interesting thread... the conclusion is obvious:

For everybody's safety, sex should be outlawed!!!

Believe it or not, some of them aren't. Some children have parents who make sure their kids are watching things that are age-appropriate. Also, there's a wide difference between knowing about "uninnocence" and being innocent. I know about the massacres in Darfur and it's shocking, but it's a far cry from being massacred with my city.

the state already has a sea of Blood on it's hands anyways...

execute them....save taxes.

But clearly define the age range for "Children" before you start executing the evildoers.
My scale would go like this. Under 14, child rape, mandatory life in prison. Between 14 and 16, statutory rape, treated the same way we treat statutory rape now. Over 16, legal, but a bit creepy in some cases.

My scale would go like this.Ok...but its an hybrid scale. It gives me 2 answers....15 and 17

I need clarification... They are no longer "Children" at 15 or at 17.

My scale would go like this. Under 14, child rape, mandatory life in prison. Between 14 and 16, statutory rape, treated the same way we treat statutory rape now. Over 16, legal, but a bit creepy in some cases.
Mostly agree, I think there should be a provision for adolescents in the same age range however - as there is a wold of difference between two adolescents with similar maturity and life experience and emotional development having sex and a 30 year old being involved with a 13 year old.

maybe when one third of the population is in prison for life on minor sex offenses people will wake up and realize hysteria is not the best thing for kids,society,or the economy.....

Hey, I knew ladies in college who were coerced. Let's raise the age of consent to 35. We should also raise the legal age to 35 for marriage, alcohol, cigarettes, signing legal forms, renting R-rated movies, holding a job, driving, moving out of the parents' house, gun ownership, piloting an airplane, and military service. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!

:rolleyes:

At some point, sheltering people from the world has to take a back seat to the rights of people who don't want to be sheltered. I don't think an age-based system is really the best answer. My idea:

When you feel you're ready to have sex, you go to the courthouse to declare your intent. They ask you a series of questions and, if they determine you're mature enough to understand your decision, you get a little tatoo on the back of your hand. This eliminates the problem of the 11-year old that's ready and the 16-year old that's not.

Ok...but its an hybrid scale. It gives me 2 answers....15 and 17

I need clarification... They are no longer "Children" at 15 or at 17.
They're children under 14 and in a transitional period between 14 and 16 on my scale.

child rape, mandatory life in prison.child rape deserves nothing less than Death Penalty.

Suggesting that society change its views on paedophilia is absolutely ridiculous. A child is not mature enough to consider all the ramifications (not just sexual, but emotional) of sexual relationships. That's why laws are in place to protect them from such contact, particularly if and when it's done by someone in a position of authority, like an adult.

I have no problems with consensual sexual relations between two unrelated adults, but the key there is adults. If you want to have sex with children, you have problems. If you want to advocate for people who want it, I have to question your motivation for doing so.

child rape deserves nothing less than Death Penalty.
American-style death penalty would take too long and cost taxpayers too much.

child rape deserves nothing less than Death Penalty.
I think that would come pretty swiftly (and unpleasently) if they were housed with the main prison population...

child rape deserves nothing less than Death Penalty.
I'm morally opposed to the death penalty the same way some people are morally opposed to abortion, but still pro choice. I don't think it's right to kill a person who's already in custody, and therefore harmless, but if the majority support the death penalty I'm not going to force my beleifs upon them.

American-style death penalty would take too long and cost taxpayers too much.Are you nuts?

Life time in prison cost much more.

Are you nuts?

Life time in prison cost much more.
Not if "Life" is two days in prison before the main prison population finds out what they are there for.

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.....

Yeah......dude...thats just..well dude its sick.."legalise pedophilia"..olny a pedo would say that.

Are you nuts?

Life time in prison cost much more.
You may not be aware.. but:
Natural causes are the principal cause of death on California’s death row. About 650 people, we have been averaging since 1992 with our first execution, fewer than one a year.
(quote from http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?eventID=107)

I have to say, I applaud the original poster. Paedophilia is a taboo topic, and many have expressed that they aren't prepared to even discuss it, as it's 'disgusting'. I agree - the thought of little children being abused, either physically, mentally or sexually - is extremely upsetting.
But is the answer really to not talk about it? To not discuss the issue? How on EARTH does that help?! People in Britain will stone the houses of *suspected* paedophiles... I won't even go into mob mentality.
However, what I do want to say is that there have been massively successful programmes in preventing paedophiles from re-offending on release from prison. But these are being closed down, despite their success. Why? Because who wants to spend tax payers money on paedophiles...
It's a sad world when topics are closed from discussion and ignored by society as they're too unsavoury to contemplate. It's a sure fire way to ensure that those suffering continue to do so, in my opinion.

*disclaimer- author of this post has only read the first two pages and the last one of this thread. plaese excuse poosible repetition of earlier posts on this basis.


i rhink that this topic's title was more chosen to attract attention than to reflect the author's opinion.
it is not about legalising pedophelia as in legalising child rape.

what it basically does, it is posing the question of whether people/children under the consent age are emotionally able to have consenting sex and/or to build sexual experience into their future life in a healthy way.

and i think they are. i do think their is a limit, though i'm not 100% sure where to set it, but i wouldn't say, e.g., that a five year old could do that. secondly, i'm also aware of the thin line between "consenting" and "being talked inot thinking they consent" with children/teenagers.

but then again, it is my belief that teenagers can genuinly agree and consent with sex, also sex with adults. (now, before anybody tries to shoot me for being a pedophile myself, i'm 19)

in my country, the law states that people between 14 to 18 can legally have sex among themselves but if you're 19up you cannot have sex with them. from 19 on, you're fully of consent age.

i'm still not totally happy with that one for i don't think that a 17year old is not mature enough to have consenting sex with a 20 year old, and i also think that if you're 12 and wat to ahve sex with your 13year old grlfriend you should be alloweed to, but i guess that this way of having a "limited consenting age range" earlier and then a definite, full consent age is basically a better idea than a high condsenting age and that's it.

When you think about it, it's all very silly. This whole age of consent thing has nothing to do with what alot of you are talking about. Criminals, and perverts won't give a rat's ass if the laws are there or not, hell murder is illegal and people still do it.

The real issue is if it is between two people who want to be together that are of distant ages. You can't just assume that the child had no say in the matter just because they are not of age.

When you think about it, it's all very silly. This whole age of consent thing has nothing to do with what alot of you are talking about. Criminals, and perverts won't give a rat's ass if the laws are there or not, hell murder is illegal and people still do it.

The real issue is if it is between two people who want to be together that are of distant ages. You can't just assume that the child had no say in the matter just because they are not of age.
Sure we can. We assume a child has no say on whether or not to get immunized against diseases, we assume a child has no say on whether to get drunk or not, we assume a child can't drive a car. Why? To prevent great harm to individuals and to society as a whole. Maybe some kids are precocious enough to handle sexual consent, but most aren't. By keeping it illegal you protect the ones who aren't ready from being coerced into sex by an adult and dealing with the consequences for a lifetime.

Criminals, and perverts won't give a rat's ass if the laws are there or not, hell murder is illegal and people still do it.


They will once they are caught and released into general population.

oK, so after reading about four pages of this, I have realized that the point of dis contention comes when we are talking about the age of maturity of children.

Let's look at kids nowadays, who are, by all reasoning, maturing faster than when I was growing up (and heck, I am only 26). I have a beautiful, gorgeous 13 yr old sister who looks around 18 or so. At carnivals, restaurants, etc. the older guys are constantly hitting on her, and she "innocently" flirts back. I say innocently because she doesn't comprehend what she is doing. Let me clarify. In her eyes, its fun to flirt, its fun to get the attention, the whistles, the smiles, but she doesn't realize the next step-- that the flirting and all leads to more (ok, sometimes, you know what i mean). It is so hard to watch her when other guys eye her up and flirt with her (I am talking guys anywhere between 16-30, yes, I have seen it with my own eyes) and know that they are thinking about getting into her pants when all she is thinking is "oh, this guy thinks I am cute. oh, this guy is cute" Does that make sense?

There is a point that these kids, even if they understand and know about sex (yea, I was the one who gave her the sex talk, told her the basics and then told her the stuff our parents never told me) don't understand the whole entire package. I hate using this phrase, but it is emotional maturity. That's what it comes down to. Sex is not a toy for them, and at 11, 12, 14, 15, etc., I don't think they understand the difference. They look at things more innocently than their older counterparts will. (see exmp above)

Let me pose this question: To everyone who lost their virginity at a young age (I am talking 15 or 16 or so)...isn't it different now? Now when you have sex compared to then. I don't mean, yea, its better now cuz I am more experienced, I mean its better cause i just get it now, i understand it, I can handle it?? its not some fun mysterious game. I am not trying to knock sex, I just don't think children, and I am not putting an age on this, just children have the capacity to look at sex, especially with someone so much older, for what it really is.

I don't think you can put an age on consent per-say. I think there are completely mature 16 yr olds out there, but 13, 12,11??? Come on. Just watch a bunch of 12 and 13 yr old girls and guys once. They know about sex, they get it, but they still are looking at it with too much innocence, too little understanding. *gets off the soapbox* Sorry, its things like this that makes me worry more and more about my sister......

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.

I made a post in a similar vein last year some time regarding the specific case of an 18 year old man who was charged with rape for having sex with a 12 year old girl. Despite the fact that the teenage girl seduced the young man by sneaking into his bedroom after inviting him to stay the night, under UK law, sex with anybody under 13 is qualified as rape. The judge in this case however, went against this law and stated that the man was guilty of merely having sex ual intercourse with a minor, for which he wasn't jailed but was placed on the sex offender's register. Now I disagree with you about lowering the age of consent to 11 (from 16 in the UK) but I argued that the judge in this case did the right thing because rape is very different to what this youth committed.

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?

Edward II married his french princess of a wife when she was 5. Course, they didn't have children for another 12 years but still.

They will once they are caught and released into general population.
That is a very quaint and naive response on your part, considering how high recitivism is in the US, but if it works in your country then fine. What happens to repeat offenders? They just figure out what they did wrong to get caught and refine their methods, not lament the error of their ways.

I personally think the whole of consent laws are bullshit and should be abolished outright. This includes treating teens as adults in the court of law. Informed consent comes with information, not with the number of years you lived on this plantet. Maturity is an ongoing process, and kids need to be given more new information as they mature. To assume that it instantly happens at 18 (or whatever age) is plain stupid.

Ok, I read about 11 pages, and saw the same arguements repeating themselves, so I skipped the rest... sorry to everyone that posted on pages 12-21, but I think that I get the arguement.

Someone mentioned 'Freedom of Speech' and 'Democracy'. First, the two don't necessarily go together, but that's not my point. Deomocracy, as most of the world agrees, is a great form of government, one that inspires liberties like freedome of speech. But, theres a problem in democracy, just like there are problems in every government. Democracy's downfall is making everything too equal. The people's love for liberty and freedom make them start considering everything as equal. That's fine when you're talking about race, religion, gender... we all should be equal. But only in the law. Some people are not as equal as other people.

There is an inherent law in the universe, which many people call 'natural law'. This has nothing to do with religion, so excuse me if the following sounds like a Christian litany, but understand that I am not just repeating what pastors have told me. In fact, many of my arguements are based off of aetheist philosophers. But anyway, natural law. We can all admit that murder is bad. Why? Well, it just is, we don't need the laws of humans to tell us that murder is is wrong. "There needs to be a new, stronger word for murder... like badwrong, or badong! Yes, killing is badong." -Steve Oedekerk.

Okay, I got side tracked. But every religion and philosopher, separated though they were, have come up with the same sorts of rules of nature. They tell us to be moral creatures, that we shouldn't kill or steal or rape, or any of that sort of nasty stuff. Not everyone listens to these laws, but we are human. But natural law is based off of reason. Murder is bad because its ruining someone elses life, pretty horribly in fact. It will also effect the lives of many others. Stealing is wrong because its taking what someone else worked for, what they gained through theyre own labor. And you are just stepping around that and not working properly for your dues.

I bring all of this up, because the question is when a person can consent to having sex. Reason, or natural law, points to the fact that sex is about having children. Sure, theres pleasure involved... heck, if there wasn't, no one would have kids ;) . Someone too young (below 12-14, depending on the person) cannot have children, therefor that is entirely immoral. But can can someone of that age handle the responsibilities of having kids? No... most people can't even into their 20s. Premarital sex, going solely for pleasure, weather it's between 30 year olds, or a 30 year old and a 15 year old, is not on the same level of moral values as a married couple.

Democracy, which we so love, will fall when vices, like paedophilia, are given the same equality and stature, or even above 'religious propaganda' as one user so eloquently described it.

That is a very quaint and naive response on your part, considering how high recitivism is in the US, but if it works in your country then fine. What happens to repeat offenders? They just figure out what they did wrong to get caught and refine their methods, not lament the error of their ways.

I personally think the whole of consent laws are bullshit and should be abolished outright. This includes treating teens as adults in the court of law. Informed consent comes with information, not with the number of years you lived on this plantet. Maturity is an ongoing process, and kids need to be given more new information as they mature. To assume that it instantly happens at 18 (or whatever age) is plain stupid.

You do understand what I mean by general population, don't you? I don't mean released to the outside world, I mean mistakenly not put on the sex offender wing in the Pen. That's a death sentence.

Oh and for everyone out there that fly off the handle at the mere thought of your children WANTING (or have had) to have sex with older people; instead of making a huge deal about and shaming your child, maybe you think to yourself: could I have taught her better? did she not understand what I was talking about? Will she learn from this bad experience?

Is it so hard to just support your child, even if she makes the wrong descions? If you really want to help your child you should inform them of the risks and dangers, and even if they choose to go against your teachings you should always be there to let them know that you're not ashamed of them.

But if you're the type of parent that likes to hide behind a AoC law, and you truly think that your child is your mindless plaything (at least till they are of age) then who am I to judge you, just let it be known: I think my parenting is superior to yours.

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

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

Right. Okay. I'll pretend not to understand that these two definitions say EXACTLY THE SAME DAMN THING. And now you will tell me your point.

I find it amusing-- frightening, too, because it shows the state of western society is quite sad and does not in the least live up to the standards of civilized behavoir that it should by now have, but mostly amusing-- how a good bunch have expressed their willingness to torture and murder those they would know to be pedophiles. The pedophile wants to express his or her sexuality in a typically non-violent, even benevolent way. The angry poster wishes to commit hideous acts of violence, and, for their own pleasure, inflict as much pain as possible before ending the pedophile's life.

Very cute; I believe it says a lot about these posters' highly accute sense of right and wrong. Y'know, saying they'd be capable of torturing and murdering, and not losing a bit of sleep over it.

Oh and for everyone out there that fly off the handle at the mere thought of your children WANTING (or have had) to have sex with older people; instead of making a huge deal about and shaming your child, maybe you think to yourself: could I have taught her better? did she not understand what I was talking about? Will she learn from this bad experience?

Is it so hard to just support your child, even if she makes the wrong descions? If you really want to help your child you should inform them of the risks and dangers, and even if they choose to go against your teachings you should always be there to let them know that you're not ashamed of them.

But if you're the type of parent that likes to hide behind a AoC law, and you truly think that your child is your mindless plaything (at least till they are of age) then who am I to judge you, just let it be known: I think my parenting is superior to yours.
who is talking about shaming children? do you think im going to blame my 9 year old for being molested by the 40 year old man down the street?

when it come to TEENS (rather than children) they need to be given rules and follow them. and suffer some consequence for not following them. one of those rules might well be "no dating 40 year olds". if you find your 15 year old daughter or son in bed with the 40 year old neighbor, you have to step in and make sure everyone knows that this is not acceptable. thats what parents DO.

I find it amusing-- frightening, too, because it shows the state of western society is quite sad and does not in the least live up to the standards of civilized behavoir that it should by now have, but mostly amusing-- how a good bunch have expressed their willingness to torture and murder those they would know to be pedophiles. The pedophile wants to express his or her sexuality in a typically non-violent, even benevolent way. The angry poster wishes to commit hideous acts of violence, and, for their own pleasure, inflict as much pain as possible before ending the pedophile's life.

Very cute; I believe it says a lot about these posters' highly accute sense of right and wrong. Y'know, saying they'd be capable of torturing and murdering, and not losing a bit of sleep over it.
child molestation is not benevolent.

but yeah, people here really do seem to get off on claiming how violent they would be toward pedophiles. sometimes it seems like a competition for who can think up the most grotesque punishments.

I find it amusing-- frightening, too, because it shows the state of western society is quite sad and does not in the least live up to the standards of civilized behavoir that it should by now have, but mostly amusing-- how a good bunch have expressed their willingness to torture and murder those they would know to be pedophiles. The pedophile wants to express his or her sexuality in a typically non-violent, even benevolent way. The angry poster wishes to commit hideous acts of violence, and, for their own pleasure, inflict as much pain as possible before ending the pedophile's life.

Very cute; I believe it says a lot about these posters' highly accute sense of right and wrong. Y'know, saying they'd be capable of torturing and murdering, and not losing a bit of sleep over it.

Pædophiles are interested in rape, though. I may not be big on violence, but how can you seriously deny that pædophilia is wrong? I've never heard of a pædophile expressing their sexuality in a nonviolent (to say nothing of benevolent) way.

This thread is a brilliant troll. I bet it will stick around forever.

I find it amusing-- frightening, too, because it shows the state of western society is quite sad and does not in the least live up to the standards of civilized behavoir that it should by now have, but mostly amusing-- how a good bunch have expressed their willingness to torture and murder those they would know to be pedophiles. The pedophile wants to express his or her sexuality in a typically non-violent, even benevolent way. The angry poster wishes to commit hideous acts of violence, and, for their own pleasure, inflict as much pain as possible before ending the pedophile's life.

Very cute; I believe it says a lot about these posters' highly accute sense of right and wrong. Y'know, saying they'd be capable of torturing and murdering, and not losing a bit of sleep over it.
There's nothing benevolent about fucking a preteen. First of all, if it's consentual it's still rape because you're asking a child to make a decision that they can't understand. Also that "consent" is often gained through trickery and cold emotional manipulation. Second, much of the time pedophiles don't even bother with true consent and use guilt, shame, or fear to coerce their VICTIMS into sex.

I lost my virginity when I was 14 and I must say I wish we hadn't :(

paedophiles should be sent down the mines regardless of whether or not an 11 year old said yes in confusion

C’mon people let this disgusting thread die remember the space Jew incident where Ns was called a Nazi playground (hint to maker ask this to be locked)

EDIT: ok to make the point I was abused when I was 7 I've never told a soul till now

who is talking about shaming children? do you think im going to blame my 9 year old for being molested by the 40 year old man down the street?

when it come to TEENS (rather than children) they need to be given rules and follow them. and suffer some consequence for not following them. one of those rules might well be "no dating 40 year olds". if you find your 15 year old daughter or son in bed with the 40 year old neighbor, you have to step in and make sure everyone knows that this is not acceptable. thats what parents DO.
Molested? How is free will involved with that, you're going on a completely different tanget to try to prove a point.

As for the rest I agree with you, parents should be there to keep the kids in line that is what they are there for. However, if they choose to go against your advice and/or rules and suffer natrual conseques because of it, we should not be undermining their choices however bad they appear to be.

Parent: It's not your fault, even if you said you choose to do it, it's because you're too stupid/young to know what's good for you, and bad people will take advantage of your stupidlty. It's all that bad guy's fault you are not responsible for any of it.

Is that the message you want to send your child when they or she makes a mistake?

I've never heard of a pædophile expressing their sexuality in a nonviolent (to say nothing of benevolent) way.

Ah, but does this fact alone not make you wonder? Surely there must be some; is it not a strange fact that you would have not heard of such things?

Paedophilia is demonised in modern western society as few things ever have. You can easely see it even in a small internet community, where, presumably, the majority of members have less aversion to the idea because of their own young age, not to mention the fact that it's an anonymous forum. It remains: paedophilia is condemned with more strength than even murder. The very mention of it causes bursts of violence and physical revulsion in a good bunch of posters.

Is it not, then, possible that you've received tainted information? Perhaps even your definition of paedophilia is inaccurate; many invoke the bastardised use of the term, equating paedophilia to rape or molestation. Don't get me wrong; as I said in an earlier post, I'm not trying to make up any sort of silly conspiracy theory. It's no more than the result of cultural forces focusing their anxiety and anger on a certain stereotype.

You say you've never heard of paedophiles expressing their sexuality in a nonviolent, let alone benevolent way? It's a small wonder you're even capable of facing the topic with reason, and not extreme physical aversion to the mere idea; but it is no wonder you've never heard of a nondestructive, nonviolent paedophile. It happens; even now it happens. And it's not something to be terrified of; as with any other human action, it's something to study and learn from, to take the best from for the benefit of our culture.

I invite you to look into the matter, as it's well-documented, though the information might be hard to come by, for already stated reasons. The Rind et al. studies, mentioned in a previous post, are as good a starting point as any, and the fact alone that once published in the APA several branches of government immediately responded to the study with the intention of censorship should be enough to hint that there might, possibly, be something of value in it; politicians have for ages pointed at things and called for public shame: they did so when it was suggested that the earth was not flat, or that it moved, or that it was not the center of the universe; they did so when it was suggested that God did not exist, or, at least, that beliefs on the subject held at the time were ridiculous; they did so when it was suggested that old empires were corrupt and evil, and it was time for freedom (as an aside, America itself was born from this same form of dissent); they did so when it was suggested that all people should have rights under law, and those rights would outlaw slavery; they did so when it was suggested that men loving men was not, as was believed, sick and evil; and, as for all these things there still remain people who cling to old, stupid beliefs (remember, there's still people who believe in a flat Earth; there still are skinheads and fundamentalists and homophobes), today we see anxiety spill over paedophiles.

If only for historical reasons, it's important to look at the issue objectively, and obtain untainted information about the matter. Any decent psychology book will make it pretty clear, and there are some great volumes written about the specific issue of paedophilia.

I can't be bothered to read the whole twenty plus pages of the thing but I assume it has been pointed out that paedophilia is the attraction to undeveloped children. So 13/14/15 year olds largely don't count and neither do some twelve year olds or younger.

The only way someone could consent and fully understand what they were consenting to, in such a way for it not to be unnatural, is for them to be at a stage of developement. So as such, the point is void before morals or social views even come into it.

Ah, but does this fact alone not make you wonder? Surely there must be some; is it not a strange fact that you would have not heard of such things?

Paedophilia is demonised in modern western society as few things ever have. You can easely see it even in a small internet community, where, presumably, the majority of members have less aversion to the idea because of their own young age, not to mention the fact that it's an anonymous forum. It remains: paedophilia is condemned with more strength than even murder. The very mention of it causes bursts of violence and physical revulsion in a good bunch of posters.

Is it not, then, possible that you've received tainted information? Perhaps even your definition of paedophilia is inaccurate; many invoke the bastardised use of the term, equating paedophilia to rape or molestation. Don't get me wrong; as I said in an earlier post, I'm not trying to make up any sort of silly conspiracy theory. It's no more than the result of cultural forces focusing their anxiety and anger on a certain stereotype.

You say you've never heard of paedophiles expressing their sexuality in a nonviolent, let alone benevolent way? It's a small wonder you're even capable of facing the topic with reason, and not extreme physical aversion to the mere idea; but it is no wonder you've never heard of a nondestructive, nonviolent paedophile. It happens; even now it happens. And it's not something to be terrified of; as with any other human action, it's something to study and learn from, to take the best from for the benefit of our culture.

I invite you to look into the matter, as it's well-documented, though the information might be hard to come by, for already stated reasons. The Rind et al. studies, mentioned in a previous post, are as good a starting point as any, and the fact alone that once published in the APA several branches of government immediately responded to the study with the intention of censorship should be enough to hint that there might, possibly, be something of value in it; politicians have for ages pointed at things and called for public shame: they did so when it was suggested that the earth was not flat, or that it moved, or that it was not the center of the universe; they did so when it was suggested that God did not exist, or, at least, that beliefs on the subject held at the time were ridiculous; they did so when it was suggested that old empires were corrupt and evil, and it was time for freedom (as an aside, America itself was born from this same form of dissent); they did so when it was suggested that all people should have rights under law, and those rights would outlaw slavery; they did so when it was suggested that men loving men was not, as was believed, sick and evil; and, as for all these things there still remain people who cling to old, stupid beliefs (remember, there's still people who believe in a flat Earth; there still are skinheads and fundamentalists and homophobes), today we see anxiety spill over paedophiles.

If only for historical reasons, it's important to look at the issue objectively, and obtain untainted information about the matter. Any decent psychology book will make it pretty clear, and there are some great volumes written about the specific issue of paedophilia.
Please explain to me how a pedophile can express himself in any benevolent way other than avoiding children because he doesn't want to hurt them.

Molested? How is free will involved with that, you're going on a completely different tanget to try to prove a point.

the ONLY word for an adult having sexual contact with a prepubescent child is molestation.

yes, children have sexual feelings, they sometimes engage in sex play with other children. there is a big diffference between the innocent "you show me yours and ill show you mine" games of children and the sexual desires of adults toward children.

when it comes to teens, the law has decided where the line of consent is. i see it as more a matter of giving parents some leverage over the adult who is preying on their teens immaturity rather than a way to keep teenaged sweethearts from having sex.

or sometimes to overrule the parents as in the albuquerque case where the 26 year old teacher got his 14 year old student pregnant then took her to nevada to get married with her parents consent. the county is still prosecuting him for statutory rape.

Please explain to me how a pedophile can express himself in any benevolent way other than avoiding children because he doesn't want to hurt them.

Please explain to me why you are so quick to assume any sex equals hurt; furthermore, please explain to me why you assume that pedophiles are only interested in sex with kids, while you believe (apologizing for assuming this, but I do not believe it's too far-fetched to safely assume you would agree) that, say, a non-pedophile heterosexual adult would obviously want a lot more out of relationships with other adults of the opposite gender than exclusively sex.

Please correct me if I mistook your position, although I note that I'm using the real definition of pedophile, not the popular one.

I think it's safe to say that the very idea of pediphilia cannot be looked at in an objective manner. If someone who is under-aged chooses of their own free-will to have a relationship with an older person then 2 assumptions are made:

1) the child does not have any legal free-will, hence the mention of free will is pointless.
2) since the child is, in essesence, mindless all the older person, who has a mind of his own, must have forced themselves onto them and be devoid of any real affection.

Both assumptions are horse shit, but are exactly the kind of drivel that i've encountered. Children can think for themselves and are often very vocal about it, my little girl just started talking and she can't stop telling me how much she hates veggies.

I lost my virginity when I was 20 to a 16 year old, I didn't do it because I have some carnal lust for young meat, I thought I loved her (at the I did I guess), if you want to brand me as a monster then suit yourself.

Please explain to me why you are so quick to assume any sex equals hurt; furthermore, please explain to me why you assume that pedophiles are only interested in sex with kids, while you believe (apologizing for assuming this, but I do not believe it's too far-fetched to safely assume you would agree) that, say, a non-pedophile heterosexual adult would obviously want a lot more out of relationships with other adults of the opposite gender than exclusively sex.

Please correct me if I mistook your position, although I note that I'm using the real definition of pedophile, not the popular one.
if a pedophile never has sexual contact with children, then i have no problem with him. its just an unexpressed fetish like we all have to some extent or other.

any sex = hurt when its an adult and a child.

I think it's safe to say that the very idea of pediphilia cannot be looked at in an objective manner. If someone who is under-aged chooses of their own free-will to have a relationship with an older person then 2 assumptions are made:

1) the child does not have any legal free-will, hence the mention of free will is pointless.
2) since the child is, in essesence, mindless all the older person, who has a mind of his own, must have forced themselves onto them and be devoid of any real affection.

Both assumptions are horse shit, but are exactly the kind of drivel that i've encountered. Children can think for themselves and are often very vocal about it, my little girl just started talking and she can't stop telling me how much she hates veggies.

I lost my virginity when I was 20 to a 16 year old, I didn't do it because I have some carnal lust for young meat, I thought I loved her (at the I did I guess), if you want to brand me as a monster then suit yourself.

THAT'S NOT PAEDONPHILIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, but it has to be said. It is a different subject.

Please explain to me why you are so quick to assume any sex equals hurt; furthermore, please explain to me why you assume that pedophiles are only interested in sex with kids, while you believe (apologizing for assuming this, but I do not believe it's too far-fetched to safely assume you would agree) that, say, a non-pedophile heterosexual adult would obviously want a lot more out of relationships with other adults of the opposite gender than exclusively sex.

Please correct me if I mistook your position, although I note that I'm using the real definition of pedophile, not the popular one.
Sex equals hurt when a person can't make a proper decision about whether to engage in it or not. Let's assume you were very drunk and some guy talked you into going home with him and letting him perform anal sex on you. It seemed like a good idea when you were wasted, but in the morning you might feel violated, guilty, and disgusted. The average child doesn't have the judgement of a sober adult, so it's a similar situation.

A pedophile might want more out of a relationship with a child than just sex, but he still wants sex. That means in a moment of weakness he might end up harming the child.

Now that I've answered your questions please answer mine, unless you admit that having sex with children is indefensible.

Please explain to me why you are so quick to assume any sex equals hurt; furthermore, please explain to me why you assume that pedophiles are only interested in sex with kids, while you believe (apologizing for assuming this, but I do not believe it's too far-fetched to safely assume you would agree) that, say, a non-pedophile heterosexual adult would obviously want a lot more out of relationships with other adults of the opposite gender than exclusively sex.

Pedophiles are only attracted to sexual activity with children...they don't want bonding, or friendship or anything else. A pedophile is someone who wants to have sex with children, or wants to engage in other sexual acts with children.

I think it's safe to say that the very idea of pediphilia cannot be looked at in an objective manner. If someone who is under-aged chooses of their own free-will to have a relationship with an older person then 2 assumptions are made:

1) the child does not have any legal free-will, hence the mention of free will is pointless.
2) since the child is, in essesence, mindless all the older person, who has a mind of his own, must have forced themselves onto them and be devoid of any real affection.

Both assumptions are horse shit, but are exactly the kind of drivel that i've encountered. Children can think for themselves and are often very vocal about it, my little girl just started talking and she can't stop telling me how much she hates veggies.

I lost my virginity when I was 20 to a 16 year old, I didn't do it because I have some carnal lust for young meat, I thought I loved her (at the I did I guess), if you want to brand me as a monster then suit yourself.
So her judgement is obviously perfect. "Veggies taste bad, therefore I won't eat them and just suffer from diseases caused by vitamin deficiencies." Of course she doesn't understand the concept of vitamin deficiencies, just like she doesn't understand the physical, emotional, and social ramifications of sex.

the ONLY word for an adult having sexual contact with a prepubescent child is molestation.

yes, children have sexual feelings, they sometimes engage in sex play with other children. there is a big diffference between the innocent "you show me yours and ill show you mine" games of children and the sexual desires of adults toward children.

when it comes to teens, the law has decided where the line of consent is. i see it as more a matter of giving parents some leverage over the adult who is preying on their teens immaturity rather than a way to keep teenaged sweethearts from having sex.

or sometimes to overrule the parents as in the albuquerque case where the 26 year old teacher got his 14 year old student pregnant then took her to nevada to get married with her parents consent. the county is still prosecuting him for statutory rape.

Oh sorry, but the word molestation has become pretty warpped in our media. But I still for the most part disagree with you, so you're saying it's rape not because there was no consent but because the laws say so? It's bad because Big Brother says so?

Sorry but I can't accept such simple generalizations.

So her judgement is obviously perfect. "Veggies taste bad, therefore I won't eat them and just suffer from diseases caused by vitamin deficiencies." Of course she doesn't understand the concept of vitamin deficiencies, just like she doesn't understand the physical, emotional, and social ramifications of sex.
Of course she'll eat them because I tell her its good for her (mainly for the fiber we don't catabolizes greens very well). She'll also stay away from dysfunctional relationships because I, her father, told her so. Also you assume that children do not find sexual stimulation pleasurable, which isn't true, all the more reason for parents to inform children of its dangers and not shelter them from it which is what AoC laws do.

A pedophile might want more out of a relationship with a child than just sex, but he still wants sex. That means in a moment of weakness he might end up harming the child.

Do you hear yourself? In any intimate relationship who doesn't want sex as well all the friendship and affection? This sentance is just useless.

Please explain to me why you are so quick to assume any sex equals hurt; furthermore, please explain to me why you assume that pedophiles are only interested in sex with kids, while you believe (apologizing for assuming this, but I do not believe it's too far-fetched to safely assume you would agree) that, say, a non-pedophile heterosexual adult would obviously want a lot more out of relationships with other adults of the opposite gender than exclusively sex.

Please correct me if I mistook your position, although I note that I'm using the real definition of pedophile, not the popular one.

I'm sure those kids are quite the conversationalitsts. Able to understand everything that an adult would. Yeah, I'm sure it's not just for the sex. :rolleyes:

Do you hear yourself? In any intimate relationship who doesn't want sex as well all the friendship and affection? This sentance is just useless.
I'm a heterosexual male. I've got female friends. There's not one of them I don't want to have sex with. I've hit on female friends before. I don't see why a pedophile would feel any differently with preteen friends. The difference is only that If I end up getting laid nobody gets hurt. If the pedophile gets lucky, in almost every instance the child gets hurt.

I look at this two ways firstly i think 16 is too young when its just kids people should be getting Married before they can do this stuff.

Then i think if two people dont have a problem with it in todays Sicko liberal Society whats the problem?

You cant have it both ways Liberals.

As for your original question,
Please explain to me how a pedophile can express himself in any benevolent way other than avoiding children because he doesn't want to hurt them.
a little bit of historical inquiry will reveal there is a good number of cultures in which the notion is taken for granted; some of these were even pretty large, powerful cultures from which one can trace a direct line to the modern world. But, of course, arguments from culture are pretty worthless, or I might as well support the Mayans' practices of human sacrifice, or any number of things no civilized person, in the modern sense of course, would consider in any way admissible.

The issue of pedophilia, however, is of a completely different kind. As for your question: it is indeed an odd thing to imagine, but if we are to believe the many studies done on the subjects, pedophilia isn't composed of a tiny, insignificant minority of the population; studies using plesmythography rather convincingly establish that it's not anywhere as uncommon as most people desperately need to believe. Pedophiles are not perverts in their forties wearing a cloak, hanging around in parks exposing themselves lewdly to children at random. Your brother or sister, your kid in college, your parents and uncles; they all might be pedophiles, and many might themselves be parents, or teachers, or simply participate in the lives of children in their family. I tend towards avoid reiteration, but, again, the portrayal of pedophiles as monsters interested exclusively in sex is inaccurate. No less does the average pedophile participate in the average child's life in all kinds of benevolent and nonsexual ways than your friends, family members or coworkers participate in your own life. We have all heard the big stories in the media about these evil, predatory teachers who become involved with their students, and are eventually caught and endure the tempestuous fury of the public.

Yet what were they doing before they came under the misfortune of being labeled as monsters and paraded to the public, and being put on the receiving end of a flood of collective neurosis of biblical proportions? They were teachers. And, given that they actually became involved with children on a personal level, I daresay they were likely good teachers, with concern for the interests of their students. Indeed this would be consistent from what has been shown in even the most public of scandals of this sort, to make nothing of the results of actual studies about the lives of pedophiles from clinical samples before being caught by the law, noting that these studies at least have accountability to peer review and need to maintain a certain degree of impartiality and objectivity, whereas media scandals exploit the exact opposite.

For all you know, many of the people closest to you might be pedophiles. Or they might be gay, or they might have any number of beliefs or feelings you might not approve of. (Note I do not intend to associate homosexuality with pedophilia; I know the gay crowd frowns strongly at this, and I apologize for the analogy; I try only to make a point about pedophilia, not one about homosexuality.) And the fact alone that they're pedophiles does not prevent them from having all sorts of beneficial effects on the lives of children. But, of course, there is your question of sexual activity between children and adults being necessarily hurtful. Another poster comments:
if a pedophile never has sexual contact with children, then i have no problem with him. its just an unexpressed fetish like we all have to some extent or other.

any sex = hurt when its an adult and a child.

And this is the fundamental issue that needs to be tackled. If sex between children and adults is bad, then pedophilia is, at best, a nuisance, and at worst a dangerous tendency. Then children need to be protected from sex. Then child pornography needs to be illegal to possess, as it encourages hurt, and its production involves hurt: as Bill O'Reilly said the other day in his show, (not any sort of an exact quote; his speech was a good bit angrier) possession of child pornography is a violent offense because harm occurs in its production, and possession of it perpetuates the harm. Then you have a myriad of laws and moral judgements, all of which, as said, stem from that single proposition: that all sexual activity involving children and adults is necessarily, or at least generally or commonly hurtful.

And that is exactly why (and I apologize for insisting on this), when the Rind et al. papers were published in the APA, they were met with such fierce opposition from every branch of the American government. Their conclusions were unspeakable for they challenged the fundaments of many laws, and the rational basis for very strongly held beliefs. Of course, an independent investigation on the paper was conducted after the APA's public relations people expressed disgust and disagreement with the conclusions of the Rind et al. papers, yet this investigation's conclusions were plain: there were no significant fallacies in the methodology, and the peer review process functioned; the papers were seemingly accurate and their publishing was just. Of course, such conclusions cannot be expressed in the mass media; they'd cause more controversy than any serious psychologist could live with having caused.

I have not answered your question, though; I still haven't told you why I believe consentual child-adult sexual activities are most often harmless. I have failed to do this for I believe it would take a post much longer than this, and, frankly, I'll be pleasantly surprised if you read this long into my post. But I can say this: the research has been done, and it has been done for long. And even in America, a most puritanical place where the public has little respect for science, several serious papers can be published in the national association of psychologists, they can suffer the fallout of enormous controversy, they can be subjected to thorough review in an independent investigation, and they can pass the test with flying colors. It is but an isolated example in a great sea of the same, but most such papers are often tainted with political correctness and non-objective terminology and methods; yet, even then, they lead to the same conclusion: consentual sexual activity between children and adults is not harmful as the fanatical public adamantly believes.

For good reading related to this issue, there are loads of volumes on the subject with great insight everywhere from Freud's questionable early discoveries, Eric Berne's alternative take on the mind of man, Tom O'Carrol's direct confrontation of the issue (which earned him a conviction for conspiracy to corrupt public morals and got his book banned), and, of course, the many scientific papers on the subject, with the Rind et al. papers, particularily A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples, the paper referred to above, being a good starting point.

I apologize for such a long-winded response. I believe this issue deserves thorough consideration, and not one-liner responses. It's truly a fascinating topic and I appreciate the civil discussion, even among many other posts that call for censorship and the like. I do hope it goes on some more. :)

I look at this two ways firstly i think 16 is too young when its just kids people should be getting Married before they can do this stuff.

Then i think if two people dont have a problem with it in todays Sicko liberal Society whats the problem?

You cant have it both ways Liberals.
Liberal doesn't mean child molestor. Liberals want consenting ADULTS to be able to do whatever makes them happy. It's not "having it both ways", that would be called bisexual.

Of course, enslaved to science, the timid will to truth.

How does psychology decide if an act is detrimental? How do they judge that? As a science they must follow scientific methods and such, the way I see it psychology equates overall psychological health with being normal, it can only reach its standings by relating to others of the species.

But what is normal nowdays? In an overtly sexual capitalist society, these acts could be either unnoticeable, or easly repressed. Does that make it right? Is that it? How the hell can one rely solely on scientific studies to create ones world view? There's no global warming, so why shouldn't we just keep polluting?

Science places facts over morality, I hardly see it as a way to justify this. A scientific study is nothing unless used within a philisophical inquiry.

And yes, psychologists have deduced that many people have some form of sexual desire towards pre-pubescents. Some believe that a male's desire for shaved armpits and other regions is based on a longing for a relationship with a child. But just because this exists does not mean we should allow ourselves to act on it, let alone legalize it. This is base and simple.

I see the underlying problem of the issue as being one of social isolation and alienation, and this lust has arisen out of this. If our society was better, it would not exist. Psychologists frequently forget humans can change their environment, and with it their wants.

Oh God lock lock lock lock this immediately!

Why? Calling for the lock of a thread that begins with a rational argument, be it devil's-advocate or genuine, simply makes you sound like an intolerant jerk who can't actually refute the points.

pedophiles are monsters.
when at the age of 11 you have had foster parents putting fingers and other body parts in places they don't belong and no where to turn for help. You do not adjust to the rest of the world very well. you start having emotional and social development problems and it only gets harder and more difficult from there. you can form decent relationships and you often end up alone for life or a preditor yourself. you become so immune to the outside world that you will do things others wont. nothing scares you anymore because you don't feel the same way others feel and experience the world.

i remember the first time as clear as it was yesterday and it has been 29 years. i was talked into agreeing to do these games, i did not want to be i could have been turned out or sent back to the state center. so i agreed and it just about killed me several time over the years.

no amount of counseling will make the fear go away forever there will always be times when it rises and makes me choke. you can not have sex with a child and not destroy a major part of their life.


source my own experience and years of counseling and helping others who fell prey to evil people.

The main problem with the arguement of lowering the age of consent to anything below 16 is that the majority of people below 16 are not physically or mentally ready for sexual intercourse.

Laws that are in place to protect people, like age of consent, are in place to protect the MAJORITY. You would have to agree that the majority under 13-14 are definitely not ready for sex. There will always be people who say 'yeah, but I was 13 when I lost my virginity, and I was completely ready for it, and able to handle it emotionally!'. Problem is, the majority of kids of that age are not!

The MAJORITY of 16 year olds would have gone through puberty, or will be at least coming towards the end of puberty, and there comes a point where you have to let people live their lives without restrictions like this. Yes, there are people over 20 who cannot handle a sexual relationship, but by then it can be argued that they are in the minority.

Let's consider a different law altogether that is in place to protect the majority. Let's say that it was now LEGAL to murder. If this happened, the MAJORITY of people would be in deep trouble! They wouldn't have a clue how to protect themselves! BUT, there are some people who wouldn't have a problem in protecting themselves e.g. Trained Soldiers.

Let's now go back to the age of consent. If the age of consent was lowered to 11 (as was suggested by the thread creator), a sexual relationship could well cause physical/mental harm to the vast majority of 11 year olds. Sure, a handful of them perhaps are ready for it, but I say the age of consent has to remain at 16 for the protection of the majority below that age, who are not ready!

What it comes down to is individual differences. Every single person is different to the last, and because of that we can't give everybody their own individual set of laws. Instead, we have to live by rules that are there for the sake of the majority.

"You can please some of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time." - Who said that? I'm sure it was someone famous, and I know I know it! But I've forgotten :p

(BTW, I've used 16 as the age of consent, because that is the age of consent here, in the UK).

The issue of pedophilia, however, is of a completely different kind. As for your question: it is indeed an odd thing to imagine, but if we are to believe the many studies done on the subjects, pedophilia isn't composed of a tiny, insignificant minority of the population; studies using plesmythography rather convincingly establish that it's not anywhere as uncommon as most people desperately need to believe. Pedophiles are not perverts in their forties wearing a cloak, hanging around in parks exposing themselves lewdly to children at random. Your brother or sister, your kid in college, your parents and uncles; they all might be pedophiles, and many might themselves be parents, or teachers, or simply participate in the lives of children in their family. I tend towards avoid reiteration, but, again, the portrayal of pedophiles as monsters interested exclusively in sex is inaccurate. No less does the average pedophile participate in the average child's life in all kinds of benevolent and nonsexual ways than your friends, family members or coworkers participate in your own life. We have all heard the big stories in the media about these evil, predatory teachers who become involved with their students, and are eventually caught and endure the tempestuous fury of the public.

Outside the not4chan community (yes, I know all about it), it is quite rare. You obviously have a rather rose-colored view of pædophilia.

For good reading related to this issue, there are loads of volumes on the subject with great insight everywhere from Freud's questionable early discoveries, Eric Berne's alternative take on the mind of man, Tom O'Carrol's direct confrontation of the issue (which earned him a conviction for conspiracy to corrupt public morals and got his book banned), and, of course, the many scientific papers on the subject, with the Rind et al. papers, particularily A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples, the paper referred to above, being a good starting point.

I've heard of Rind, et al. as well and surely you're aware that there are some severe problems with it (from wikipedia):

* Sample Bias. A number of critics have noted that by restricting their analysis to convenience samples of college students, Rind et al. introduced a systematic bias in favor of their conclusion by excluding victims so traumatized that they did not go on to attend college. In addition, Duncan (2000) found that child sexual abuse survivors were far more likely than non-abused individuals to drop out of college, especially after only one semester. (See: Dallam, ibid., [2])

Rind, Bauserman, and Tromovitch respond to this criticism by emphasizing that "the representativeness of college samples is in fact irrelevant to the stated goals and conclusions of our study" since the purpose of their research was "to examine the validity of the clinical concept" of CSA. According to the commonly understood definition of the term, child sexual abuse is extremely and pervasively harmful, meaning that "in any population sampled - drug addicts, psychiatric patients, or college students - persons who have experienced CSA should show strong evidence of the assumed properties of CSA." The authors of the study note that because the college sample did not show pervasive harm, "the broad and unqualified claims about the properties of CSA are contradicted." (See: Rind, et al., [3])

* Non-Standardization of Variables. Rind et al.' were for not standardizing their treatment of either their independent or dependent variables. Holmes and Slap (1999) found the inexpertly and inconsistently combined data from the underlying studies, using different methods for translating different studies into the combined analysis. [4] For instance, Dallam et al. (in press) noted that Rind et al. uncritically combining data from studies of CSA with data from studies looking at other phenomena including consensual peer experiences, sexual experiences that occurred during adulthood, and homosexual approaches during adolescence. Holmes and Slap (1999) noted that Rind et al. uncritically combined psychological outcomes measured by different instruments with varying validity, relevance, and different interval scaling and cut points. After reviewing the Rind et al.’s study, Holmes and Slap concluded, "meta-analysis is not appropriate when methodological rigor, let alone the question asked, is so varied" (p. 2186).
* Statistical Errors and possible manufacture of results. In “The Effects of Child Sexual Abuse: Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)”, Dallam, Gleaves, Cepeda-Benito, Silberg, Kraemer, and Spiegel, find that Rind et. al. simply mis-coded or mis-reported significant amounts of the underlying study data, skewing the results. Many of the findings that Rind et al. reported as being significant were actually statistical artifacts caused by their failure to correct for base rate differences in the rates of CSA in male and female samples. In this case, lower base rates of CSA in male samples caused effects sizes estimates for males to be attenuated and created the illusion that males were less harmed by CSA. After correcting for base-rate attenuation, the effect sizes for male and female samples were nearly identical. In other words, contrary to Rind et al.’s claims, males were not less affected by their abuse. Although Rind et al. acknowledged this, they chose not to correct for it, saying that "the attenuation is small in absolute magnitude for small effect sizes" and that "effect sizes would increase at most by .03" (p. 41). It is important to note that .03 was the exact difference in magnitude that Rind et al. reported between male and female effect sizes (r = .07 and r = .10, respectively). Because lower effect sizes indicate better adjustment, Rind et al. reported that a major findings of their study was that "self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that . . . men reacted much less negatively than women" (p. 22). After correcting for attenuation due to base rate differences, Dallam et al. reported that effect sizes for males corresponded to r = .11, which is practically identical to the corrected effect size for females, r = .12. All these errors were not random, but all favored the thesis of reduced harm of sexual abuse. (In Psychologican Bulletin, 127, 6, 715-733, 2001 [5] and Dallam, ibid.)
* Researchers' Personal Bias. As Rind himself has noted, the research findings can be skewed by an investigator’s personal biases. Rind et al. (1998) stated, “Reviewers who are convinced that CSA is a major cause of adult psychopathology may fall prey to confirmation bias by noting and describing study findings indicating harmful effects but ignoring or paying less attention to findings indicating nonnegative outcomes” (p. 24). The fact that Rind et al.’s results differed from those of most other researchers who have studied CSA raises the possibility that Rind et al. may have exhibited a confirmatory bias in the opposite direction. Rind and Bauserman has expressed their personal views in their other writings, for example, when Rind (1995b) has reviewed human sexuality textbooks’ coverage of the effects of CSA, he objected to the use of terms such as victims, survivors, offenders, and perpetrators (p. 219). Furtherly, Rind et al. 1998 recommended restricting the usage of the term child sexual abuse to sexual episodes that are unwanted or experienced negatively. Such a recommendation implys that Rind et al. believe that sex between adults and children can be noncoercive and that children can consent to sexual contact with adults. It should be remembered that this reconceptualization was first proposed by Jones (1990) who suggested the change would help professionals recognize the "possible benefits of intergenerational intimacy" (p. 276). Rind (1998) suggested that "willing man-boy sex accompanied by positive reactions may be better informed by the ancient Greek model [i.e., sexual relationship in which the older male also acts as a teacher and guardian] than by models based on the female experience (e.g., rape and incest models)" (p. 399). In addition to suggesting that sexual abuse is rarely harmful, Rind et al. have also blamed negative outcomes on those seeking to protect or treat abused children. For example, Rind et al. (December 18, 1998) blamed exaggerated beliefs about the harmfulness of CSA for child abuse hysteria, implantation of false memories, and iatrogenic creation of symptoms, which they claim "researchers in the child abuse industry" have seized upon "as further evidence for the pathogenicity of CSA". Rind (1995b) asserted that the consequences of CSA "is debatable because the traumatic behaviors attributed to the actual or fabricated sexual contact may instead have been induced by the interview tactics of the therapists and child abuse workers" (p. 82). Bauserman (1990) criticized those who believe that sexual relationships between men and boys "are by their very nature abusive and exploitive" or "that the younger partner is automatically incapable of consent" (p. 310). Bauserman stated, "It remains to be seen whether scientific objectivity can prevail against the need to defend the current dogma on man-boy sexual contacts" (p. 311).

From all the evidence available Dallam says that "After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings" (In “Science or Propaganda? An examination of Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman.)

Rind, et al. respond: "Our study brought rigorous (sic!) and skeptical attention to an issue that has spun out of control, into what Jenkins (1998) called a 'moral panic.' Victimologists are advocates, not scientists. There is certainly a place for advocacy, as long as it is not confused with science--and as long as public policy is informed by the best scientific information available, rather than by unvalidated beliefs, however passionately held" [6].

I hope you don't mind that I cut your posting down to this one statement, since it is the cornerstone of your statement: It is rape because the child cannot give consent.

What you fail to produce is some proof for this claim. Why is the child unfit to make the decision? Because s/he doesn't have the necessary information? Then provide this information! It is your responsibility, as a parent, to prepare your children for life. Not to shelter them from it and everything.

I see it every day. People turn 18, are allowed to vote, to drive cars, to bear arms and yes, to have sex. And some of them have no idea what life is about. Pampered and sheltered, held under the cheese cover by overprotective parents, and then, BAM, suddenly they're an adult. Unfit to smell a rat when they're hit on by a con man. Unable to discriminate between a scam and a good offer.

But maybe that's what's wanted in corporate America. Oversheltered, pampered people who can't think for themselves, so they willingly and gladly hand over that burdon to someone else.
Well, if you went back and read what I have written previously, I have laid out the basis of my claim. BUT, since I know asking people to read on NS is folly, let me try again.

Ever hear of Jean Piaget? He is a major theroist in human development. His work stated that basically, humans have four devlopmental states where they develope three types of knowledge. Until a child REACHES that stage, they cannot understand that stage. Period, end of statement. It doesn't happen.

While ages that particular humans reach certian stages are in flux, they broadly hit about the same time. Piaget also concluded that each stage is comprised of mini-stages and that all humans move through them in a liner fassion. You can't suddenly jump from one to another.

The stages are:

Sensori- Motor intelligence (Birth to 2 years): Babies at this point are getting a grip on their physical capabilities as well as dealing with their immediate world. At the very earliest stage, this means discovering there IS an immediate world.

Preoperational Thought (2 to 7 years): Children learn to think using symbols and language, illogical thought follows.

Concrete Operations (7 to 11 years): Children start thinking systematically, but about concrete objects only.

Formal Operations (11 to adulthood): Children gain the ability to think about abstract objects and concepts and therefore are subjected to algebra.

So at 11, children are JUST starting to be able to comprehend abstract objects. They are not mini-adults, their througt processes are not adult like, and they cannot view the situation they are being asked to be in as an adult would. This isn't lack of knowledge, this is lack of ability. Their minds are NOT FORMED ENOUGH.

Yes, the ages are abritrary in terms of driving/sex/voting and the like, but usually at age 16, MOST teens have the ability to understand their actions. Most 11 year olds do not. Therefore they cannot give consent.

If you want to know more, go read it yourself. I have better things to do then to rehash Advanced Human Development for you.

"you may not know this,but there are a few public organizations who are working to legalize it"

NAMBLA comes to mind.

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.


I'll simply say that I can't really see the connection of your post to this topic.

All I have left is jest, Euroslavia has banned me from sarcasm, whit, insult and threat.


Everyone is banned from insult and threat. Don't feel singled out.

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

I think that's flamebaiting. You're warned.

Outside the not4chan community (yes, I know all about it), it is quite rare. You obviously have a rather rose-colored view of pædophilia.

No, I don't speak about a general unsupported intuitive idea that there are pedophiles everywhere. Indeed those who are exclusively attracted to children are very few, but sexual attraction to children is not very much rare. However, there are several studies, (such as (this (http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-048_article.html); don't have much time so I can't get any more links) that rather convincingly establish that actual pedophilia is not anywhere as rare as people might believe, let alone the presence of any sexual attraction toward children.

As for the criticisms of Rind et al., they are generally moot; it does not intend to make claims beyond its clearly established scope, and they thoroughly consider in the papers themselves the many criticisms they have received. One cannot pretend they simply tried to prove a point using bad science; they thoroughly consider every side of the issue. I've read the whole linked paper and a few others that followed, and I do not believe any criticism remained unaddressed; Rind et al. is science, not advocacy, as the authors themselves comment in the pasted text from the article (which I'm also familiar with; it's a good read, but it doesn't substitute reading the actual papers). In any case, Rind et al. is but a starting point for the tomes of research done on the subject.

Well in the US children as young as 10 are murdering each other with guns.

And this is deviant behavior, so your point is....?

I'm a heterosexual male. I've got female friends. There's not one of them I don't want to have sex with. I've hit on female friends before. I don't see why a pedophile would feel any differently with preteen friends. The difference is only that If I end up getting laid nobody gets hurt. If the pedophile gets lucky, in almost every instance the child gets hurt.

Let me let you in on a little secret. You dont represent the entire male population. In fact, I bet that point of view is abnormal. I doubt most guys want sex out of every female they know. I know its not the case for me and I know its not the case for the people I know well enough to know these things about.

sick bastard
Knock off the flaming.

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.....

Warned for flamebaiting.

No, I don't speak about a general unsupported intuitive idea that there are pedophiles everywhere. Indeed those who are exclusively attracted to children are very few, but sexual attraction to children is not very much rare. However, there are several studies, (such as (this; don't have much time so I can't get any more links) that rather convincingly establish that actual pedophilia is not anywhere as rare as people might believe, let alone the presence of any sexual attraction toward children.

"Sexual arousal to pedophilic stimuli has been posited as a motivational factor in sexual aggression against children." :D Yes, just like "hunger has been posited a a motivational factor in the consumption of food".

Suffice to say, 80 volunteers hardly constitutes proof that pædophilia is common and even if it did, that wouldn't make pædophilia ok anymore than racism being common made racism ok in the 50s.

As for the criticisms of Rind et al., they are generally moot; it does not intend to make claims beyond its clearly established scope, and they thoroughly consider in the papers themselves the many criticisms they have received. One cannot pretend they simply tried to prove a point using bad science; they thoroughly consider every side of the issue. I've read the whole linked paper and a few others that followed, and I do not believe any criticism remained unaddressed; Rind et al. is science, not advocacy, as the authors themselves comment in the pasted text from the article (which I'm also familiar with; it's a good read, but it doesn't substitute reading the actual papers). In any case, Rind et al. is but a starting point for the tomes of research done on the subject.

Then how do you account for the work of Piaget that one of the posters pointed out? That work makes it pretty clear that children cannot consent before a certain age when their minds reach sufficient development.

Honestly what is so wrong with the concept of people under 18 having sex? They know about sex, I bet some of them know more than their parents do. Age of consent was made by someone who was dropped as a child. I am not supporting rapists or pedophiles or unconsensual sex in any form, but it is possible for a person not of 'age' to make informed decisions concerning sex and other things. And what about mentally challenged people who are functionally ten, but due to being of 'age' they can have sex with their manipulative caretakers? There are some girls out there who have hit puberty at a young age. I remember when I was still in high school I saw one blessed and hot girl. My friend asked her how old she was and the girl replied "Eleven." She sure didn't look eleven. She looked better than my friend and she was a senior. Now because the genetic coding of my gender made this young attractive girl desirable to me, does that make me some kind of disgusting pervert? In the eyes of the uninformed, yes. If I had the chance I probably would have done some things with that girl that are illegal due to 'age of consent'. And due to this posting I'm sure some people are going to want to chop my penis off. How sad. I bet they're catholic priests too.

What you fail to produce is some proof for this claim. Why is the child unfit to make the decision?

What you and others ignore/deny is the work of child development experts like Piaget and Skinner, who have been mentioned before in this thread.

I suppose that the attraction is to have someone who will agree to whatever one wants from them, and are not as threatening as an adult who might refuse to go along. Or that somehow, somewhere, someone attracted to children has never really grown up and cannot deal with adults and adult relationships... you know, like that fellow who owns Neverland Ranch.

Honestly what is so wrong with the concept of people under 18 having sex? They know about sex, I bet some of them know more than their parents do. Age of consent was made by someone who was dropped as a child. I am not supporting rapists or pedophiles or unconsensual sex in any form, but it is possible for a person not of 'age' to make informed decisions concerning sex and other things. And what about mentally challenged people who are functionally ten, but due to being of 'age' they can have sex with their manipulative caretakers? There are some girls out there who have hit puberty at a young age. I remember when I was still in high school I saw one blessed and hot girl. My friend asked her how old she was and the girl replied "Eleven." She sure didn't look eleven. She looked better than my friend and she was a senior. Now because the genetic coding of my gender made this young attractive girl desirable to me, does that make me some kind of disgusting pervert? In the eyes of the uninformed, yes. If I had the chance I probably would have done some things with that girl that are illegal due to 'age of consent'. And due to this posting I'm sure some people are going to want to chop my penis off. How sad. I bet they're catholic priests too.

Nothing wrong with two people under 18 having sex together, as far as most of us are concerned. It's when a 21 year old man or woman is having sex with a ten year old that we're not going for it.

And knock off the trolling in your last sentence, hmmm?

Nothing wrong with two people under 18 having sex together, as far as most of us are concerned.

Most of us? Speak for yourself. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I don't think 12 year olds should be banging each other, or even 14 year olds. Just because beef hormones artificially bring about an earlier onset of puberty doesn't mean people are ready to have sex at earlier ages.

Ahh! Rape!

Suffice to say, 80 volunteers hardly constitutes proof that pædophilia is common and even if it did, that wouldn't make pædophilia ok anymore than racism being common made racism ok in the 50s.

Don't get me wrong, I was merely responding to a statement you made with that. If I believed popularity made right, I would have a very hard time justifying not taking a position of lynching all pedophiles.

Then how do you account for the work of Piaget that one of the posters pointed out? That work makes it pretty clear that children cannot consent before a certain age when their minds reach sufficient development.

One could, of course, quote just about anyone and obtain pretty much any sort of justification for any action you can imagine. The point I wish to make is, more than anything else, that we need to look at the issue of pedophilia from a perspective that is not twisted by extreme cultural bias, and be as objective as one can. As for the cited works, my opinion is that, unfortunately, much of psychology takes a trivial and reductionist approach to the mind of the child. Obviously, if one portrays children under 11 as simplistic creatures that mostly just react to their enviroinment and grasp basic concepts and nothing very abstract, the conclusions mentioned indeed follow. But this is-- and I believe I don't make a very outrageous claim when I say this-- an enormous miscaracterization of what children are capable of.

Most of us? Speak for yourself. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I don't think 12 year olds should be banging each other, or even 14 year olds. Just because beef hormones artificially bring about an earlier onset of puberty doesn't mean people are ready to have sex at earlier ages.

Ok, perhaps I worded that badly. I wouldn't WANT two kids having sex together (because they are not mature enough to deal with the emotional and biological consequences), but it happens and is to a large extent normal. Little kids masturbate -- and there's nothing wrong with that self-exploration. They play doctor -- and it is a normal part of their development. Someone who is an adult should not be playing "touchie feelie" with a kid, using them as a live sexual aid.

Obviously, if one portrays children under 11 as simplistic creatures that mostly just react to their enviroinment and grasp basic concepts and nothing very abstract, the conclusions mentioned indeed follow. But this is-- and I believe I don't make a very outrageous claim when I say this-- an enormous miscaracterization of what children are capable of.

How do you know children so well, might I ask?

Most of us? Speak for yourself. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I don't think 12 year olds should be banging each other, or even 14 year olds. Just because beef hormones artificially bring about an earlier onset of puberty doesn't mean people are ready to have sex at earlier ages.

Regardless, there is a distinction to which Kat was referring to and to which I am sure you agree. I certainly do.

How do you know children so well, might I ask?
The school I went to included everything from preschool to the end of high school, and high school students often work with younger ones assisting their teachers, tutoring them, playing group games, and so on. The rest is from psychology books and various scientific article sites on the Internets.

I don't claim to have great child-related knowledge; mostly I call for more of taking their interests into account and treating them with the same respect as one would treat an adult (yet, obviously, not with the same responsibilities); if one treats a child like they don't have the same rights as the rest of us, like one has authority over them that trascends rules they are nonetheless bound to, they'll see no reason to follow rules that seem dishonest and powerless. But that's a different topic altogether, really.

Well,

Little kids masturbate -- and there's nothing wrong with that self-exploration.

Yeah there is, if it's done at dinner and I'm eating.

They play doctor -- and it is a normal part of their development.

I suppose. I never played doctor, and I consider my development to have been normal.

Someone who is an adult should not be playing "touchie feelie" with a kid, using them as a live sexual aid.

Of course.

I wouldn't WANT two kids having sex together (because they are not mature enough to deal with the emotional and biological consequences), but it happens and is to a large extent normal.

That I'd have to disagree with. Why can't we just accept that the first parenthetical statement is true and that therefore we should discourage the concept that underage sex is a normal, or worse 'healthy' thing? Thats all I'm saying.

I don't claim to have great child-related knowledge; mostly I call for more of taking their interests into account and treating them with the same respect as one would treat an adult (yet, obviously, not with the same responsibilities); if one treats a child like they don't have the same rights as the rest of us, like one has authority over them that trascends rules they are nonetheless bound to, they'll see no reason to follow rules that seem dishonest and powerless. But that's a different topic altogether, really.

I am a teacher and counselor.
This structure, and our own hypocrisy are neccessary.
If we did not tell you "thou shallt not" the youth would be enitrely free to choose whatever they thought was right or wrong, true or false.

And this is perhaps the most terrifying experience of human existence. Read Sartre, man is "condemned to be free." This is hardly noticed until one realizies what one's responsibilities and choices are. It is much healthier for them to have at least a simple noble-lie of what is right and wrong than to be forced to come up with their own, especially at their age. I have a hard enough time bearing this responsibility.

Also it should be noted children look up to their parents. There is a natural hierarchy. Children should be praised for their accomplishments. The authorities should be respected. Children, and many people need something to look up to.

And if we did not make these moral laws, much of the intimacy involved between children, and everyone would be destroyed. Do you remember how close and trusting you felt when you whispered a curse word to a friend behind your parent's back? That intimacy would not exist if not for our dishonest laws.

And I assure you from personal experience that a child is incapable of taking the responsibilities required of sex. I've dealt with children who were abused, I need no scientific study to prove it.

Viewing children solely from psychology reports, and debating their status as objects of research is hardly in their best intrest.

As for their intrests, yes they are curious and spend much time expermenting. "Kiss me like in the movies mommy!" They are so beautifully honest. However they, like so many humans have no idea what's in their best intrest. With that, I show them and the rest of humanity the same respect.

you know, if you wouldn't say it in real life, then you probably shouldn't say it on the internet, because that implies that you know it's wrong, and not only that, it's in writing, should there be any legal inquiry into your own sexual practices. smart move, dude.


hmm...so we should lower the age of consent for the benefit of those people who have a compulsion to sleep with children? bullshit. think back to when you were 11. when your child is 11, (this is all in my subjective opinion on what a good parent should do, mind you) there are still many things you decide for them, what meals they eat, where they go, when they go to bed, if they can go and play at friends' houses, what movies they can watch...the list goes on and on. they are very much so still children. and you, OP are fucking crazy. think back to when you were 11. would you want a cock up your ass at that age? would you even know what that means at that age? i think the answer is no.

Young children can reach puberty early, and even pre-pubescent children can have sexual feelings.

Children do not think like adults, and some parts of the body mature faster than other parts. Whatever the intellect of a child, their brains are physically different to that of post-teens. One of the functions of the brain that doesnt develope until late to post teenage-hood is the processes associated with managing risks.

Sex is not an uncomplicated thing at all. There are life-long consequences involved and at the same time there is an immediate 'reward/gratification' mechanism (sexual pleasure), whilst any costs are not immediate. It's unrealistic to expect children to deal with this situation in the same an adult might be expected to and even many adults have problems making good decisions about sex. Sexual impulses can be powerful and certainly more 'real' in the moment than pregnancy or AIDS. Add to this a brain that has not yet developed full impulse control or risk assesment capabilities, then forcing on someone in this position the responsibility of making good choices about sex, is unrealistic and cruel.

Adults should be expected to orient their behaviour towards the well-being of children, and having sex does not promote a child's well-being in any way that I can see.

Our children spend a lot of time with adult strangers. Parents have a right and a duty to monitor and ultimately take control over what their children do. It's necessary for our society's functioning, that parents to be able to trust that adults will not have sexual intercourse with their children, how else can they send them to school, to sports, to the houses of other children over-night?

It's unfair to expect a child to make a good decision about sex, it is harmful given our social functioning, for parents to not be able to trust that other adults will not engage in sexual activities with children (including young teens).

There is no need for children to be included as potential sexual partners. They are not there to gratify other people's desires. Children do not need adults to have sex with them, so it's never about the needs of the child. It is abusive to use a child to satisfy one's own needs when doing so in no way benefits the child and is potentially harmful to them.

This structure, and our own hypocrisy are neccessary.
If we did not tell you "thou shallt not" the youth would be enitrely free to choose whatever they thought was right or wrong, true or false.

I disagree entirely. It is our job to lead children away from things that are obvious wrongs and dangers, but it is essential to give children a sense that they are entitled to fair treatment. If not, why should they feel compelled to behave appropriately in whatever situation they're in? Why should a child, other than from fear of punishment (which, I believe, is well understood to be a largely deficient way of influencing behavior), ever want to follow a rule if it does not apply uniformly to all? Think of children standing in line. If the rule is enforced equally for all, they'll understand each will get their turn and they'll respect the rule. If one of the kids is allowed to break the order for no sensible reason, the rule is meaningless and there's no reason to follow it.

Obviously children don't analyze situations rationally like that, but the principle holds. Children are perfectly capable of figuring out concepts like working for a common good, and such. You most certainly know this, I would think.

Also it should be noted children look up to their parents. There is a natural hierarchy. Children should be praised for their accomplishments. The authorities should be respected. Children, and many people need something to look up to.

Respect, yes, of course. But if you teach a child to be blindly obedient, or if you fail to teach them to question and try to understand everything, they'll have a myriad of problems throughout their entire lives.

And if we did not make these moral laws, much of the intimacy involved between children, and everyone would be destroyed. Do you remember how close and trusting you felt when you whispered a curse word to a friend behind your parent's back? That intimacy would not exist if not for our dishonest laws.

So we are to make stupid rules that confuse children so that they have the great pleasure of breaking them? Please. What kind of social indivitual do you hope to form with this practice?

And I assure you from personal experience that a child is incapable of taking the responsibilities required of sex. I've dealt with children who were abused, I need no scientific study to prove it.

I understand this is a very emotional topic. I'm sorry, but statements like "I need to scientific study to prove it." are simply inadmissible in a serious discussion.

Viewing children solely from psychology reports, and debating their status as objects of research is hardly in their best intrest.

I again disagree. How could we ever even approximate what anyone's best interests might be unless we look at their lives from a perspective as objective and formal as we can manage? The alternative is unfounded opitions swamped with personal, social and cultural bias. How can we ever see another person's perspective if we fail to do any effort at all to view the situation from outside ourselves?

Lord forbid people just try to talk to their chidren instead of relying on Big Bother, Piaget, or Skinner? As an aspiring psychiatrst i can tell you that Piaget has very limited scope, and Skinner has largely been restricted to educational settings, mainly because he disregards genes and predisposions.

No, sex is not a simple topic but informing and protecting our children is a parent's job and its not easy. Everyone here is ok with treating our kids like idiots?

Has it occured to anyone that it doesn't matter what the laws are preverts will be perverts. Laws are there to punish not to protect, you'd be very sheltered to tell me otherwise.

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.


True, although in the quoted example, I was refering to 3 and 4 year olds. Sorry, I should've clarified that.

Yes, 11 and 12 year olds are fascinated by adults and develop crushes on 'adult' stars. However, they fantasize about kissing, not hardcore sex acts, and most of the stars they focus on sell themselves to the children. Remember the Spice Girls? I was 11 when they were big, and all of us little 11 year olds wanted to be Baby Spice. We used to play Spice Girls and there was always a big fight about who got to be her. The rest were cool, but they were adults. The Backstreet Boys were cool then, too, and everyone loved Nick. When NSync came out, we all loved Justin. Why? Because they have 'baby faces.'

When children begin to go through puberty, they become fascinated with adult culture, but they pick the most childlike elements to centre on.

If all you can bring up is scientific data, I will not argue with you. There are hordes of literature you are simply ignoring by saying that.

What is beautiful, what is love, what is honor, what is power in the eyes of a scientist? Your analysis is superficial, and the scientific claim to "objectivity" is a dillusion. Science is just as seductive a lie as religion, it's love is merely weaker.

Science is driven by the will to truth. There are much greater wills than this from which to base philosophy and morality.

And as a science, psychology can hardly have "morality" since there is no free-will in the scientific worldview.

The contradictions that you so cleverly pointed out within the authority are meant not to govern the individual, but to be overcome. That is the process we teach them, they will no longer be blindly obedient. They will earn their rights to independence on their own! Not with the help of someone teaching them how to question. Teaching them this is just as coercive as giving them the answers. "Why the hell did you do that!" If you could step back and view the entire process from outside mere scientific cause and effect, you might see beyond. I was hoping you could do that. How old are you anyway?


Obviously children don't analyze situations rationally like that, but the principle holds. Children are perfectly capable of figuring out concepts like working for a common good, and such. You most certainly know this, I would think.

They figure this out through interaction with others, who have learned this from their parents. The very words the use came from those empowered, so to must their thoughts. You cannot escape your past.

Respect, yes, of course. But if you teach a child to be blindly obedient, or if you fail to teach them to question and try to understand everything, they'll have a myriad of problems throughout their entire lives.

Yes, lets teach our children that God is dead, and Santa too! They will question on their own, and if they don't why condemn them to!? What you're trying to do is far more coercive and detrimental than anything the authorities do. Let the authority perish, but long live science, the truth, my truth!

So we are to make stupid rules that confuse children so that they have the great pleasure of breaking them? Please. What kind of social indivitual do you hope to form with this practice?

The rules governing a child's behavior and thoughts are in place to be broken slowly, as a learning process as I've stated before. Until you learn it is not alright to infect others with your glorious truth, you will not understand. The Truth is so incredibly painful that only a very few humans can live with it. Why would you do that to a child? I assert your new learning process is merely a way to transform them into you.

Until you learn to see beyond truth and fiction, beyond good and evil you are merely left with your faith in others works, and your own secret lusts. I know what mine are, I want power. What are yours?

Well,


Little kids masturbate -- and there's nothing wrong with that self-exploration.


Yeah there is, if it's done at dinner and I'm eating.
Well, they have to be taught that it's not appropriate in public -- any more than scratching one's rear end, fixing makeup or hair at the table, or french kissing while there are others at the table.


They play doctor -- and it is a normal part of their development.


I suppose. I never played doctor, and I consider my development to have been normal.
Never said that if you didn't play it you were not normal, but kids compare how they are made.


Someone who is an adult should not be playing "touchie feelie" with a kid, using them as a live sexual aid.


Of course.
Something we both can agree on.


I wouldn't WANT two kids having sex together (because they are not mature enough to deal with the emotional and biological consequences), but it happens and is to a large extent normal.


That I'd have to disagree with. Why can't we just accept that the first parenthetical statement is true and that therefore we should discourage the concept that underage sex is a normal, or worse 'healthy' thing? Thats all I'm saying.
Again, remember -- I am not saying that it is what we'd prefer, but the fact is that young teens do have sex with other young teens; always have and always will, whether we like it/accept it or not. When I was in junior high, more than 25 years ago, there was an expectant mother in one of my classes.

Obviously, not ALL choose to be sexually active, but MANY DO. This is at least a more normal and healthy state of affairs than an older person (over the age of consent) cajoling an underage person into sex -- be it penetrative, oral, mutual masturbation or whatever.

snip snip

What?

No, seriously, what? I don't see the relation between educating children and giving them the tools and critical thinking abilities to confront life with some degree of success, and your onslaught of nihilism and desire to shelter kids from reality. Seriously, what? The awful truth that only a few people can stand? We are all born into the same world, and trying to ignore the harsher bits of reality only leads to trouble.

What's with all this questioning of science? Better things to base moral standards off? Seriously, what? Science is the most effective tool humanity has developed to understand reality with. You seem to believe science is some sort of cold, distant thing that is irrespective of individuality. It is the exact opposite! The sciences of man (psychology, sociology, anthropology) are all about the opposite: gaining an unpartial, objective understanding of the human mind, society and culture; an understanding that does not focus on any particular culture's take on things, but tries to understand every man, every group, every culture independently.

If that's not a good thing to base moral judgement on, I don't know what is.

Lord forbid people just try to talk to their chidren instead of relying on Big Bother, Piaget, or Skinner? As an aspiring psychiatrst i can tell you that Piaget has very limited scope, and Skinner has largely been restricted to educational settings, mainly because he disregards genes and predisposions.

Genes, I never liked the idea that genes determined our behavior. It always struck me as being quite close to the old "black people are inherently violent because of genetics" idea.

No, seriously, what? I don't see the relation between educating children and giving them the tools and critical thinking abilities to confront life with some degree of success, and your onslaught of nihilism and desire to shelter kids from reality. Seriously, what? The awful truth that only a few people can stand? We are all born into the same world, and trying to ignore the harsher bits of reality only leads to trouble.

What's with all this questioning of science? Better things to base moral standards off? Seriously, what? Science is the most effective tool humanity has developed to understand reality with. You seem to believe science is some sort of cold, distant thing that is irrespective of individuality. It is the exact opposite! The sciences of man (psychology, sociology, anthropology) are all about the opposite: gaining an unpartial, objective understanding of the human mind, society and culture; an understanding that does not focus on any particular culture's take on things, but tries to understand every man, every group, every culture independently.

Science is based on circular reasoning if you ask me. Exactly how is the scientific method backed up?

What?

No, seriously, what? I don't see the relation between educating children and giving them the tools and critical thinking abilities to confront life with some degree of success, and your onslaught of nihilism and desire to shelter kids from reality. Seriously, what? The awful truth that only a few people can stand? We are all born into the same world, and trying to ignore the harsher bits of reality only leads to trouble.

What's with all this questioning of science? Better things to base moral standards off? Seriously, what? Science is the most effective tool humanity has developed to understand reality with. You seem to believe science is some sort of cold, distant thing that is irrespective of individuality. It is the exact opposite! The sciences of man (psychology, sociology, anthropology) are all about the opposite: gaining an unpartial, objective understanding of the human mind, society and culture; an understanding that does not focus on any particular culture's take on things, but tries to understand every man, every group, every culture independently.

If that's not a good thing to base moral judgement on, I don't know what is.

In gaining inpartiality you lose your will.
What if it is natural to judge, persecute, and be entirelly unpartial, un-"objective?"

How would science handle that dilemna? How would it even figure that out? What the hell is "objectivity" under that anyway? What is success under the scientific worldview? You throw these words around, but they are meaningless, simply myths created by the oppressive authorities that created society.

"Critical thinking abilities" Logic? Your logic?
Ignorance? Not knowing your truth?

I see you're angry that I questioned your beliefs, reminds me of something...

And how can science judge itself? I puts all its faith into a few assumptions that are entirelly neglected by its followers. What is the will behind these assumptions? It is the easiest way organize the world, and in doing so you lose a bit of you childhood.

One must still have chaos within oneself...

Are you questioning me...?

Science is based on circular reasoning if you ask me. Exactly how is the scientific method backed up?

Yes, please explain.

Or has the thought even crossed your mind?

I see you're angry that I questioned your beliefs, reminds me of something...
I'm not angry; if I gave off that impression, I apologize. I simply don't see the conection between the issue being discussed and all this nihilistic defeatism. Perhaps I chose the wrong wording for the bit you highlighted: you can question science all you want; it's an essential part of science itself. But you're trying to portray science itself as an evil force that twists things from the truth. Again: what?

And how can science judge itself? I puts all its faith into a few assumptions that are entirelly neglected by its followers.
Uh, no; that's exactly what science isn't. Science is a pretty effective process we can use to understand the world. Science is not a doctrine, it's a process.

One must still have chaos within oneself...
I'm sorry, I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

How does any of this existential angst relate to the thread, anyways?

I'm not angry; if I gave off that impression, I apologize. I simply don't see the conection between the issue being discussed and all this nihilistic defeatism. Perhaps I chose the wrong wording for the bit you highlighted: you can question science all you want; it's an essential part of science itself. But you're trying to portray science itself as an evil force that twists things from the truth. Again: what?

May I? Really? then answer me this: how does the process fix itself? I already know that the scientific method is being re-defined. How does it know it is the "best?"

I'm sorry, I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
How does any of this existential angst relate to the thread, anyways?

If you're going to discuss simply from a scientific viewpoint, I will discuss from a strictly philisophical one.

You brought up the education of a child. I think it is entirelly relevant. If you do not understand children, you do not deserve to tell them what people should be allowed to do to them.

Please explain to me how a pedophile can express himself in any benevolent way other than avoiding children because he doesn't want to hurt them.

Isn't it believed that Lewis Carroll, author of Alice in Wonderland, was a pedophile? He expressed himself by writing a story starring the little girl he took rowing and to picnics. But as far as we know, he never indulged his interests.

Wouldn't that be non-violent, non-physical pedophilic practice?

Isn't it believed that Lewis Carroll, author of Alice in Wonderland, was a pedophile? He expressed himself by writing a story starring the little girl he took rowing and to picnics. But as far as we know, he never indulged his interests.

Wouldn't that be non-violent, non-physical pedophilic practice?

He was also a drug addict, correct?

Isn't it believed that Lewis Carroll, author of Alice in Wonderland, was a pedophile? He expressed himself by writing a story starring the little girl he took rowing and to picnics. But as far as we know, he never indulged his interests.

Wouldn't that be non-violent, non-physical pedophilic practice?

There's some information about this in the Wikipedia article for him. While it remains unclear whether he was attracted to young girls sexually, he was definitely fond of them in a general way. By modern standards, yes, he would probably be branded a pedophile; he was, among other things, a photographer, and his subjects were often nude young girls. The hysteria over child pornography and child sexuality in general that exists today didn't exist in his lifetime; certainly sexuality was repressed, but there was no widespread social paranoia associated with it. Art was art.

He was also a drug addict, correct?

That I don't know about. However, in Victorian times, opium smoking (and other kinds of drug use) did not have the same stigma attached to it that drugs do these days. So it's possible.

There's some information about this in the Wikipedia article for him. While it remains unclear whether he was attracted to young girls sexually, he was definitely fond of them in a general way. By modern standards, yes, he would probably be branded a pedophile; he was, among other things, a photographer, and his subjects were often nude young girls. The hysteria over child pornography and child sexuality in general that exists today didn't exist in his lifetime; certainly sexuality was repressed, but there was no widespread social paranoia associated with it. Art was art.

It remains unclear because he never was known to have acted upon it. But it is true that his nudes of young girls were considerably different in style than most Victorian art.

These days, he would probably have been brought to trial like John Robin Sharpe in Vancouver, who is busy defending his "Kiddie Kink Classics" stories as art and not child pornography.

That I don't know about. However, in Victorian times, opium smoking (and other kinds of drug use) did not have the same stigma attached to it that drugs do these days. So it's possible.


Actually, no he wasnt.

Thats a common misconception.

(not his real name)

Its hard to say whether he smoked opium or not, becuase as you say, it didnt have the same stigma.
However, it was seen as a drug used by the poorer classes, in chinese opium dens, wich were normally frequented by the "rougher crowds".
Carrol was upper class, and although they did use it too, it just wasnt talked about.

As for his photography, I watched a documentary on him, and his main focus seemded to be on "Alice" herself.
She was a real girl, and the duaghter of a friend.
The stories were written for her amusement.
As for the photos, he would start by asking if he could take thier pictures, and then again, in costumes.
After that, he would ask if he could take pictures in the nude.
Alice herself, was his favorite subject, and the show actually showed a few of his pictures.

I cant say that it was indecent, condsidering the time, but it certainly is an 8 year old naked girl on a couch.
It shows her reclining on a sofa, almost alseep-looking, but the pose isnt quite provacative....at least I didnt think so...but it IS a nekkid kid on a couch.

At any rate, he and Alice became very good friends, and saw each other (sometimes with Alice's friends in tow), sometimes pictures were taken ( not always nekkid ones).
However, the show says that thier relationship ended abruptly, and no one knows why.

It may have been that Carrol's infatuation with the young girl took an unfortunate turn, and became "not so innocent".
At any rate, they saw no more of each other, and the girl eventually married, and moved away.

One must still have chaos within oneself...


I'm sorry, I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

*disclaimer - author of this post knows she's not advancing the discussion in any way but cannot resist as this concerns one of jer favourite philosophers/authors

it's the first part of a famous quote by nietzsche. the complete version goes

"one must still have chaos within oneself to give birth to a dancing star" -> freely translated by my own inadequate self as i read nietzsche in german ;)

*disclaimer - author of this post knows she's not advancing the discussion in any way but ....just like most posts in the Forum

Forums are like that anyways...

...not all paedophiles are predators or child rapists...
...what I do have is a rational mindset... ...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... ...Don't go on to me about the rape of "innocence"...

y'know, this guy has a perfectly justifiable point. speaking as someone who has actaully lost his virginity at the age of 10 to a *22* year old (no, i have no modesty, or decency ;) ) , and wound up "...just fine and fricken dandy..." i can really see where this guy is coming from. today's modern society could use a more broad outlook on these things.

just to say: i support you in every way!

Isn't it believed that Lewis Carroll, author of Alice in Wonderland, was a pedophile? He expressed himself by writing a story starring the little girl he took rowing and to picnics. But as far as we know, he never indulged his interests.

Wouldn't that be non-violent, non-physical pedophilic practice?some say the same about General Montgomery and Baden-Powell

*bumping* this as i feel there's still not everything said
*sits back and watches discussion going on*

some say the same about General Montgomery and Baden-Powell

as in robert baden powell,the founder of scouts?hmmm,i wonder what that says about my position as a scout leader

as in robert baden powell,the founder of scouts?hmmm,i wonder what that says about my position as a scout leader

I've heard as much, but he wasn't exactly sexually liberal; as was common at the time, he taught boys that masturbation would make them go blind and/or insane, and such.

hey why not i agree with you entirely. :cool:

I've heard as much, but he wasn't exactly sexually liberal; as was common at the time, he taught boys that masturbation would make them go blind and/or insane, and such.

lol the majority of my scouts are girls,i dont think ill be teaching them about masturbation.

lol the majority of my scouts are girls,i dont think ill be teaching them about masturbation.Girls do not masturbate ??? :confused: :confused: :eek: :confused:

I am positive in that many who precotiously engaged in sexual activities by 11, wish that they hadn't done so, since it deprived them of the innocence which makes pre-adolescence such an important and cherised time in their lives.
By the by, you are a moron !!!!!

Girls do not masturbate ??? :confused: :confused: :eek: :confused:

im sure they do,but being a guy im not gonna be the one they find out about it from

as in robert baden powell,the founder of scouts?hmmm,i wonder what that says about my position as a scout leaderYes he is the one.

http://www.glgarden.org/ocg/archive1/images/baden1.jpg

and Mongomery was the chief of the British general staff...described as the finest British field commander since the Duke of Wellington.

I am positive in that many who precotiously engaged in sexual activities by 11, wish that they hadn't done so, since it deprived them of the innocence which makes pre-adolescence such an important and cherised time in their lives.
By the by, you are a moron !!!!!

And you, my friend, sound like a simpleton. If you think 11 year olds are innocent, you gravely mistaken. Furthermore, how can you speak for every individual who lost their virginity at that age?

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


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

*LOL* :D This topic is sooo f*cked up :P

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.

I agree whole-heartedly with your observations.

I am positive in that many who precotiously engaged in sexual activities by 11, wish that they hadn't done so, since it deprived them of the innocence which makes pre-adolescence such an important and cherised time in their lives.

i am positive that it is not "innocense" that makes childhood a cherised and iportant time. (innocense, by the way, is a stupid word. you'd be saying anyone having had sex is "gulity"?)

now i have enaged in sexual activities the first time when i was 12, so i unfortunately don't fit in your description and thereore cannot make an argument against your statement with my persona experience, but let it be said that i do not regret any tiny little bit of my sexual life so far.

p.s. feel free to call me a moron..may i do the same?

And you, my friend, sound like a simpleton. If you think 11 year olds are innocent, you gravely mistaken. Furthermore, how can you speak for every individual who lost their virginity at that age?
My daughter is 11, and innocent as they come.
I suggest you stay away from her. :sniper:

My daughter is 11, and innocent as they come.
I suggest you stay away from her. :sniper:
thats what you think :fluffle: :eek:

Do you ever feel that some topics are best left alone? Why is there a insatiable urge by some sick people to question every moral code; why must we reach the lowest common demoninator?
Civil society has existed for thousands of years, and these ethics we hold now have not just occured by accident. There are numerous moral, ethical, religious, evolutionary and humanitarian reasons why we don't allow this.

Please Please Please lets stop talking about this. Free speech is excellent, but you have to know when enough is enough.

There are numerous moral, ethical, religious, evolutionary and humanitarian reasons why we don't allow this.Its time for you to tell us about your numerous reasons...

Its time for you to tell us about your numerous reasons... Do you have a daughter?

Do you have a daughter?

Appeal to emotion...a classic logical fallacy

Appeal to emotion...a classic logical fallacy

Why can't one approach from both? And what is wrong with appealing to emotion?

As far as I've seen many "logical" arguments are driven entirelly by emotion.

Did you not feel an emotion when posting that response? Can you truly be honest about that?

Appeal to emotion...a classic logical fallacy Yes, appealing to emotion and the fact that you may feel differently if you do have a daughter. You would know kids better, for one thing. See? Not entirely emotionally driven.

First,let's make one thing clear, a pedophile is a sexual deviant who commits sexual acts with children, both prepubescent and those in puberty, and not an adult who has sex with an adolescent (post-puberty) minor. Different countries have different standards to discern children from adolescents, in my country the border age is 14, which makes sense, as that's the age when the children graduate from (compulsory) elementary school and go to high school, and some even start working. Still, it's not usual for the teenagers to have sex before the age of 16. Still, a 30 year old having consentual sex with a 15 year old is odd, but should be allowed by law.

Given the terminology is clear, I state that all the pedophiles,i.e. those who are engage in sexual acts with children (and these are never consentual acts, but acts of rape and molestation, since a child is neither physically nor emotionally developed to have sex, and cannot defend himself or herself from such predators, given both physical and emotional circumstances) should be most severely punished and permanetntly removed from the society for the protection of the society as a whole and especially the children who are its most vulnerable element.
Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children because of their predatory nature and since the children can't defend themselves they represent an ideal prey for these deviants. Those perverts get sexually aroused by the fact that they have a defenceless human being in power, pedophilia is all about domination. Also, pedophiles always eventualy act on their sexual desire and can't be rehabilitated. Evidence backing this paragraph up can be found in the relevant publications in the field of Criminal Psychology.

Being in their formative years, the children are extremely sensitive to the world around them and even a single act of molestation can result in a major personality change of a child. The victims suffer long-term consequences and irreparable psychological and sometimes psychosomatic damage (which translates into a physical disorder), and some of them even become child molesters and sociopaths themselves. Evidence backing this paragraph up can be found in the relevant publications in the fields of Child and Criminal Psychology.

Given that, I consider anybody trying to rationalize pedophilia either a child molester, or a future child molester, or a child molesters' accomplice and hence such a person should be punished most severely. Debating this issue should not be allowed, as it doesn't fall into the domain of the free speech, but it represents an attempt to popularize and promote the most heinous crime a human being can commit, similar to a potential thread debating over the rationale of the Holocaust. Thus this thread should be locked ASAP. :mad:

I agree that "children" under 16 or 18 should have protected status to prevent them from being taken advantage of. However, I think that if a post-pubescent child consents willingly to sexual intercourse with someone over 18 then it should not be illegal.
After puberty, a child becomes able according to nature to conceive and is therefore old enough to have sex. Before puberty however, I do not think sex would be appropriate.

However, we also have to consider that although everyone makes mistakes, an 18 year old will have the maturity to deal with it more capably than an 11 year old, which could lead to problems.

Appeal to emotion...a classic logical fallacy

Appeal to logic...a classic emotional fallacy. Ok, that was a lame one.

Yes, appealing to emotion and the fact that you may feel differently if you do have a daughter. You would know kids better, for one thing. See? Not entirely emotionally driven.

Parental experience enables you to know your kids better, to some degree; even so, a parent's actions in regard to the life of their child are largely motivated by the parent's very emotional relationship to the child. Or do you disagree that parents have for ever done atrocious things to their children due to a poor understanding or outright disregard of the interests of the child? Please do not shrug this off as a "there will always be loons" issue; I speak not about people who neglect or actively hurt their children to the point of killing them, but about repressive and violent upbringing. Or have you forgotten that harsh indoctrination, corporal punishment, food deprivation, and, yes, strong repression of sexual exploration are all still problems that plague the lives of children today and parents are largely if not exclusively responsible for them?

The perspective one must use in these debates is not a parental, protective one; there's a reason we have the science of psychology: it enables us to understand the human mind in ways that personal perspective and emotion would never allow to be revealed.

wow this is still going?
:fluffle: more often

First,let's make one thing clear, a pedophile is a sexual deviant who commits sexual acts with children, both prepubescent and those in puberty, and not an adult who has sex with an adolescent (post-puberty) minor. Different countries have different standards to discern children from adolescents, in my country the border age is 14, which makes sense, as that's the age when the children graduate from (compulsory) elementary school and go to high school, and some even start working. Still, it's not usual for the teenagers to have sex before the age of 16. Still, a 30 year old having consentual sex with a 15 year old is odd, but should be allowed by law.

*seconding a good point*

How can psychology relate repression with "bad"?
What is the basis of the scientific morality?

Childmolestors are people to! PEOPLEmolestors.

Does anyone of you know what sexual predators are like? What they do? What they like to do to anyone they can? I do - I used to supervise sex offenders in prison, and the worst of them, the sexual predators, the one who, like one scumbag I know, like to rape 8 month olds, are beyond most normal persons understanding. For a normally wired human, trying to understand the sick twisted veiw of the world that allows the sexual attack of the young and innocnet is like wading through rotting garbage up to your neck, and dipping down for a mouthful.
Another sick trash is a disgusting poop pile who inserted pizza into his young victims. Another forced 4 year old boys to preform oral sex on him - sexual predators are truely lower than the most vile form of life on this planet, and deserve whatever horrible fate they have coming to them in this life or afterwards. Pedophiles, like NAMBLA, and others, are disgusting, worthy of nothing more than the worst society can give them with.
You will never, ever convince me other wise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malflaw
I think most of the people who posted in short, negative ways are actually just sexually repressed themselves. Suck on that.


"I think that's flamebaiting. You're warned."

i agree with Malflaw. he could have been more tactful,but he speaks the truth that noone wants to hear....


i know. ive been warned too. save your text... :P

How can psychology relate repression with "bad"?
What is the basis of the scientific morality?

There isn't one; I'll grant you that. I happen to be a humanist, so my take on it is that we should do what we can to prevent human suffering and enhance the quality of life and legacy. I don't think it's too outrageous a position.

Baseless? Perhaps; you could certainly argue nothing matters anyways, but there's no logic to support either position. I happen to be a humanist. I choose to live under the axiom of humanism. And, with that as a starting point, the rest follows rather easely; there is indeed much disagreement in detailed issues such as the one discussed in this topic, of course, but that's the reason we discuss it.

Anyways, this is largely outside the point of the discussion; sorry for going OT.

Originally Posted by Quasaglimoth
"i see there are still many ignorant and hateful posters out there"

saying you will kill a pedo isnt hateful and ignorant? i think some of the posters could get in trouble for making a threat like that,dont you?


"so hurry up and die with your self-righteous beliefs"

i have to give you that one,mr mod....i went a bit far

Appeal to emotion...a classic logical fallacyWhen do they appeal to my emotion?

...When they have run out of Logic...

I really don't see the need to legalize pædophilia. If Not4chan wants to fantasize about sex with little boys, he can use shotakon hentai instead of the real thing. No one is hurt and Not4chan's pædophilia is channeled away from real children.

Yes, appealing to emotion and the fact that you may feel differently if you do have a daughter. You would know kids better, for one thing. See? Not entirely emotionally driven.
Ironically I HAVE a daughter and i still think age of consent is a bullshit construct.

I said this before, laws of this nature do NOTHING to protect anyone, only gain to gain morality votes. Predators and rapists (of all ages) will still break the law and force themselves on people, which is not pediphilia but RAPE.

The thorny part of this issue is when both sides WANT to be in a relationship, if you say that your daughter has no mind of her own, hence has no choice in who she picks to go out with, then you are raising her to be a robot.

Ironically I HAVE a daughter and i still think age of consent is a bullshit construct.

I said this before, laws of this nature do NOTHING to protect anyone, only gain to gain morality votes. Predators and rapists (of all ages) will still break the law and force themselves on people, which is not pediphilia but RAPE.

The thorny part of this issue is when both sides WANT to be in a relationship, if you say that your daughter has no mind of her own, hence has no choice in who she picks to go out with, then you are raising her to be a robot.

Your daughter is fortunate to have such a wise parent. The issue is consent, and who can and can't give it. Where I live that age of consent is 16, but I've lived in countries where it's as low as 13, and the fabric of moral society wasn't breaking down.

Paedophilia is already legal - rape isn't, whoever is the victim. It's worrying how many otherwise intelligent people conflate paedophilia and child rape, especially when most child rapists aren't paedophiles, just vicious and cruel people looking for a vulnerable victim, age notwithstanding.

I think its disgusting and abhorrent that there are people in this discussion who are so misguided as to think their 13 year old daughter or son could actually want a relationship with a 40 year old man or woman, without being manipulated in some way.

It just doesn't happen.

I feel very sorry for your daughter or son.

I think its disgusting and abhorrent that there are people in this discussion who are so misguided as to think their 13 year old daughter or son could actually want a relationship with a 40 year old man or woman, without being manipulated in some way.

It just doesn't happen.

I feel very sorry for your daughter or son. Oh, it's perfectly possible for 13 year olds to feel an attraction to a 40 year old. However, it is a VERY bad idea to act on it, and that's what the law and parents should prevent.

I've done prac in high schools, so yeah, I've seen the 13 year old girls who cover their school diaries with pictures of Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise, and the boys who cover their diaries with Angelina Jolie et al.

And I do know of young kids who form attractions to older people.

But thats why we need age of consent laws. Because much as we like to think we've raised smart kids, someone with that kind of experience can easily trick them into believing something that isn't true.

I read through the first 14 or so pages of this thread before it became obvious that half the posters were saying "OMG j00 fukn sicko!!!" and the other half were saying "11 might be too young, but..."

I personally think that Age of Consent laws need some revision. Not just for sex, but for drinking, too.

I live in Australia, which has an AoC of 16 and a drinking age of 18- and both ages are sensible and reasonable for the most part, IMO.

However, the problems arise when you have guys- usually in the 16-20 bracket- sleeping with girls who they thought were 16 but actually turn out to be 14 or 15.

With make-up, fashion, and girls developing earlier, I can sort of see how there are guys that have genuinely been caught out- either because the girl actually lied to him about her age, or he simply assumed she was over 16 ("She's got 18D breasts, so she's obviously over 16!"). Of course, there will always be predators who just want to screw a 14 or 15yo girl, but these people should not be confused with paedophiles.

The way I see it, Paedophilia (ie, screwing anyone under 12 or 13) is a mental illness and paedophiles need help. But the guy who sleeps with a 14 or 15yo girl who geniuinely consented (or even lied to get him into bed in the first place!) is, in my opinion, guilty of nothing worse than thinking with his dick rather than his head. And if THAT was a crime, most of the male population of the planet would be in prison at one point or another.

When I was 16, there were plenty of attractive girls I knew who were only 14 or 15. They weren't interested in me because I wasn't "Cool", and most of them were still giggling over guys from bands. When I was 18, there were plenty of 16yo girls that were both hot and willing... but emotionally were still pretty damn immature (see: giggling and boy bands), as well as learning they can emotionally blackmail guys who sleep with them "(Buy me stuff or I'll tell Daddy you raped me!"). When I was 20, an even now at 24, I just don't have the time or patience for girls under 18.

To put it another way: If an attractive girl who told me she was 17 offered me a night of kinky pleasure, I'd turn her down- not because she wasn't capable of consenting to said night of kinky pleasure, but because the emotional crap afterwards would not be worth it for me. And I don't know ANY 17yos in RL who are actually capable of a meaningful relationship (when I was 17, all the girls I knew based their relationships on cars, money, and who their friends wanted).

And I worry at how young girls dress nowadays, but that's for a different thread...

Perhaps we can correlate emotional maturity with taste in music?

Perhaps we can correlate emotional maturity with taste in music? So we're not a nation of old people after all!

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.


11 year olds can barely consent to what cereal they would like for breakfast and the majority are not even through puberty yet . They are unformed in both mind and body . You have not thought your post out very well ...or you have thought about it alot ...maybe even dwelled on it and actually have acted on it and are looking to rationalize ...in that case you are a sick person in need of castration . like all pedophiles .

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.

BURN IN HELL YOU SON OF A BITCH
If there is a god, if there is any fairness in the world you will pay for ene bringing this up, you are sick

I HOPE YOU ONLY POSTED THIS TO FUCK WITH US AND DONT MEAN IT!!

I think its disgusting and abhorrent that there are people in this discussion who are so misguided as to think their 13 year old daughter or son could actually want a relationship with a 40 year old man or woman, without being manipulated in some way.

It just doesn't happen.

I feel very sorry for your daughter or son.
I think it is a bad idea for relationships to have to much of an age difference in general. Even if she is 19 and going out with her college professor who's 40 years her senior. I don't think it's fine and dandy simpliy because she "of age".

Once again the laws do nothing to prevent bad things from happening.

You're the deluded one to think that kids are not attracted to adults of their own free will, hell you prolly don't even believe in the concept of free-will. My girl will make mistakes that are her own, as a parent I'll give her the information and advice to minimize them and be there for her when she messes up. THAT is what a parent should do not hide behind a misguilded belief that children simpliy don't have certain feelings, that's plain dumb.

No need to feel sorry for my daughter (or future sons), they will be the responsible, free thinkers that your children will never be.

BTW don't ever critisize how I raise my children that's just bad manners.

It sure would make it easier to get a date .

"Legalise Paedophilia"

Over my dead body ... literally! :mad:

Perhaps we can correlate emotional maturity with taste in music?

Right on! I was listening to Bach and Beethoven when I was a preteen! I pwnors juu in terms of emotional maturity!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111

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.

you're not mad (i think). peadophiles are being driven into secrecy. i would like to congratulate you for bringing this up. this sort of discussion needs to be encouraged. i don't know what i think about the age 11 bit, it would be so hard to monitor when it was right or wrong, but i do see a need for this type of dialogue. peadophiles need to communicate too, just as anyone else who wishes to talk about their differences, needs to in order to feel accepted-a basic human need. to some of the other posters, not all peadophiles are homosexuals or rapists, wake up. i'm not saying rape is ok. i will admit that it is a difficult topic. all the more reason to foind some sort of resolution. individuals are being excluded and hurt when they want understanding. let them speak. invite it, and respect it.

"Legalise Paedophilia"

Over my dead body ... literally! :mad:
Did you know that oral sex was considered legal grounds for a divorce 50 years ago? Did you know that according to DSM2 homosexuals were considered "crazy" less than 20 years ago?

Don't think that it won't happen in your lifetime, and when it does you'll think you were so silly to fear it and move on to be afriad of the next wave "deviant" behavior that the media and moral leaders tell you to.

Whether or not it's a good idea to lower the age of consent, putting it as "legalizing paedophilia" is bound to get a negative response. You could get people to agree to such a proposition by phrasing it differently, or you could get people to object to something perfectly reasonable by phrasing it in an unfavorable way.

That said, I don't agree with the premise of the thread, but I don't agree with locking it just because of the topic. The free exchange of ideas is absolutely necessary, even if some will never agree to a proposition.

An age of consent such as 13 is acceptable, but parents should have recourse to override that. If I had a 13-year-old daughter who went and had sex with an older man, I would still want to prevent that from happening again, so I could have her listed as "non-consenting", and therefore, others could go to jail for having sex with her. However, if she gives the impression that she is not "non-consenting", then she would go to jail instead (though I imagine this would be tough to prove.) Beyond that, all cases of rape should be treated as more or less the same regardless of who the victim is - by that, I mean lengthy prison terms in a hellhole doing hard labor seven days a week.

Did you know that oral sex was considered legal grounds for a divorce 50 years ago? Did you know that according to DSM2 homosexuals were considered "crazy" less than 20 years ago?

Don't think that it won't happen in your lifetime, and when it does you'll think you were so silly to fear it and move on to be afriad of the next wave "deviant" behavior that the media and moral leaders tell you to.
no. in this age where we all but worship our children i dont see us legalizing molestation any time soon. if anything i see us putting in even harsher sentences for adults who prey on children.

I cant see it happening, maybe the laws maybe relaxed a bit and judges or magistrates are given more powers of discretion when sentencing but thats about it. This society is based on control of the masses using the family model as a method of enslaving the proletariat, the family unit is the most outward form of control the state and corporations have over us the workers. Lawmakers would do nothing to jeopardise this, that's why theres such a big hang up about gay-marriage, its not because they are sodomites its because they dont breed. It's all about breeding folks. So yeah, sex with minors has no economic value because you wouldnt want young teens to be getting pregnant because then its double the economic burden, the young mom cant work or is paid low wages and the child has to be supported. So if you want this to be legalised you gotta make it somehow economically beneficial to such a degree that legislators are pressured into passing a law for it, that is the only thing that would force them to do it, they wont care about satisfying the needs of adults who lust after children but they would care if there was money in it. They dont even care that Dads who carry the burden of paying allimony to support their kids and are ran into the ground bankrupt and end up killing their kids and then themselves, this happens a lot... but are laws changed to prevent this? no... because if dads dont pay allemony then the state would have to pay the burden of supporting those kids... we cant have that happen now can we :P

An age of consent such as 13 is acceptable, but parents should have recourse to override that. If I had a 13-year-old daughter who went and had sex with an older man, I would still want to prevent that from happening again, so I could have her listed as "non-consenting", and therefore, others could go to jail for having sex with her. However, if she gives the impression that she is not "non-consenting", then she would go to jail instead (though I imagine this would be tough to prove.).
Thats a New approach...

The Gov sets an absolute minimum AoC around puberty...at 13, 14, 12 or 16 or whatever...

Then Parents or school Counselors can select all the boys or Girls who are "not mature enough to give consent"...attached with a quick psy test...and give them statutory exemption...

Any comments?

because if dads dont pay allemony then the state would have to pay the burden of supporting those kids... we cant have that happen now can we :P

I'm all for it, if you are an incompetent parent, we will raise your kids for you.

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.

You know my other nation got Deleted for being against some just like this guy.
Not banned, DELETED.
And you bags of sh!t wouldnt even close this perverts thread.
I suppose that makes me a bigot right?
Happy to be one, happy to be an intolerant piece of garbage.

I have a ten year old daughter sport and I suppose you culd talking into saying yes to just about anything, but that isnt consent.

and speaking completely HYPOTHETICALLY--just generically, I would fine with giving you my address in a tag and you can come over and discuss it in preson. You can even meet my kids.
Nothing would please me more then to look a bag of garbage like you in the eye.

no. in this age where we all but worship our children i dont see us legalizing molestation any time soon. if anything i see us putting in even harsher sentences for adults who prey on children.
That's the exactly the problem, we are supposed to love our children not smother them or worship them. Loving them means letting them own up to their mistakes, and letting them bask in their own victories. Children are not our playthings, for us to mold how we see fit, nor are they perfect little angels that have no carnal desires, thinking such is folly.

If we can't have some sort of objective viewpoint on our kids (ie they will have sex sooner or later and whether you like it or not) then we should not be raising them.

You know my other nation got Deleted for being against some just like this guy.
Not banned, DELETED.
And you bags of sh!t wouldnt even close this perverts thread.
I suppose that makes me a bigot right?
Happy to be one, happy to be an intolerant piece of garbage.

I have a ten year old daughter sport and I suppose you culd talking into saying yes to just about anything that isnt consent.

and speaking completely HYPOTHETICALLY--just generically, I would fine with giving you my address in a tag and you can come over and discuss it in preson. You can even meet my kids.
Nothing would please me more then to look a bag of garbage like you in the eye. :confused: :confused: you need to rewrite your post...its difficult to understand whatever you are trying to say

That's the exactly the problem, we are supposed to love our children not smother them or worship them. Loving them means letting them own up to their mistakes, and letting them bask in their own victories. Children are not our playthings, for us to mold how we see fit, nor are they perfect little angels that have no carnal desires, thinking such is folly.

If we can't have some sort of objective viewpoint on our kids (ie they will have sex sooner or later and whether you like it or not) then we should not be raising them.

I think if we don't give our children any more direction than "Do what you want and find out how bad it is to screw up" we shouldn't be raising kids.

And to think we don't give our children any morals whatsoever, that they are free to choose their own lifestyles, what a dillusion. The very words they use, the belief, that belief in freedom comes from us. If we do not have the power, the will to construct people, we should not have created them in the first place.

Freedom is not everything.

you're not mad (i think). peadophiles are being driven into secrecy. i would like to congratulate you for bringing this up. this sort of discussion needs to be encouraged. i don't know what i think about the age 11 bit, it would be so hard to monitor when it was right or wrong, but i do see a need for this type of dialogue. peadophiles need to communicate too, just as anyone else who wishes to talk about their differences, needs to in order to feel accepted-a basic human need. to some of the other posters, not all peadophiles are homosexuals or rapists, wake up. i'm not saying rape is ok. i will admit that it is a difficult topic. all the more reason to foind some sort of resolution. individuals are being excluded and hurt when they want understanding. let them speak. invite it, and respect it.

Yep they should all come out from under their rocks so we know where they are . tell us all how you feel about screwing little kids and be sure to put your location un your post ...for demographic refference of course..and so it wont take too long to track you down and render some assistance for your affliction ...not having balls anymore should help out alot .

And to think we don't give our children any morals whatsoever, that they are free to choose their own lifestyles, what a dillusion. The very words they use, the belief, that belief in freedom comes from us. If we do not have the power, the will to construct people, we should not have created them in the first place.

Freedom is not everything.what is the age range that defines "Children"... 0-18...0-21

at what age should we allow them to choose lifestyles?

what is the age range that defines "Children"...

at what age should we allow them to choose lifestyles?

18?, 21?

The same time they are able to deconstruct the lies that surround them and come up with a better solution.

As I said before, their independence should not be handed to them, it would be a horrible condemnation to give that to someone who is not ready.

Freedom must be earned.

I think if we don't give our children any more direction than "Do what you want and find out how bad it is to screw up" we shouldn't be raising kids.

And to think we don't give our children any morals whatsoever, that they are free to choose their own lifestyles, what a dillusion. The very words they use, the belief, that belief in freedom comes from us. If we do not have the power, the will to construct people, we should not have created them in the first place.

Freedom is not everything.
Acutally freedom is everything. I never said "do whatever you want and find out some yourself" I have been advocating to proporly equip out kids with the information and tools they will need to survive, whether they choose to follow that advice is, and always has been, their choice.

I've been saying that we should be informing our kids for 10+ pages now, and figured everyone knew my stance on it. Did you not bother to read them (not that I would blame you) or did you selectivily pick that post to prove a point?

Children mimick. It's a fact of life that a child will mimick his or her parents. This is not susceptible to only toddlers, but adolescents, as well. A child will derive their sense of morale from their parents; he or she will derive their opinions from the root of their parents' opinions. Simple observation of an adolescent child with their parent or guardian should make this obvious. This also concurs with the cycle of abuse (ie: it is highly likely that a daughter produced from an abusive marriage will grow to have relationships with abusive men).

Acutally freedom is everything. I never said "do whatever you want and find out some yourself" I have been advocating to proporly equip out kids with the information and tools they will need to survive, whether they choose to follow that advice is, and always has been, their choice.

I've been saying that we should be informing our kids for 10+ pages now, and figured everyone knew my stance on it. Did you not bother to read them (not that I would blame you) or did you selectivily pick that post to prove a point?

Selectively picked a post to prove point.

Education, should only be given so that they can survive? I think it is more than that.
And education is rarely, if ever "objective."
And as I and many philosophers before me have stated, granting the "freedom of choice" to someone can be an horrific situation. This may be part of our nature, but certainly does not need to be pointed out to those who could not handle it.

The same time they are able to deconstruct the lies that surround them and come up with a better solution.

As I said before, their independence should not be handed to them, it would be a horrible condemnation to give that to someone who is not ready.

Freedom must be earned.Laws have to be clear...I want the Death Sentence for the rapists...but we need to have clear uniform laws...

Your answer is extremely random..foggy...

When the day comes...the day you have to explain "the rules" to your kids...you also need to be clear and direct...

Or else they will think you dont know what you want.

Did you know that oral sex was considered legal grounds for a divorce 50 years ago? Did you know that according to DSM2 homosexuals were considered "crazy" less than 20 years ago?

Don't think that it won't happen in your lifetime, and when it does you'll think you were so silly to fear it and move on to be afriad of the next wave "deviant" behavior that the media and moral leaders tell you to.
If it's legalized in my lifetime, it will be because I'm behind bars for assassinating any politician or leader who attempts to legalize it.

I think we should take a page from the notebook of the animal kingdom. You never see animals screwing their young, do you? Therefor, we humans shouldn't do it.

Animals occasionaly *eat* their young, in which case, it's perfectly okay for us to do, too. :D

Laws have to be clear...I want the Death Sentence for the rapists...but we need to have clear uniform laws...

When the day comes...the day you have to explain "the rules" to your kids...you also need to be clear and direct...

Or else they will think you dont know what you want.

First misconception, laws for a child need to be very obscure. "Don't hurt other people."

Common law. Seems simple. Later questions:
1) What does it mean to hurt people?
2) Are there times when this should be broken, why do we punish people? How is punishment different from hurt?
3) Who count as other people? Can I hurt an animal?
4) What are people?
5) Who am I?

We want very much for the laws to be clear, and in a governmental sense they have been made pretty clear, through the judicial system. However, you will lose a child's intrest and respect if you go through trying to explain the entire system to them.

Do you mean in last part they will not know what I want from them? I will make it very clear to them, but they will see the complexity with time. He or she will say, "Daddy, when I grow up I wanna be just like you!" I'll smile and reply, "When you grow up I want you to be better than me."

Mind you I will not be one of those "You didn't do good enough" parents.

If you are asking they will not know what I want overall, I'm not entirely sure I do yet. I've stated before "I want power" but I do not think they would understand that, I don't.

I'm all for questioning, but as I've said before, teaching a child how to question is just as bad as giving them an answer. You will change their focus by saying questions. It seems obvious today the only questions the people want to talk about regard those empowered, the natural democratic fear of power. However, when I talk with kids I want them to not only be able to question me, but question themselves.

If it's legalized in my lifetime, it will be because I'm behind bars for assassinating any politician or leader who attempts to legalize it.

I love your will.

First misconception, laws for a child need to be very obscure. "Don't hurt other people."

Common law. Seems simple. Later questions:
1) What does it mean to hurt people?
2) Are there times when this should be broken, why do we punish people? How is punishment different from hurt?
3) Who count as other people? Can I hurt an animal?
4) What are people?
5) Who am I?

We want very much for the laws to be clear, and in a governmental sense they have been made pretty clear, through the judicial system. However, you will lose a child's intrest and respect if you go through trying to explain the entire system to them.

Do you mean in last part they will not know what I want from them? I will make it very clear to them, but they will see the complexity with time. He or she will say, "Daddy, when I grow up I wanna be just like you!" I'll smile and reply, "When you grow up I want you to be better than me."

Mind you I will not be one of those "You didn't do good enough" parents.

If you are asking they will not know what I want overall, I'm not entirely sure I do yet. I've stated before "I want power" but I do not think they would understand that, I don't.

I'm all for questioning, but as I've said before, teaching a child how to question is just as bad as giving them an answer. You will change their focus by saying questions. It seems obvious today the only questions the people want to talk about regard those empowered, the natural democratic fear of power. However, when I talk with kids I want them to not only be able to question me, but question themselves.
In the first paragraph..when I wrote "Laws" I was talking about legislation....

in the later lines I was speaking about spelling out rules to your own children...(in my opinion they both have to be clear)

But since you don't know what you want (which is perfectly normal)...we'll have to leave it at that.

You pose an excellent question here. As you may have noticed, it is bound to get much attention. However, as you may also have noticed, not all of that attention is good. This is due to the fact that paedophilia has somehow , due to the action of numerous sexually repressed sadists, has become the great taboo of the last 30 or 50 years. Because of THIS, much of the input on this forum may not be very useful to you. I myself feel that I, as a young man of 16 I should have the right to make love to anyone I choose and resent the fact that an older person may get in trouble because I love them, and frankly, I feel that it is terrible that society thinks I am not old enough to consent. That is absolutely disgusting to me. I'm not saying go out and remove age of consent laws, they are there for very young, impressionable kids protection, but I know that I was perfectly able mentally and emotionally to consent by the time I was 14.

But since you don't know what you want (which is perfectly normal)...we'll have to leave it at that.

You sure, most people I talk to seem to know what they want.

You sure, most people I talk to seem to know what they want.On some taboo subjects like AoC...most average people have not decided what is the best approach(I could say that about me)...

and they will change their approach over the years.

One of the Problems with Taboo subjects is misinformation...misscommunication (people hate to talk about it)

For the record- I love children. But I can never eat a whole one. ;)

You pose an excellent question here. As you may have noticed, it is bound to get much attention. However, as you may also have noticed, not all of that attention is good. This is due to the fact that paedophilia has somehow , due to the action of numerous sexually repressed sadists, has become the great taboo of the last 30 or 50 years. Because of THIS, much of the input on this forum may not be very useful to you. I myself feel that I, as a young man of 16 I should have the right to make love to anyone I choose and resent the fact that an older person may get in trouble because I love them, and frankly, I feel that it is terrible that society thinks I am not old enough to consent. That is absolutely disgusting to me. I'm not saying go out and remove age of consent laws, they are there for very young, impressionable kids protection, but I know that I was perfectly able mentally and emotionally to consent by the time I was 14.
Come back and tell us this after you've had children of your own.

I love your will.
Thanks. Most of it is courtesy of the US Army. :)

If it's legalized in my lifetime, it will be because I'm behind bars for assassinating any politician or leader who attempts to legalize it.

Same here, or I would start a rebel movement targeting everyone who supports it.

Same here, or I would start a rebel movement targeting everyone who supports it. Oh shit, we agree on something.

And somebody said that gay sex was illegal thirty years back. But that is between two consenting individuals. Pedophilia is not.

Lowering age of consent to 11...
What a great way to boost national population levels and encourage dangerous teen pregnacies!
WHAT A BARREL OF LAUGHS.

And somebody said that gay sex was illegal thirty years back. But that is between two consenting individuals. Pedophilia is not.

Eh, just beat 'em around the ears some, and children will consent to anything.*

Mwahahahahahaha!

*Hold off on the pitchforks and torches! I kid, I kid!

Lowering age of consent to 11...
What a great way to boost national population levels and encourage dangerous teen pregnacies!
WHAT A BARREL OF LAUGHS.

I know...I'm sure 100% of the guys who are going to impregnate kids are going to marry them and be around when they give birth to their children. This is surely the most responsible option, especially when we know 11 year olds are perfectly capable of supporting themselves and entering legal agreements. :rolleyes:

And somebody said that gay sex was illegal thirty years back. But that is between two consenting individuals. Pedophilia is not.

I don't think gay people like to be compared to pedophiles either...