NationStates Jolt Archive

On my way home from school today, I was sitting on a city bus minding my own business. A couple of stops after I got on, a 12(ish) year-old girl and her mother came on the bus. The girl, who was wearing a school uniform, sat a couple of seats away from me, and her mother was sitting across from her on the uncrowded bus. I paid them no mind. However, on the next stop, an old man, maybe 70 years old, boarded the bus and sat right next to the girl. I was slightly suspicious, because there were plenty of other seats available with more room. So I watched him out of the corner of my eye and sure enough, he is staring at the girl next to him. The girl, who was talking to her mother, didn't pay attention at all, but the mother noticed, and told the girl to sit next to her. I was angry at the situation, but I guessed that the old man would stop with the mother right there. In fact, the old man got up as if to exit the bus for the next stop, but instead of getting off, he sat down in a seat in which he could see the girl but couldn't be seen easily. Then, he put on a pair of sunglasses and appeared to be staring at the girl. By this time, I was so angry I felt like punching him in the face. Instead, I got up to offer my seat to somebody else and stood directly in his line of vision if he were in fact looking at the girl.

Sorry for the long paragraph, but I was wondering how other people would have reacted. I was also thinking if there should be any laws against this (if there arn't), or if looking at a child, while being immoral (imo), could not be illegal. Your opinions?


I also really felt like ranting about it to someone.

I would probably do the same thing that you did. Although, I don't know if staring at a child could be counted as Pedophilia. I mean the girl could just remind him of his own grand daughter.

Sounds like he was.

I would have screwed with him by sitting and blocking his view.

I would probably do the same thing that you did. Although, I don't know if staring at a child could be counted as Pedophilia. I mean the girl could just remind him of his own grand daughter.

Usually they tend to say something. My daughter got that comment once. Mainly Shirly Temple comments because of her blond curly hair.

What the old guy may have done is certainly creepy and socially unacceptable, but neither illegal nor wrong in the strictest sense - there ain't no law against looking at people, and nobody was harmed or had their rights violated.

EDIT - I wouldn't have done anything about it. If he did become a bigger problem, \I would have dealt with the problem by contacting the proper authorities, or just talking the guy down. He's 70 after all, so it's not like one should or would need to hit him.

I was gonna try and find some way to defend it for arguments sake... but.... nah.

Apart from the aformentioned responses, what can you do? *shrugs*

Usually they tend to say something. My daughter got that comment once. Mainly Shirly Temple comments because of her blond curly hair.

Yea, and I can see how the guy COULD be a pedophile, but unless he tried to touch her naughty parts, we don't know for sure.

I was gonna try and find some way to defend it for arguments sake... but.... nah.

Apart from the aformentioned responses, what can you do? *shrugs*

Why charge him with a thought crime of course!

Usually they tend to say something. My daughter got that comment once. Mainly Shirly Temple comments because of her blond curly hair.
Usually, but not always.

I commend you for looking out for others, but careful about automatically labeling someone a Pedophille for just looking.

This has a very slight tang of vigilanteism. While it is entirely justified, it's leading down a dark and possibly slippery path. Last thing we need is a thought monitor in any shape, form or purpose.

It seemed to me, by his extent of staring, that he was interested in the girl in a not so innocent way.

I was wondering if I should have told the mother about it or not. It was my stop soon, so I got off the bus with the guy still able to see the girl. For a second, I tried to stare him down and possibly off the bus, but he just looked away when he noticed me.

I was in a bad mood already which is probably the reason why I reacted at all. I am usually a let other people take care of it type of person.

I'm also concerned about schoolgirls of that age who are often traveling at that time of day without any parents. It's just unnerving.

Is intent to sexually assualt a crime, if it can be proven? Just wondering.

I don't think so, if you don't actually do anything. We seem to be avoiding the concept of crimethink by only punishing actions.

Why charge him with a thought crime of course!

Thought crime is still crime. We're here to help - report thought crime.

Besides, this guy is just a creepy, horny old dude. It's most likely they'll never see him again, and he didn't do anything illegal, though it would get on my nerves, I agree.

Really... I was once on a subway car, observing a hella creepy middle-aged guy trying to pick up two twelve-year old boys. Tried impressing them with his knowledge of audio equipment, and would they like to come by his studio later that day, etc.

I guess I should've been outraged, or intervened, or something - but all I could do was laugh my ass off. Those kids weren't going back to his place, the balding greasy fuck. If anything'd happened at all, it probably would've ended with him having to pay a visit to the Emergency Room at the nearest hospital.

Sorry, had to share.

So what if the guy was ped? People don't choose their sexual orientation.

Sounds like he was rather too obvious, but if we're going to lock up everyone who ever found a 12yo attractive, there won't be anyone left.

Actions - and only actions which cause actual harm - are grounds for punishment. The current trend in the U.S. and U.K. to punish thought crimes is rather disturbing - especially when you see a guy who had 20 verboten pics put in jail for 200 years (as happened recently in Arizona), while murderers typically get 5 years.


Baldur

Sounds like he was rather too obvious, but if we're going to lock up everyone who ever found a 12yo attractive, there won't be anyone left.

I'm only fourteen by like, a few months. I'm still allowed to find them attractive, or at least think they'll grow up to be attractive, right?

Really... I was once on a subway car, observing a hella creepy middle-aged guy trying to pick up two twelve-year old boys. Tried impressing them with his knowledge of audio equipment, and would they like to come by his studio later that day, etc.

I guess I should've been outraged, or intervened, or something - but all I could do was laugh my ass off. Those kids weren't going back to his place, the balding greasy fuck. If anything'd happened at all, it probably would've ended with him having to pay a visit to the Emergency Room at the nearest hospital.

Sorry, had to share.

Teach him to try and seduce boys who know better.

You can't really arrest someone for staring, and unless he touched her naughty parts, we don't know for sure that he was a pedophile. There's still some reasonable doubts there.

all he was doing is LOOKING

for all you know he was fascinated because the girl reminded him of his daughter or granddaughter at that age.

as long as that is all he was doing, you are way overreacting.

The current trend in the U.S. and U.K. to punish thought crimes is rather disturbing - especially when you see a guy who had 20 verboten pics put in jail for 200 years (as happened recently in Arizona), while murderers typically get 5 years.
kiddie porn pics, or just plain old adult porn?

all he was doing is LOOKING

for all you know he was fascinated because the girl reminded him of his daughter or granddaughter at that age.

as long as that is all he was doing, you are way overreacting.

Exactly!

as long as that is all he was doing, you are way overreacting.

It's what we do.

Hmm...

Leering at somebody passively shouldn't be considered a crime, even if it is disgusting.

It's victimless and it opens up a whole broad definition of possible accusations. If I'm looking at a 12 year old girl because..I recognize her from somewhere but can't quite place where, or because I like band whose concert tee she's got on, somebody could get the wrong idea and cry 'Witch'.

It's the kind of law that'd be impossible to enforce because no proof exists. You'd essentially be relying exclusively on eyewitnesses, which any psychologist will tell you are completely unreliable in most cases.

all he was doing is LOOKING

for all you know he was fascinated because the girl reminded him of his daughter or granddaughter at that age.

as long as that is all he was doing, you are way overreacting.
don't think he did. Over react that is. he didn't confront the man nor did he call him out. just obstructed his view and at least, let the man know that his actions may be percieved in a predatory way.

had a confontation been started, then yes, it was overreacting. but blocking his view was more of a passive - preventive step.

at least that girls mother was also on the ball.

Maybe his interests were benign, maybe not. But I'm not taking the chance. I would have at least told the mom. Its what I would expect any stranger to do for my kids if they realized somebody was looking at them. Maybe this guy watches that girl every day on this bus. It's not gonna hurt anyone if u just warn the mom.

Or how about this... go to the guy and start a conversation about something. Anything. See if he's a nice enough guy or w/e, wether he's a perv or not u will have distracted him.

On my way home from school today, I was sitting on a city bus minding my own business. A couple of stops after I got on, a 12(ish) year-old girl and her mother came on the bus. The girl, who was wearing a school uniform, sat a couple of seats away from me, and her mother was sitting across from her on the uncrowded bus. I paid them no mind. However, on the next stop, an old man, maybe 70 years old, boarded the bus and sat right next to the girl. I was slightly suspicious, because there were plenty of other seats available with more room. So I watched him out of the corner of my eye and sure enough, he is staring at the girl next to him. The girl, who was talking to her mother, didn't pay attention at all, but the mother noticed, and told the girl to sit next to her. I was angry at the situation, but I guessed that the old man would stop with the mother right there. In fact, the old man got up as if to exit the bus for the next stop, but instead of getting off, he sat down in a seat in which he could see the girl but couldn't be seen easily. Then, he put on a pair of sunglasses and appeared to be staring at the girl. By this time, I was so angry I felt like punching him in the face. Instead, I got up to offer my seat to somebody else and stood directly in his line of vision if he were in fact looking at the girl.

Sorry for the long paragraph, but I was wondering how other people would have reacted. I was also thinking if there should be any laws against this (if there arn't), or if looking at a child, while being immoral (imo), could not be illegal. Your opinions?


I also really felt like ranting about it to someone.
Good job laddy.

Teach him to try and seduce boys who know better.
I'm sure he eventually got his just due - it's only a matter of time before a guy like that tries his patter out on the wrong people, and - whammo! Concussion City, or worse.

The greasy bastard.

It's what we do.
its going to be a sad sad society when men are no longer allowed to even look at girls.

its going to be a sad sad society when men are no longer allowed to even look at girls.
at this day and age... Men don't only look at girls and girls aren't only being looked at by men. :p

So what if the guy was ped? People don't choose their sexual orientation.

Pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation. It is classified as a behavioral disorder, and a severe one at that, since it involves abusing children. What two consenting adults do behind closed bedroom doors and abusing children can not be compared in any way.


Sounds like he was rather too obvious, but if we're going to lock up everyone who ever found a 12yo attractive, there won't be anyone left.

If you, or any other sane person of adult age(disregard this comment if you're still a teenager) is attracted to a 12 years old girl, I believe that person may have quite a warped view on sexuality. To be aroused by children certainly seems unhealthy to me.


Actions - and only actions which cause actual harm - are grounds for punishment. The current trend in the U.S. and U.K. to punish thought crimes is rather disturbing - especially when you see a guy who had 20 verboten pics put in jail for 200 years (as happened recently in Arizona), while murderers typically get 5 years.

On this I agree, though. Someone who is attracted to a child but never acts on his/her desire should be left alone, and rightly so. However, I live in Canada, and here pedophiles are let off the hook too easily. I support harsher prison sentences for repeat offenders, at the very least. While it's true they don't control who they're attracted to, they have to realise that unfortunately for them, acting on their desires involves hurting children. Repeat offenders should be watched closely to prevent them from making more victims.

don't think he did. Over react that is. he didn't confront the man nor did he call him out. just obstructed his view and at least, let the man know that his actions may be percieved in a predatory way.

had a confontation been started, then yes, it was overreacting. but blocking his view was more of a passive - preventive step.

at least that girls mother was also on the ball.
his reaction was that any man looking at a girl is a child rapist.

thats ridiculous.

her mother had the situation under control. he didnt need to do anything. he wasnt terribly wrong in his actions, as you said its benign to stand on the bus blocking the man's view. it just wasnt necessary.

his reaction was that any man looking at a girl is a child rapist.

thats ridiculous.

her mother had the situation under control. he didnt need to do anything. he wasnt terribly wrong in his actions, as you said its benign to stand on the bus blocking the man's view. it just wasnt necessary.his reaction to a percieved threat was to take a passive stance (block the persons view) and not a confrontational one (go up and smack him) a hard choice to make when in a bad mood already. while I will admit that he did jump to conclusions about the man's intent, I will commend his willingness to help protect the innocent and the young. yes the mother had things under control and if she knew what he was doing, I think her faith in humanity would be bolstered just a bit knowing that there are also people out there who will help look after her child, even from a percieved threat.

Pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation. It is classified as a behavioral disorder, and a severe one at that, since it involves abusing children. What two consenting adults do behind closed bedroom doors and abusing children can not be compared in any way.


Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. No doubt about it. I hardly care what the psychiatric community says. I know enough of them to know they aren't quite right in the head. Don't forget, 50 years ago they were saying homosexuality was, at best, a vile and disgusting sickness. Or, as one source I found put it, Psychiatry is about as developed today as other medicine was when leeches were in common use.

Otherwise, I will note that being attracted to children is hardly the same as abusing them - and being attracted to children is what pedophilia is.


If you, or any other sane person of adult age(disregard this comment if you're still a teenager) is attracted to a 12 years old girl, I believe that person may have quite a warped view on sexuality. To be aroused by children certainly seems unhealthy to me.


A 12 year old girl is hardly a child. Physically, they are an adult. Historically, 12 was often the age at which a person was considered an adult. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is generally considered to have been about 12 years old when she was pregnant with Jesus, based on the description in the Gospels and the normal age at which girls were married in that time and place. To be attracted to a 12 year old is not even pedophilia - it is normal sexuality. Pedophilia is attraction to a prepubescent child - and most 12 year olds are at least pubescent, if not post-pubescent.


On this I agree, though. Someone who is attracted to a child but never acts on his/her desire should be left alone, and rightly so. However, I live in Canada, and here pedophiles are let off the hook too easily. I support harsher prison sentences for repeat offenders, at the very least. While it's true they don't control who they're attracted to, they have to realise that unfortunately for them, acting on their desires involves hurting children. Repeat offenders should be watched closely to prevent them from making more victims.

While I disagree with some of your beliefs, I respect the fact that you at least make this distinction. Unfortunately, there are many who do not even care if someone is innocent.


Baldur

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. No doubt about it. I hardly care what the psychiatric community says. I know enough of them to know they aren't quite right in the head. Don't forget, 50 years ago they were saying homosexuality was, at best, a vile and disgusting sickness. Or, as one source I found put it, Psychiatry is about as developed today as other medicine was when leeches were in common use.
actually pedophilia is a disorder


A 12 year old girl is hardly a child. Physically, they are an adult. Historically, 12 was often the age at which a person was considered an adult. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is generally considered to have been about 12 years old when she was pregnant with Jesus, based on the description in the Gospels and the normal age at which girls were married in that time and place. To be attracted to a 12 year old is not even pedophilia - it is normal sexuality. Pedophilia is attraction to a prepubescent child - and most 12 year olds are at least pubescent, if not post-pubescent.

They're still kids and its wrong.and please for the love of God dont use jesus or the blessed mother mary to justify that sort of distortion

Im just wondering, is this Dark shadowy nexus?

btw, to steal a line from 4chan, I see pedo! Pedo bear is after you

I'm only fourteen by like, a few months. I'm still allowed to find them attractive, or at least think they'll grow up to be attractive, right?


The way things have been going lately, don't count on it.

(Of course, it is quite normal to be attracted to 12 year old girls. It's just that the law is an ass, and all that. Damn Masculinists, you see. They call themselves "Feminists", but all they've managed to do is make it OK for women with certain traits associated with masculinity - like aggressiveness, self-importance, and such - to assert themselves - at the cost of both women and men who have traits associated with femininity, such as tenderness and a desire to nurture.)

kiddie porn pics, or just plain old adult porn?

Kiddie porn - but why does it make a difference? A picture is a picture, and no one presumes someone is a murderer if they possess a few pics of murder victims. In fact, it's not even a little crime to possess pictures of murder victims, even though such pictures seem to me to be more disrespectful of a person than a nude photo of them enjoying themself.



Baldur

This old man did nothing wrong. If he had touched himself, exposed himself, or made sexual comments toward the girl, then this would be considered lewd and lacivious behavior. If he touched the girl, then that is another story alltogether.

As much as I detest pedophiles, I have to agree with others who say you overreacted on this one.

:headbang:

Kiddie porn - but why does it make a difference? A picture is a picture, and no one presumes someone is a murderer if they possess a few pics of murder victims. In fact, it's not even a little crime to possess pictures of murder victims, even though such pictures seem to me to be more disrespectful of a person than a nude photo of them enjoying themself.


Baldur

Kiddie porn is and should remain illegal. When you see pornographic photos of adults, these people are consenting to thiese photos. Childrend aren ot capable of making decisions and are not mature enough to understand this kind of sexuality and should not be exposed to it. Children do not belong in pornography. Most of the pictures of children in porn are taken by abusers, pedophiles who sexually molest these children. The children you see in kiddie porn are victims. Anyone who can't see that is either retarded or should be shot.:headbang:

The way things have been going lately, don't count on it.

(Of course, it is quite normal to be attracted to 12 year old girls. It's just that the law is an ass, and all that. Damn Masculinists, you see. They call themselves "Feminists", but all they've managed to do is make it OK for women with certain traits associated with masculinity - like aggressiveness, self-importance, and such - to assert themselves - at the cost of both women and men who have traits associated with femininity, such as tenderness and a desire to nurture.)



Kiddie porn - but why does it make a difference? A picture is a picture, and no one presumes someone is a murderer if they possess a few pics of murder victims. In fact, it's not even a little crime to possess pictures of murder victims, even though such pictures seem to me to be more disrespectful of a person than a nude photo of them enjoying themself.



Baldur
As a high school teacher I can tell you, any adult person who has sex with one of my students, I will lay them the fuck out. It has nothing to do with love, caring, or sexuality. It is about an adult using a naive, immature young person for their own gratification. Ever wonder why most paedophilia victims are the most vulnerable members of society?

I think your position on kiddie porn is abhorrent. In order for kiddie porn to be created, a child has to be victimised. That is the difference between normal adult porn and child pornography. The child is not enjoying themselves. The child is being victimised and used.

As much as I detest pedophiles, I have to agree with others who say you overreacted on this one.
How did Kiryu-shi overreact?

Kiryu-shi Jumped to certain conclusions, but did he accuse the man of being a pedophille aloud in the bus? did he attack the man calling him a sick perv? or did he just attempt to hide the girl from the man's sight, an action that if that man was not a pedo... wouldn't notice nor care.

Kiryu-shi stared at the man, and the man backed down. He didn't pursue the matter, and neither did that man. thus how did Kiryu-shi over react?

actually pedophilia is a disorder


Odd, I think teleiophilia is a disorder. But I don't advocate throwing teleiophiles in jail. Rather heartless, I think, and rather to costly to boot. I mean, something like 2/3 of the public are teleiophiles, more or less.


please for the love of God dont use jesus or the blessed mother mary to justify that sort of distortion


Hey, I'm not the source that says a girl can be married at the age of 3 years and a day - that's the Talmud. (And on a related note, that was in relation to God's command to kill all the members of a neighboring community, except the virgins who could be taken as slaves.)

What's more, I'm not the one who established a tradition of adulthood at about the age of 12, and I'm not the one who impregnated a 12 year old girl. That was God, if you believe in him.

Sorry that historical fact doesn't suit your modern misconceptions.

Wait - no, I'm not.


Im just wondering, is this Dark shadowy nexus?


Nope, but he's a friend of mine. Thanks for asking. ;-)


Baldur

Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. No doubt about it. I hardly care what the psychiatric community says. I know enough of them to know they aren't quite right in the head. Don't forget, 50 years ago they were saying homosexuality was, at best, a vile and disgusting sickness. Or, as one source I found put it, Psychiatry is about as developed today as other medicine was when leeches were in common use.

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, contrary to your claims. Why do you think the vast majority of pedophiles who act on their desires abuse both male and female children? It's not because they're all bisexual. Psychologists who have studied the behaviour of pedophiles found that it's much more about control, and domination, and getting a "pure" child do nasty things.

Most pedophiles who abuse children get off over the power trip they have, the control over their victim. It's not a sexual orientation, because they're not "attracted" to the child itself, per se. They're attracted to the power they can hold over him/her. That's why they abuse children of both sexes. As such, it's much closer to a fetish(sexual practice) than it is to sexual orientation.

Read up some psychology papers on the subject, there are plenty lying around, and they're enlightening.



Otherwise, I will note that being attracted to children is hardly the same as abusing them - and being attracted to children is what pedophilia is.

Yes, I did bother pointing that out. A person attracted to children, or fantasming about having sex with children should certainly be left alone if that person doesn't try to act on his/her desires.


A 12 year old girl is hardly a child. Physically, they are an adult. Historically, 12 was often the age at which a person was considered an adult. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is generally considered to have been about 12 years old when she was pregnant with Jesus, based on the description in the Gospels and the normal age at which girls were married in that time and place. To be attracted to a 12 year old is not even pedophilia - it is normal sexuality. Pedophilia is attraction to a prepubescent child - and most 12 year olds are at least pubescent, if not post-pubescent.

Well, no offense, but at 12 years old a girl, or a boy, certainly is still a child. Being a teenagers starts at thirteen. Even if at 12 the puberty has started, I've never seen a 12 years old who was even remotely developed like an adult. 12 years old girls may dress like adults, but they certainly don't have adult bodies.

Being attracted to 12 years old is not normal sexuality. At least, not for most adults. It's normal to be attracted to a 12 years old girl if you're still a teenager yourself, but a grown man over 20 attracted to 12 years old has questions to ask himself. As for the definition, I agree you're right about it: in a case like this, the correct word would be pederastry.


While I disagree with some of your beliefs, I respect the fact that you at least make this distinction. Unfortunately, there are many who do not even care if someone is innocent.

Well, as far as the opening post goes, there are two things to be remembered.

First, there is absolutely nothing that could even remotely taken for proof that the old man was indeed checking her out in a sexual manner. Mob justice and on-the-fly assumptions about culpability are better left to the centuries pas.

Second, even if he was indeed a pedophile, he did not try to touch or even talk to the girl. I think the mother and OP poster had somewhat normal reactions, wanting to protect the girl in the even that the man indeed was a sexual predator. But anything more than those passive measures they've taken would have been seriously wrong. They certainly would not have been justified in verbally or physically assaulting the man.

Kiddie porn is and should remain illegal.

Even if illegal, you still think that possessing pictures (rather than producing them) is worse than murder?

I think you have some fucked up priorities.


Baldur

Even if illegal, you still think that possessing pictures (rather than producing them) is worse than murder?

I think you have some fucked up priorities.


Baldur
If you possess them then someone had to produce them. You create a market with Demand, and someone will be the Supplier.

By owning such pictures, even if you didn't take the pictures yourself, you are telling someone out there that you want them to make more.

Pedophilia is
A 12 year old girl is hardly a child. Physically, they are an adult. Historically, 12 was often the age at which a person was considered an adult. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is generally considered to have been about 12 years old when she was pregnant with Jesus, based on the description in the Gospels and the normal age at which girls were married in that time and place. To be attracted to a 12 year old is not even pedophilia - it is normal sexuality. Pedophilia is attraction to a prepubescent child - and most 12 year olds are at least pubescent, if not post-pubescent.
Baldur

Puberty does not equate with adulthood or adult emotional maturity. 12 year old girls are still children. Any adult targeting them sexually is a criminal and is sexually disordered.

When YOU are a twelve year old girl being sexually solicited by adult men or women, only THEN will your opinion be validly based on experience.

BTW, check your history, those girls did not choose their husbands or choose marriage. They were GIVEN in marriage to serve the political and economic ends of the two families involved.

I think there should be a no tolerance policy towards adults exploiting children in any way. No prison, no "treatment", just a firing squad. Or maybe the Death of a Thousand. There are few things more repugnant than sexual expoitation of children.

Also, as regards the alleged "right" to "leer". There are circumstances where such behavior is legally considered harrassment. Like on the job for instance.

Odd, I think teleiophilia is a disorder. But I don't advocate throwing teleiophiles in jail. Rather heartless, I think, and rather to costly to boot. I mean, something like 2/3 of the public are teleiophiles, more or less.

Neither do we. The difference is in the actions of those who have that disorder.

For example: a person who is schizoprenic certainly should be put to jail on that account. That would be ridiculous. That person is not responsible for being schizoprenic, and can't help it. However, if a schizophrenic person murders or beats up someone while in the midst of his/her delusions, well, thag person does to jail(or a securized mental ward).

Pretty much the same applies for pedophilia. A person attracted to children cannot, and should not, be sent to jail arbitrarily. But if he/she abuses one or more children, in jail it is.

It's very possible I over-reacted. I was in a bad mood and looking to find something to be angry at. But what I did didn't hurt anyone, and it made me feel good.

To someone who said I thought the guy was a rapist, I didn't think that he was a rapist. I know the difference between a pervert and a rapist. And from what I saw, I think it was pretty obvious that he was a pervert. I can't describe it perfectly, but the way he acted around the girl was just...obvious.

To everyone, I'm horrible at guessing ages, so the girl could be anywhere from 10-14. I really don't know, but in my opinion, she looked very young.

edit: Thanks for the food for thought to everyone who posted.

I think your position on kiddie porn is abhorrent. In order for kiddie porn to be created, a child has to be victimised. That is the difference between normal adult porn and child pornography. The child is not enjoying themselves. The child is being victimised and used.

As if adult porn stars are never victimised and used?

Why don't you let the children involved determine that? Why do you assume they are always victimised? It seems to me that you have a fundamental disrespect for children and their choices.

Maybe if child porn was legal, checks could be put in place to make sure the actors were willing. I'm certainly against children being raped, and photos being distributed without their permission - but the current system allows no such distinction. The Law of Supply and Demand will assure that child pornography continues to be produced, and the current blanket prohibition will be just as effective as the blanket prohibition on recreational drugs. That is, it will increase both the use and the intensity of the product.


Baldur

So what if the guy was ped? People don't choose their sexual orientation.


Well I really don't subscribe to it being a matter of nature such as homosexuality. If they find a biological reason it happens then I will change my views.

There is a big difference. Homo/hetrosexuality is between two consenting adults.

When a child is involved; it is simply preditory.


Sounds like he was rather too obvious, but if we're going to lock up everyone who ever found a 12yo attractive, there won't be anyone left.


There is a big difference between "my what a pretty girl" and "Damn!"


Actions - and only actions which cause actual harm - are grounds for punishment. The current trend in the U.S. and U.K. to punish thought crimes is rather disturbing - especially when you see a guy who had 20 verboten pics put in jail for 200 years (as happened recently in Arizona), while murderers typically get 5 years.
Baldur

The thought crime comment was a joke as it was a reference to a book.

The problem with Pedos is that they have a general pattern they follow before actually attacking. So what do you do?

You obviously can't beat him because you really don't know.

However, as I mentioned, there is a certain look to it. I saw it once. It was hunger....

Its very possible I over-reacted. I was in a bad mood and looking to find something to be angry at. But what I did didn't hurt anyone, and it made me feel good.

Hey, I disagree with you very much about your general attitude towards peds - but I gotta admire the fact that you kept your cool and didn't let your passions run away with you.


Baldur

Its very possible I over-reacted. I was in a bad mood and looking to find something to be angry at. But what I did didn't hurt anyone, and it made me feel good.

To someone who said I thought the guy was a rapist, I didn't think that he was a rapist. I know the difference between a pervert and a rapist. And from what I saw, I think it was pretty obvious that he was a pervert. I can't describe it perfectly, but the way he acted around the girl was just...obvious.

To everyone, I'm horrible at guessing ages, so the girl could be anywhere from 10-14. I really don't know, but in my opinion, she looked very young.
Don't think you over reacted. maybe mis-read the man's actions, but then so did the mother. you took steps to show that you would help protect her child, and reguardless of your desire to make hamburger with your fists, you showed alot of thought and control.

It doesn't matter if it was a 5 year old or an 18 year old. Your motive was to help and I for one, won't condemn you for that.

so in response to your Sig... :)

Odd, I think teleiophilia is a disorder. But I don't advocate throwing teleiophiles in jail. Rather heartless, I think, and rather to costly to boot. I mean, something like 2/3 of the public are teleiophiles, more or less.
teleiophilia is what exactly? And how does it compare to pedos?

Sorry that historical fact doesn't suit your modern misconceptions.

Wait - no, I'm not.
well, dont you wish you could have been born years ago so you can touch little kids all day?


Nope, but he's a friend of mine. Thanks for asking. ;-)
Is he really? you two seem like you would get along together,you both try to use backwards logic to justify your problem

Even if illegal, you still think that possessing pictures (rather than producing them) is worse than murder?

I think you have some fucked up priorities.

I don't think it's worse than murder, but I think it's right for it to be illegal, because there is an underground network of child porn. Some people, namely those who take the pictures, abuse children for money, to satisfy the urges of pedophiles. We have to outlaw these pictures if we are to have any chance of protecting the children from being abused at every corner.

Think about it:if child porn was legal, what would be stopping anyone and everyone from taking and selling pictures of naked children in suggestive poses? That's clearly unacceptable. Teenagers are hypersexualized enough already, and I certainly won't stand for children to suffer the same fate, even moreso at an age where they don't understand what it is they're doing and the consequences at long term it may have.

I don't, however, have much against written stories. While I find them distasteful, no children needs to be abused in their making. I am also quite free not to read them(thank random deity). I don't know whether it's helping or hindering those who read them... but if it means they'll jack off to them instead of being out there and abusing a child, heck, I'm all for it.

Baldur
Why are you bringing Baldur into this? :confused:

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, contrary to your claims. Why do you think the vast majority of pedophiles who act on their desires abuse both male and female children?

Most pedophiles are attracted to either boys or girls, not both. You seem to be confusing pedophiles with child molestors. Even the FBI acknowledges that over 90% of child molestors are not especially attracted to their victims. Most molestors are rather indiscriminate about sexual partners, and grab whoever happens to be convenient. They have a number of psychological problems, but sexual orientation is pretty much a non-issue.


It's not because they're all bisexual. Psychologists who have studied the behaviour of pedophiles found that it's much more about control, and domination, and getting a "pure" child do nasty things.

A quick look at the literature reveals a disturbing trend: the psychologists doing the studies frequently confuse persons who are attracted to children with persons who are disturbed or lack self-control and molest children. It is no wonder they come up with such confused results, when they haven't even recognised the obvious difference in the populations they have lumped together.


Read up some psychology papers on the subject, there are plenty lying around, and they're enlightening.


Mostly enlightening in that they highlight what imbeciles most psychologists are.


Even if at 12 the puberty has started, I've never seen a 12 years old who was even remotely developed like an adult. 12 years old girls may dress like adults, but they certainly don't have adult bodies.


I know a woman who, when she was 12, was living in a college town, extremely intelligent, and extremely well developed. Not only did college students ask her out, they did so at church, they were so sure she was an adult.


First, there is absolutely nothing that could even remotely taken for proof that the old man was indeed checking her out in a sexual manner. Mob justice and on-the-fly assumptions about culpability are better left to the centuries pas.

Second, even if he was indeed a pedophile, he did not try to touch or even talk to the girl. I think the mother and OP poster had somewhat normal reactions, wanting to protect the girl in the even that the man indeed was a sexual predator. But anything more than those passive measures they've taken would have been seriously wrong. They certainly would not have been justified in verbally or physically assaulting the man.

Well, I think you've got some reading up and thinking to do, but you do seem to have a desire for justice and fairness. I also approve of your desire to protect kids, though I disagree on the method.


Baldur

I don't know how anyone could advocate the harming, and having sexual relations with a child. It's just sick.

On my way home from school today, I was sitting on a city bus minding my own business. A couple of stops after I got on, a 12(ish) year-old girl and her mother came on the bus. The girl, who was wearing a school uniform, sat a couple of seats away from me, and her mother was sitting across from her on the uncrowded bus. I paid them no mind. However, on the next stop, an old man, maybe 70 years old, boarded the bus and sat right next to the girl. I was slightly suspicious, because there were plenty of other seats available with more room. So I watched him out of the corner of my eye and sure enough, he is staring at the girl next to him. The girl, who was talking to her mother, didn't pay attention at all, but the mother noticed, and told the girl to sit next to her. I was angry at the situation, but I guessed that the old man would stop with the mother right there. In fact, the old man got up as if to exit the bus for the next stop, but instead of getting off, he sat down in a seat in which he could see the girl but couldn't be seen easily. Then, he put on a pair of sunglasses and appeared to be staring at the girl. By this time, I was so angry I felt like punching him in the face. Instead, I got up to offer my seat to somebody else and stood directly in his line of vision if he were in fact looking at the girl.

Sorry for the long paragraph, but I was wondering how other people would have reacted. I was also thinking if there should be any laws against this (if there arn't), or if looking at a child, while being immoral (imo), could not be illegal. Your opinions?


I also really felt like ranting about it to someone.


I would have confronted him and let him explain himself, If I wasnt satisfied which I dont know that I ever could be, seeing as though I have two sisters, I prolly would have waited for him to get off, follow him and force the idea that pedaphilia is wrong into his nose with me fist.

teleiophilia is what exactly? And how does it compare to pedos?

Don't you know? Teleiophilia is the disorder in which persons are sexually attracted to adults. Ugh! And how does it compare? It's truly awful, of course - except when little girls have the disorder. Then it's OK.

;-)


well, dont you wish you could have been born years ago so you can touch little kids all day?


Well, to be born in America 200 years ago, when mothers commonly put their children to sleep by masturbating them, as is common in many parts of the world today (generally peaceful parts of the world, at that) - there would be certain advantages.

But, I have to admit I rather like modern plumbing.


Is he really? you two seem like you would get along together,you both try to use backwards logic to justify your problem

It's only backwards logic until the general population wakes up and realises we are right. Then, we'll be considered visionaries. ;-)


Baldur

I think what South Niflheim is saying that the predatory nature of Pedophille, the molesters and the abusers should be locked away, but the rare and true instances when it is love between an adult and a (legally speaking) child should be allowed... like that case where the Teacher got pregnant by her student. (I believe they did get married after she was released from prison.)

is that what you're arguing for SN?

As if adult porn stars are never victimised and used?

Why don't you let the children involved determine that? Why do you assume they are always victimised? It seems to me that you have a fundamental disrespect for children and their choices.

Maybe if child porn was legal, checks could be put in place to make sure the actors were willing. I'm certainly against children being raped, and photos being distributed without their permission - but the current system allows no such distinction. The Law of Supply and Demand will assure that child pornography continues to be produced, and the current blanket prohibition will be just as effective as the blanket prohibition on recreational drugs. That is, it will increase both the use and the intensity of the product.


Baldur

The difference between an adult and a child is an adult is making an active and considered choice to engage in that activity. Children are easily manipulated. "If you do this for me, I know you won't like it, but I'll buy you a stereo system if you do." Very few vulnerable 14 year old children are going to say no.

How do you determine if they are actively choosing? How do you determine whether the child knows what they are consenting to?

Until you are a victim of child molestation, you have no right to dismiss the suffering it inflicts.

I would have confronted him and let him explain himself, If I wasnt satisfied which I dont know that I ever could be, seeing as though I have two sisters, I prolly would have waited for him to get off, follow him and force the idea that pedaphilia is wrong into his nose with me fist.
pardon me, but this is a great example of overreaction.

I think what South Niflheim is saying that the predatory nature of Pedophille, the molesters and the abusers should be locked away, but the rare and true instances when it is love between an adult and a (legally speaking) child should be allowed... like that case where the Teacher got pregnant by her student. (I believe they did get married after she was released from prison.)

is that what you're arguing for SN?

Nah I think he's arguing for what NAMBLA is arguing for.

Why are you bringing Baldur into this? :confused:

Baldur is my online nick, used on a number of boards.

From Norse mythology, in which Baldur, the beloved god, is exiled to the realm of the dead (there are actually three such realms, one of which if Niflheim, the land of mists), through the actions of Loki (often considered an equivalent of Satan). After Ragnarok, Baldur will return to the world of the living, and help to found a new and better order of things.


Baldur

As a girl who has, both when I was younger and now that I am a bit older, been subject to staring from pervy old men, it's a very disturbing experience. It's ok if people look, but I don't like being stared at, especially not by old men. I feel very uncomfortable with that kind of attention whether it's just staring or comments aswell. :(

i don't feel like reading to see if anyone's already said this, but i can't imagine the situation being any less creepy if he was staring at an adult. i even get freaked out when fairly attractive people stare at me, it's just weird!

I think what South Niflheim is saying that the predatory nature of Pedophille, the molesters and the abusers should be locked away, but the rare and true instances when it is love between an adult and a (legally speaking) child should be allowed... like that case where the Teacher got pregnant by her student. (I believe they did get married after she was released from prison.)

is that what you're arguing for SN?
I think he wants to touch little kids and he wants us to tell him its ok.

Until you are a victim of child molestation, you have no right to dismiss the suffering it inflicts.

Exactly!

I think he wants to touch little kids and he wants us to tell him its ok.

Bingo.

I think he wants to touch little kids and he wants us to tell him its ok.

I think calling someone a child molestor without any justification isn't a very good idea.

I think calling someone a child molestor without any justification isn't a very good idea.

You mean like the way you just assumed the old creepy guy was a pedo just because he stared as a young girl? I admit it was creepy, but you still didn't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was a pedo.

Baldur is my online nick, used on a number of boards.

From Norse mythology, in which Baldur, the beloved god, is exiled to the realm of the dead (there are actually three such realms, one of which if Niflheim, the land of mists), through the actions of Loki (often considered an equivalent of Satan). After Ragnarok, Baldur will return to the world of the living, and help to found a new and better order of things.


Baldur
*sighs*

I know about Baldur, I was just wondering why you were constantly invoking his name. Please stop it. It's irritating.

And if Loki is considered an equivalent of Satan, you've got to wonder why that would be the case. Loki is one of two archetypes I happen to venerate. I think it's quite convenient for a certain sort of person to try to re-cast the Loki archetype as something negative.

BTW, check your history, those girls did not choose their husbands or choose marriage. They were GIVEN in marriage to serve the political and economic ends of the two families involved.


Well, it's a bit more complicated than that - but you are right about one thing. Back then, parents treated children as property, whom they could dispose of as they wished, without consulting them.

Just like they do today.


I think there should be a no tolerance policy towards adults exploiting children in any way. No prison, no "treatment", just a firing squad. Or maybe the Death of a Thousand. There are few things more repugnant than sexual expoitation of children.

I agree, except I would extend it to all exploitation, and wouldn't be so quick with the firing squad. Let the punishment fit the crime.

However, I believe that if a child has the right to say "No", they also have the right to say "Yes".

Incidentally, one example of the sort of abuse that I oppose:

http://www.ectopia.org/



Baldur

i don't feel like reading to see if anyone's already said this, but i can't imagine the situation being any less creepy if he was staring at an adult. i even get freaked out when fairly attractive people stare at me, it's just weird!

^^ Beat you to it. But you articulated my main point better than me :)

I think what South Niflheim is saying that the predatory nature of Pedophille, the molesters and the abusers should be locked away, but the rare and true instances when it is love between an adult and a (legally speaking) child should be allowed... like that case where the Teacher got pregnant by her student. (I believe they did get married after she was released from prison.)

is that what you're arguing for SN?

Yes, except for two things:

(1) Pedophilia, lit. "Love of Children" in the Greek, is not correctly applied to Child Abusers.

(2) I don't believe that such Love is all that rare. It only seems so, because it has been so deeply repressed for the past 30 years.


Baldur

You mean like the way you just assumed the old creepy guy was a pedo just because he stared as a young girl? I admit it was creepy, but you still didn't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was a pedo.
but he kept that assumption to himself while on the bus and he did admit that he was wrong in assuming that here on the boards.

I think calling someone a child molestor without any justification isn't a very good idea.
Read his posts, he has basically admitted to being a pedophile and even supports child porn.

How do you determine if they are actively choosing? How do you determine whether the child knows what they are consenting to?

One of the first words a child learns is "No!" Why do they lose the ability to tell adults No?

Perhaps it has to do with the constant conditioning in which they are not allowed to say No.

Perhaps older children - and many adults - have been so conditioned to accept what is done to them, that they lose their ability to deny consent.

Regardless, when I look at the United States (and Europe, for that matter), it is easy to see that most adults have been manipulated into their beliefs. If anything, it seems to me that children are more likely to resist manipulation, a la the little child who cried "The Emperor has no clothes!" Children are more likely to see the world for what it is, rather than for what they have been taught to believe it is. Perhaps the AoC should be for persons over an arbitrarily set age, rather than under it?


Until you are a victim of child molestation, you have no right to dismiss the suffering it inflicts.

Until you have been the victim of ignorant prejudice and societal control, you have no right to dismiss the suffering it inflicts.


Baldur

Yes, except for two things:

(1) Pedophilia, lit. "Love of Children" in the Greek, is not correctly applied to Child Abusers.

(2) I don't believe that such Love is all that rare. It only seems so, because it has been so deeply repressed for the past 30 years.


Baldur
point 1) true, but I used abuse in this case the same as molesters, but you're right, I should have used child rapist instead.

point 2) rarely is by point of how often it's seen. I can think of a handfull of cases where it was love and not perversion. Being Civilized is about repressing behavior that society sees as abhorant. and it's actually more than 30 years.

And if Loki is considered an equivalent of Satan, you've got to wonder why that would be the case. Loki is one of two archetypes I happen to venerate. I think it's quite convenient for a certain sort of person to try to re-cast the Loki archetype as something negative.

Well, I was speaking in general terms that most people would understand.

More accurately, as you know, Loki is a Trickster. He did great good, and great evil. (Like, killing Baldur.)

And how am I supposed to feel, that you venerate the jerk that offed me? I mean, really!


Baldur

Until you have been the victim of ignorant prejudice and societal control, you have no right to dismiss the suffering it inflicts.


Baldur
Hey, look everyone. The pedo is suffering because we as society dont let him violate children and use them for his sick pleasure. Lets all feel sorry for him:rolleyes:

Read his posts, he has basically admitted to being a pedophile and even supports child porn.

I'm a girl lover, to be sure - but where do you come off equating "pedophile" with "child molestor"?

And how is the belief. that possession of images is not the same as commission of actual crimes that do harm, the same as "supporting child porn"?


Baldur

Great, it's the son of Dark Shadowy Nexus.

Alright, I got a Holly spear ready for you, Baldur. Shall we dance?

On my way home from school today, I was sitting on a city bus minding my own business. A couple of stops after I got on, a 12(ish) year-old girl and her mother came on the bus. The girl, who was wearing a school uniform, sat a couple of seats away from me, and her mother was sitting across from her on the uncrowded bus. I paid them no mind. However, on the next stop, an old man, maybe 70 years old, boarded the bus and sat right next to the girl. I was slightly suspicious, because there were plenty of other seats available with more room. So I watched him out of the corner of my eye and sure enough, he is staring at the girl next to him. The girl, who was talking to her mother, didn't pay attention at all, but the mother noticed, and told the girl to sit next to her. I was angry at the situation, but I guessed that the old man would stop with the mother right there. In fact, the old man got up as if to exit the bus for the next stop, but instead of getting off, he sat down in a seat in which he could see the girl but couldn't be seen easily. Then, he put on a pair of sunglasses and appeared to be staring at the girl. By this time, I was so angry I felt like punching him in the face. Instead, I got up to offer my seat to somebody else and stood directly in his line of vision if he were in fact looking at the girl.

Sorry for the long paragraph, but I was wondering how other people would have reacted. I was also thinking if there should be any laws against this (if there arn't), or if looking at a child, while being immoral (imo), could not be illegal. Your opinions?


I also really felt like ranting about it to someone.

Your response was exactly what was required.
I am a father of four, and I have very strong feelings about this issue.

However as someone else pointed out you dont KNOW what the old guy was thinking, or even his actual mental condition.

But assuming the worst and taking positive non-destructive action resolves the situation without it being elevated to a level you dont want to go to.

Suppose the old man was thinking about his bills and didnt even realize he was learing at this girl....we have all drifted off in a thought for a moment and then suddenly found someone staring back at us as if we were crazy.....maybe he did this, he heard the mother tell the girl to move, he realized what the woman was thinking--KNEW that if he denied it it infact be a confirmation, so embarrassed he changed his seat and placed on his sunglasses.

Unlikely, but possible.

So instead of you jumping up like billy bad ass and beating down an embarrassed old man, you said nothing to him...did not direct confront him at all--you merely rendered him incapable of being able to continue his potentially lewd behavior.

No, there should not be laws against this situation or every stupid bitch in the world who didnt like the cut of your jib would get you charged with a sex offense for making creepy-eyes at their kid.

Simple things reduce the risk of "Stranger Pedophiles"--
You see a strnager in your area, neighborhood, block, building, whatever...Smile, approach and ask "Can I help fnd something?" or "Who ya looking for ?" This is not confrontational and should not be said in anyway that could be taken as being confrontational...but what it does do is let this person know there is at least one witness of them being in the area at a specific time ...they dont like that--neither do theives for that matter.

Also in your little greeting you might comment on the make and model of their car "Hey thats a XX what year is that? I love those." or " I have shirt just like that, looks better on me...just kidding...Let me know if you need anything I will be around" Now you are that nosy fecker and your street is not worth the additional hassle.

And yes, I do know every car on my block, I know my neighbors friends and if I dont know you...I do indeed confront you, nicely, but I do it.
Anyway, yeah.
Kill all short-eyes.

Ok, I think this thread has gone as far as it needs to go and need to be closed.

and it's actually more than 30 years.

Granted that pedophilia has been repressed for more than 30 years, but the hysteria is about that old, after a brief period of quasi-acceptance in the later 1960's and early 1970's. Some consider the release of the movie "Pretty Baby" as setting off the current hysteria, as well as the witch-hunts and "Satanic Abuse" scandals of the 1980's. That was approximately 30 years ago.


Baldur

What would I would have done? I would have glared at the old guy unitl he noticed that someone took note of him looking at that girl. I've done things like this before and it seems to work. It lets the other person know that someone is watching them and knows what they look like, in case a crime is reported. Also, if the looks are innocent, they usually say something.

Ok, I think this thread has gone as far as it needs to go and need to be closed.
Kiryu-shi can request a close, but other than that, Max has gone on record of leaving things like this open till another rule comes into play (like no flaming or threats). As much as it's rather disturbing, the notion is that it is better to challenge such people and show that we are not giving them a free pass than just banning them and letting them go elsewhere and hear how normal and wonderful this is in an echo chamber.

Shall we dance?

Who's the predator now?

And, not unless you're a 9yo girl. ;-)


Baldur

Kiryu-shi can request a close, but other than that, Max has gone on record of leaving things like this open till another rule comes into play (like no flaming or threats). As much as it's rather disturbing, the notion is that it is better to challenge such people and show that we are not giving them a free pass than just banning them and letting them go elsewhere and hear how normal and wonderful this is in an echo chamber.

Yea, but isn't this forum often visited by children? Do we really want them exposed to something like this?

One of the first words a child learns is "No!" Why do they lose the ability to tell adults No?

Perhaps it has to do with the constant conditioning in which they are not allowed to say No.

Perhaps older children - and many adults - have been so conditioned to accept what is done to them, that they lose their ability to deny consent.

Regardless, when I look at the United States (and Europe, for that matter), it is easy to see that most adults have been manipulated into their beliefs. If anything, it seems to me that children are more likely to resist manipulation, a la the little child who cried "The Emperor has no clothes!" Children are more likely to see the world for what it is, rather than for what they have been taught to believe it is. Perhaps the AoC should be for persons over an arbitrarily set age, rather than under it?



Baldur

Children definitely have the ability to say no, in a wide and increasingly wonderful variety of ways. But how do you determine, when they say yes, whether they are fully cognizant of what they are consenting to? How do you determine whether they have been manipulated into consenting?

I like how you conveniently ignore the points that demonstrate the impracticality.

Until you have been the victim of ignorant prejudice and societal control, you have no right to dismiss the suffering it inflicts.

Everyone's right. You just want us to tell you molesting children is okay. How dare you trivialise the suffering that your type causes? How dare you even attempt to present yourself as a victim?

Granted that pedophilia has been repressed for more than 30 years, but the hysteria is about that old, after a brief period of quasi-acceptance in the later 1960's and early 1970's. Some consider the release of the movie "Pretty Baby" as setting off the current hysteria, as well as the witch-hunts and "Satanic Abuse" scandals of the 1980's. That was approximately 30 years ago.


Baldur
Not at all, pedophilia has not been accepted for a very, very long time. And it was not repressed, it was illegalsed for very good reasons.

And, not unless you're a 9yo girl. ;-)


That's just creepy...

Who's the predator now?

And, not unless you're a 9yo girl. ;-)


Baldur
Me, I hunt you and I won't leave you alone. If you're friends with DSN, ask him. I'm sure he remembers me.

Kiryu-shi can request a close, but other than that, Max has gone on record of leaving things like this open till another rule comes into play (like no flaming or threats). As much as it's rather disturbing, the notion is that it is better to challenge such people and show that we are not giving them a free pass than just banning them and letting them go elsewhere and hear how normal and wonderful this is in an echo chamber.
that and should this be closed without open discussion, then how would other threads that discuss other controversial issuses be handled?

as long as it's civil, and tasteful. It's actually a rather pleasant insight.

Yea, but isn't this forum often visited by children? Do we really want them exposed to something like this?
Until he gets graphical or posts that he has partisapated in illegal activities, he's still within the rules of the site.

Should I request a close?

If so, how?

edit: I'll leave it up to the Mods to decide if it should be closed.

that and should this be closed without open discussion, then how would other threads that discuss other controversial issuses be handled?

as long as it's civil, and tasteful. It's actually a rather pleasant insight.

I'm sorry but I don't think that having a guy advocating pedophilia is "tasteful" or "pleasant".

Should I request a close?

If so, how?

I think you should request a close, and you do it by posting on the mod. forum.

Should I request a close?

If so, how?
If you so wish, you can drop a note in Moderation asking for the thread to be closed. 'Tis your right as thread creator.

And :)

Until he gets graphical or posts that he has partisapated in illegal activities, he's still within the rules of the site.

and yet, on other sites that I visit, stuff like this would get you banned for life.

Yea, but isn't this forum often visited by children? Do we really want them exposed to something like this?
they will learn that there are wolves and demons out there with the candymen and the angels.

this isn't, in my opinion, lewd but so far, civil discussion between two opposing views.

now should someone start describing in detail positions or acts... then let thy mighty mod hammer fall.

I'm sorry but I don't think that having a guy advocating pedophilia is "tasteful" or "pleasant".
The problem with free speech, you ahve to protect the stuff you dislike.

Doesn't mean you can't argue it to the death though, you just have to be civil.

Kill all short-eyes.

Now that's not very nice. Didn't your mommy teach you not to make death threats?

And all your talk about "Stranger Danger" - don't you know that most child sexual abuse is committed by the victim's father? And almost all child abuse is committed by a family member?

Pay no attention to Daddy. That's why they have Incest Exemption Laws, to let 80%+ of offenders get off with virtually no punishment - even though Rind et al. has let us know that the most damaging child sexual abuse is . . . that abuse committed by fathers.


Baldur

I'm sorry but I don't think that having a guy advocating pedophilia is "tasteful" or "pleasant".
same as those advocating Homosexuality, drug use, and anything else.

no one is using profanity nor lewd descriptions. no graphic pics are shown and in fact, what has been illustrated, but apparently lost, is that there are those out there who will lend a hand to help those who need it.

and yet, on other sites that I visit, stuff like this would get you banned for life.
So does promtoing Nazism, but that is also protected here. Like I said, Max ahs deceed this place as being free for all types of speech, again on the idea that it is challenged openly. I dislike it as well, but that's why I am willing to argue against it instead of shutting it down.

The problem with free speech, you ahve to protect the stuff you dislike.

Doesn't mean you can't argue it to the death though, you just have to be civil.
Bingo!

*hands over a cookie*

The problem with free speech, you ahve to protect the stuff you dislike.

Doesn't mean you can't argue it to the death though, you just have to be civil.

Yea, but Free Speech does have it's limits. You can't yell Fire in a crowded building, and you can't advocate the harming of another person. I can't go out on the street and yell out that I'm going to shoot the President. They would haul me away. I can peacefully assemble, but I can't have the group plan an attack on an person or organization. So yea.

even though Rind et al. has let us know that the most damaging child sexual abuse is . . . that abuse committed by fathers.
Rind et al. not only has some major issues invloved with it (statistical problems, sample, and deffinition problems) it also does NOT say what you seem to think that is says.

Bingo!

*hands over a cookie*
Yea! Cookie!
*eats cookie*

Next lets be absolutely clear, pedophilia does not mean Love of Children, the literal translation is love of children, yes--but that is a distinct difference from meaning that. The usage as it is an english word taken form the greek--is directly for those who are sexually attracted to children. Short-eyes, pants-touchers, pedators(not predators, as that word conveys the image of something that is powerful).

Main Entry: pe·do·phil·ia
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Pedophilia

"From its Greek roots, pedophilia implies love of a child ("paidos" + "philia"). In practice, pedophiles are typically adult males with exclusive sexual preferences for prepubescent boys and/or girls. Adult women can be diagnosed as pedophiles as well as some postpubertal adolescents. Pedophilia is not synonomous with child molestation ( pedophilia being a subcategory of child molestation). There are clear and specific criteria for diagnosing pedophilia in the DSM."
www.forensicexaminers.com/terminology.html

Sexual attraction to a child; clinically, a person sixteen years of age or older who is at least five years older than the child. Pedophiles will prefer males, females, or both. Generally considered to be an incurable mental disorder.
www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm

pedophilia
Sexual fondness and activity of adults with children.pedophilia is a form of paraphilia (deviant sexual behaviour).
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?pedophilia

Pedophilia: People with pedophilia have fantasies, urges or behaviors that involve illegal sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger). Pedophilic behavior includes undressing the child, encouraging the child to watch the abuser masturbate, touching or fondling the child's genitals and forcefully performing sexual acts on the child. Some pedophiles are sexually attracted to children only (exclusive pedophiles) and are not attracted to adults at all. Some pedophiles limit their activity to their own children or close relatives (incest), while others victimize other children. Predatory pedophiles may use force or threaten their victims if they disclose the abuse. Health care providers are legally bound to report such abuse of minors.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=46415

a sexual attraction to children
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Yea, but Free Speech does have it's limits. You can't yell Fire in a crowded building, and you can't advocate the harming of another person. I can't go out on the street and yell out that I'm going to shoot the President. They would haul me away. I can peacefully assemble, but I can't have the group plan an attack on an person or organization. So yea.
None of which he has stated yet. He has not said, for example, that he has gone after children or plans to. Doing that would be a bannable offence under the rules of the site. He has stated that he feels sexual relations between children and adults is ok (I know, makes me sick too). That is within the limits as placed by Max and since he owns the site...

None of which he has stated yet. He has not said, for example, that he has gone after children or plans to. Doing that would be a bannable offence under the rules of the site. He has stated that he feels sexual relations between children and adults is ok (I know, makes me sick too). That is within the limits as placed by Max and since he owns the site...

Yea...it is a private site...still don't like it though. Eh I'll just leave this thread.

Yea...it is a private site...still don't like it though. Eh I'll just leave this thread.
Probably a good idea. Too many people get themsleves banned for getting a little hot.

Boy! Talk about closing this discussion down.

Someone doesn't like controversial topics - or perhaps they've just led very sheltered lives (poor things!) - or perhaps they just don't like losing arguments.

;-)

In any case, I'm glad to see that there are at least some posters here who recognise the necessity for free speech.

Even supposing I were wrong, don't forget that, at one time, the idea of abolishing slavery was anathema to many, at another time, the idea of equal rights for women was anathema and rather impolite conversation. Later, the idea of civil rights for blacks, gays, and other minorities was not polite conversation. Belief that minorities had rights was downright unpatriotic and evil and nonsense and all that, y'know.

And now, the idea that children have rights - why, we can't have that!

Well, maybe I'm wrong - though I doubt it - but history shows me that quite often, the great, wise majority has been . . . dead wrong. Thus the necessity of free speech.

As for Rind et al. - just because Congress passed a law condemning scientific research, doesn't make their condemnation any more valid than the Catholic Church's condemnation of Galileo's theories.


Baldur

Now that's not very nice. Didn't your mommy teach you not to make death threats?

And all your talk about "Stranger Danger" - don't you know that most child sexual abuse is committed by the victim's father? And almost all child abuse is committed by a family member?

Pay no attention to Daddy. That's why they have Incest Exemption Laws, to let 80%+ of offenders get off with virtually no punishment - even though Rind et al. has let us know that the most damaging child sexual abuse is . . . that abuse committed by fathers.


Baldur
Yes Short-eye I do know that, which is why I was very specific. A woman married to a short-eye should have enough motherly insticnt to kill infected individual for his sake as a mercy killing, and for hte sake of any further children that he might harm. Though I am aware most people like you dont consider it harm, you call it "Love".

I didnt make a threat, I made a suggestion. There is a difference, now if it some how compels you to take your own life, good.

If you like you can tell me where you live and we talk about it face to face, over some coffee and biscotti.

And now, the idea that children have rights - why, we can't have that!
The difference is that children are not cognativly capable of giving consent the way an adult can. They are not, literally, able to comprehend what is being asked of them, what could happen, and so on. Yes, you MAY be able to find a child whose mental growth is good enough for that, but you're looking at 1 in thousands.

At 9 years of age, children are still into concrete development and thoughts. This is why we don't let them sign contracts without parents or guardians, because they cannot make good enough judgements to actually sign the way an adult can. And, no, giving away their bodies is not somehow less than signing up for a credit card.

As for Rind et al. - just because Congress passed a law condemning scientific research, doesn't make their condemnation any more valid than the Catholic Church's condemnation of Galileo's theories.
I did not talk about Congress, nor do I talk about Dr. Laura or Dr. Dobbs before you bring them up, I am talking about Rind's own academic peers who tore that paper to shreads.

and yet, on other sites that I visit, stuff like this would get you banned for life.

Then they're reactionary wankers. He ought to be allowed to voice his opinion. Advocating making what is currently a crime legal doesn't amount to advocating a crime. People openly advocate using drugs here (I do see the difference, drugs don't hurt anyone but you, having sex with people unable to fully consent is likely to cause them significant mental duress. It's not guaranteed, but we as a society feel it's our duty to protect our children, they don't drive or vote or fuck or decide to have surgery.)

That said, I felt a wave of revulsion come over me when he specified '9 year old girl'. All of a sudden even my most inapproriate crush seems a little more wholesome.

Then they're reactionary wankers. He ought to be allowed to voice his opinion. Advocating making what is currently a crime legal doesn't amount to advocating a crime. People openly advocate using drugs here (I do see the difference, drugs don't hurt anyone but you, having sex with people unable to fully consent is likely to cause them significant mental duress. It's not guaranteed, but we as a society feel it's our duty to protect our children, they don't drive or vote or fuck or decide to have surgery.)

That said, I felt a wave of revulsion come over me when he specified '9 year old girl'. All of a sudden even my most inapproriate crush seems a little more wholesome.
considering that I have a 9 year old neice... [shudders]

Even supposing I were wrong, don't forget that, at one time, the idea of abolishing slavery was anathema to many, at another time, the idea of equal rights for women was anathema and rather impolite conversation. Later, the idea of civil rights for blacks, gays, and other minorities was not polite conversation. Belief that minorities had rights was downright unpatriotic and evil and nonsense and all that, y'know.


Wow. I never thought I would ever see anybody link child molesting to the slavery and civil rights.


And now, the idea that children have rights - why, we can't have that!


Because they don't have the breath of experience to make informed decesions in such matters.


Well, maybe I'm wrong - though I doubt it - but history shows me that quite often, the great, wise majority has been . . . dead wrong. Thus the necessity of free speech.

As for Rind et al. - just because Congress passed a law condemning scientific research, doesn't make their condemnation any more valid than the Catholic Church's condemnation of Galileo's theories.


Oookay.

More accurately, as you know, Loki is a Trickster.Amongst many other things, yes he plays that part and plays it well, too. Personally, I believe this entire website runs on Loki-energy.
And how am I supposed to feel, that you venerate the jerk that offed me? I mean, really!It's of no account. But don't make me say this more than once, please: you are not Baldur in anyone's mind, save your own. I generally avoid referring directly to the archetypes I venerate by name, as naming them in any context other than by how they relate directly to you changes their nature - the name you invoke directly or indirectly defines the archetype you seek.

Please stop harassing poor Baldur. Leave him out of your posts.

:headbang:

Kiddie porn is and should remain illegal. When you see pornographic photos of adults, these people are consenting to thiese photos. Childrend aren ot capable of making decisions and are not mature enough to understand this kind of sexuality and should not be exposed to it. Children do not belong in pornography. Most of the pictures of children in porn are taken by abusers, pedophiles who sexually molest these children. The children you see in kiddie porn are victims. Anyone who can't see that is either retarded or should be shot.:headbang:
I've only read the first two pages, so I don't know if somebody had already answered this. However, I have to say it. I have a friend who likes collecting murder pictures and videos. You know, harmless things such as:

- a man has his dick cut off in an Arabian country;

- a black man has one hand tied to a truck, the other to another truck. The two trucks start in opposite directions and one hand is torn off;

- Cecen partisans torture and then stab to death a Russian soldier.

I could go on and on, but I get sick only thinking about it. The main point is that it's not illegal for him to have those videos, and yet it is illegal to have on your computer a photo of a naked child. That's the most obvious evidence of a double standard I have ever seen. I really don't grasp how could a photo of a child could cause as much damage as the films my friend has. Hell, I bet we all own photos of naked children. I know I do. They are photos of me, taken by my parents when I was younger. Am I getting as sick by looking at them as I get from looking at videos of people being tortured and murdered? Hell no! In fact, I don't get sick at all, I consider I look cute in those photos. What I consider sick is a society considering a naked child worse than murder. Call me sicko for this, if you want. End of rant.

hihi I'd the same trouble with my naughty comrade the Great Imam of the holy State of the Malmoetans (from Malmoe in Sweden).

He was in a hurry to die... Just because his holy Scriptures promised him a paradise with 72 virgins. And pedophilia is well accepted since the great prophet married a 12 years old girl in his own time.

As I am The Writer of the Holy Jesuites' Scriptures he wanted to know if he would be the lucky pedophile !

I just told him: nay! The girlie's are known to be gay...



The High Priest
- 2 blue and a brown one -

And pedophilia is well accepted since the great prophet married a 12 years old girl in his own time.


I asked a couple Muslims about that. Yes he did marry her but he didn't have sex with her until she was a proper age.

At 9 years of age, children are still into concrete development and thoughts.


Hmmn. One of my earliest memories is about contemplating Zeno's Paradox. I also recall discussing negative numbers with classmates in 2nd grade. I find it hard to believe that 9yo's are incapable of abstract thought.

I'm also not quite sure why abstract thought is necessary to decide "this feels good" versus "this feels bad".

Incidentally, I don't have a problem with reasonable restrictions for keeping children safe. In a better world, sex wouldn't have to mean penetration, for example, and I would prefer that parents be kept in the loop so they can intervene if their child's admirer gets out of hand. That would require a culture of acceptance, however, not the present culture of secrecy.


This is why we don't let them sign contracts without parents or guardians, because they cannot make good enough judgements to actually sign the way an adult can. And, no, giving away their bodies is not somehow less than signing up for a credit card.


Less? No. But different, yes. Sexuality is a big part of what it means to be human. The present situation is quite disrespectful and harmful to children, IMHO.

As for contracts: How about limiting contracts for children, instead of abolishing them? For example, limiting the duration of contracts, and limiting what could be contracted?

I got my first part-time job when I was 9, and strongly support a child's right to work. I consider it a grave injustice that children are denied this right and the independence it can give them.

I don't mind laws to protect children, but I keep finding that most of these laws seem to be more about protecting the privileges of adults.

And why is that a 15yo girl can be charged - as an adult - with corruption of a minor - herself - for taking nude pictures of herself? Doesn't that seem just a tad self-contradictory?


I did not talk about Congress, nor do I talk about Dr. Laura or Dr. Dobbs before you bring them up, I am talking about Rind's own academic peers who tore that paper to shreads.

From what I've heard, peer review found some quibbles with the methods of Rind et al., but found the results to be basically sound.


Baldur

What I consider sick is a society considering a naked child worse than murder. Call me sicko for this, if you want. End of rant.

Naked pictures of children =/= kiddieporn.

Most laws require an image to have some degree of sexuality to it to be considered kiddieporn. Although, if you keep pictures of your kids in the tub with pictures from "barelylegal.com", they might play connect the dots.

I asked a couple Muslims about that. Yes he did marry her but he didn't have sex with her until she was a proper age.

IIRC, Mohammed married Aisha when she was six, but did not consummate the marriage until she was 9.

Still well above the Talmudic minimum marriageable age, 3 years and a day.


Baldur

This has a very slight tang of vigilanteism. While it is entirely justified, it's leading down a dark and possibly slippery path. Last thing we need is a thought monitor in any shape, form or purpose.

True dat! Double true!

I asked a couple Muslims about that. Yes he did marry her but he didn't have sex with her until she was a proper age.

Dont ask but read the book...
He married when she was 9 and had sex when she was 12 (tha's was the proper age}.

Amen.

Hmmn. One of my earliest memories is about contemplating Zeno's Paradox. I also recall discussing negative numbers with classmates in 2nd grade. I find it hard to believe that 9yo's are incapable of abstract thought.
Look up Jean Piaget, give yourself about 2 weeks to read through his theories of mental devlopment and what those terms mean. Yes, children cannot think abstractly, not in the way that adults can. There is a famous experiment about the conservation of mass, where water from a tall, skinny glass is poured into a short, fatter glass. Children cannot understand the laws of the conservation of mass and to them, they will state that the shorter glass holds less water, even though they saw the water being poured from one glass to the other. An adult knows that no water has been lost (not in any great amount). Children can be taught rules, like negative numbers and Zeno's Paradox, but they cannot comprehend what that actually means until much later.

I'm also not quite sure why abstract thought is necessary to decide "this feels good" versus "this feels bad".
Because it ain't about "This feels good, this feels bad", it's about "Do I really want this? Can I handle this?" We don't let impared adults mach such choices (adults who are drunk, stoned, or mentally retarded cannot fully consent to sex) because they are not possive at that time of the mental capabilities to reconise the consequences of their actions and what it might mean. Also, with the uneven power structure (adult and child), the adult has undue infulance that a child cannot counter. Morally at that time, children are also still stuck in the 'rules' stage where the rules are handed down by adults and so that is what they follow, they cannot reason for or against those rules.

So in other words, a child cannot give consent due to being unable to consider like an adult, reason like and adult, and accept the consquences like an adult. Saying so otherwise is for YOUR pleasure only, not the child's.

Incidentally, I don't have a problem with reasonable restrictions for keeping children safe. In a better world, sex wouldn't have to mean penetration, for example, and I would prefer that parents be kept in the loop so they can intervene if their child's admirer gets out of hand. That would require a culture of acceptance, however, not the present culture of secrecy.
Oh this should be fun. Please go ahead and approch a parent about having sexual relations with their child. We'll burry what's left.

Less? No. But different, yes. Sexuality is a big part of what it means to be human. The present situation is quite disrespectful and harmful to children, IMHO.

How so? It is adults duty to protect and guild children until such time as they are able to make their own decisions and live as adults. That has NEVER changed, no matter what age we are in.

As for contracts: How about limiting contracts for children, instead of abolishing them? For example, limiting the duration of contracts, and limiting what could be contracted?

I got my first part-time job when I was 9, and strongly support a child's right to work. I consider it a grave injustice that children are denied this right and the independence it can give them.
And I would bet that your job had to recieve permission from your family in order to hire you. Again, because children cannot think the way and adult can. I teach junior high school, so I see kids from 12 to 15 and THEY have problems thinking about the future and they are far closer in development to an adult than a 9 year old child. A child is not a mini-adult and cannot nor should not be treated as such.

From what I've heard, peer review found some quibbles with the methods of Rind et al., but found the results to be basically sound.
I would suggest that you actually read the rebuttals of Rind et al. because what they found was not some quibbles but some massive problems.

Naked pictures of children =/= kiddieporn.

You just haven't been keeping up with the times, have you?

Heck, I've got a friend who got in trouble because a couple British police officers testilied about him admitting to them that he was downloading kiddie porn. They seized his computer, and prosecuted him based on three photos, all of which showed adult women who were naked. One of the images was only about 1 inch square on an ordinary monitor, and seems to have been downloaded as an ad on a web page - my friend didn't even know it was on his computer.

However, the prosecutor claimed (without any evidence, and despite evidence against it) that these women "appeared" to be under 18 - and that's all it takes in Britain.

That doesn't even consider a case like that of John Knox in Pennsylvania, who was convicted for having a video with fully dressed cheerleaders.

The chief criteria is not the content itself, but the thought crime of being attracted to children.

Of course, as the case of Dr. Croft in Georgia attests, the witch-hunt is also useful for silencing political opponents.

But don't presume that any image of a child is not "child porn" these days.


Baldur

IIRC, Mohammed married Aisha when she was six, but did not consummate the marriage until she was 9.

Actually the age given was 14.....

Dont ask but read the book...
He married when she was 9 and had sex when she was 12 (tha's was the proper age}.

Amen.

Alright save me some digging. What page and passage....

You just haven't been keeping up with the times, have you?

Heck, I've got a friend who got in trouble because a couple British police officers testilied about him admitting to them that he was downloading kiddie porn. They seized his computer, and prosecuted him based on three photos, all of which showed adult women who were naked. One of the images was only about 1 inch square on an ordinary monitor, and seems to have been downloaded as an ad on a web page - my friend didn't even know it was on his computer.

However, the prosecutor claimed (without any evidence, and despite evidence against it) that these women "appeared" to be under 18 - and that's all it takes in Britain.

Hmmm got a link?


That doesn't even consider a case like that of John Knox in Pennsylvania, who was convicted for having a video with fully dressed cheerleaders.

Got a link?


The chief criteria is not the content itself, but the thought crime of being attracted to children.

Of course, as the case of Dr. Croft in Georgia attests, the witch-hunt is also useful for silencing political opponents.

But don't presume that any image of a child is not "child porn" these days.


Actually the content is weighed. That is why Maplethorpe is argued as art but the picture collection by the Boy Scouts council man was not.....

Naked pictures of children =/= kiddieporn.

Most laws require an image to have some degree of sexuality to it to be considered kiddieporn. Although, if you keep pictures of your kids in the tub with pictures from "barelylegal.com", they might play connect the dots.
Sexuality is in the eye of the beholder. Is a photo of a beautiful, naked woman suntanning on a beach sexual to you (presuming you're a straight male - or a lesbian ;))? What about the picture of a young boy in the same situation? For me, number one is yes, number two is no. For a prosecutor I'm sure the answer to the second question would be "yes" by default. I guess this makes him the pervert.

Another thing Callixtina said and I don't agree with is that kiddie pics should be banned because the childern in them are victims. However, displaying "victims" in photos or videos is not a crime. All the people tortured and killed in the example given in my previous post were victims. Still, this somehow doesn't make it illegal to own the videos. Again, a double standard.

Don't worry — you did the right thing. At the very least, you reminded the old guy that pedophilia IS NOT ACCEPTABLE in this society.

I'd have probably sided with the mother, commended her on her action, back her up to the girl, and given the old guy my most pointed and feckless wolf-stare long enough to scare him off the bus.

Baldur — pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation. It's a form of rape.

Another thing Callixtina said and I don't agree with is that kiddie pics should be banned because the childern in them are victims. However, displaying "victims" in photos or videos is not a crime. All the people tortured and killed in the example given in my previous post were victims. Still, this somehow doesn't make it illegal to own the videos. Again, a double standard.
The problem with your example is that those folks who collect pictures of children have a tendancy to eventually try to touch a child (NOT will, a tendancy).

Also, again, you fail to note the supply and demand side of the issue. Most of your friend's collection was made during something else, war for example. I ahve never heard of someone chopping off the head of someone to make pictures to sell or trade over the internet for those interested in such. Child porn however is exactly that, they pictures are made for those who wish to see them, are traded or sold.

Look up Jean Piaget, give yourself about 2 weeks to read through his theories of mental devlopment and what those terms mean. Yes, children cannot think abstractly, not in the way that adults can. There is a famous experiment about the conservation of mass, where water from a tall, skinny glass is poured into a short, fatter glass. Children cannot understand the laws of the conservation of mass and to them, they will state that the shorter glass holds less water, even though they saw the water being poured from one glass to the other.


Yes, when they're, like, two - NOT when they're 9. Unless they're rather slow.

In any case, throughout most of the world, throughout most of history, the masturbation of small children to help them get to sleep was practiced, with no ill consequences discovered. It seems to me that you are doing a lot of equivocating. I'm getting the feeling that you have a problem with abstract thought.

To sum it all up:

2yo =/= 5yo =/= 9yo =/= 12yo

sex =/= violence


Because it ain't about "This feels good, this feels bad", it's about "Do I really want this? Can I handle this?"

Exactly why does it have to be some big, momentous choice? Sexuality is natural to children. It is not quite as imperative as eating, drinking, and breathing, but it is just as natural a part of being human, and a very strong need. Methinks you are making a mountain out of a molehill.


Also, with the uneven power structure (adult and child), the adult has undue infulance that a child cannot counter.

Never heard of a girl who had her daddy wrapped around her little finger? Power imbalance - typical Feminist bullshit.


Morally at that time, children are also still stuck in the 'rules' stage where the rules are handed down by adults and so that is what they follow,

Why are they stuck in this pattern? Isn't that the real abuse?

I teach junior high school, so I see kids from 12 to 15 and THEY have problems thinking about the future and they are far closer in development to an adult than a 9 year old child.

I see many adults in their 50s who have problems thinking about their future - and I've known children who make good plans. No fool like an old fool, you know. Perhaps we shouldn't make presumptions based on age?


A child is not a mini-adult and cannot nor should not be treated as such.


True enough - but if you never start teaching them about life and responsibility, they'll never learn.

My grandmother carried a rifle with her when she went to elementary school. She and the other kids would simply stack their rifles in the cloakroom until after school. Back then, kids were expected to be responsible, and they were responsible. Now, kids are taught to be good little subjects of Uncle Sam - not free citizens - and they are often in their 20's before they begin to learn personal responsibility. I'm not sure how that's an improvement.


I would suggest that you actually read the rebuttals of Rind et al. because what they found was not some quibbles but some massive problems.

Link?


Baldur

Sexuality is in the eye of the beholder. Is a photo of a beautiful, naked woman suntanning on a beach sexual to you (presuming you're a straight male - or a lesbian ;))? What about the picture of a young boy in the same situation? For me, number one is yes, number two is no. For a prosecutor I'm sure the answer to the second question would be "yes" by default. I guess this makes him the pervert.

A picture of a beatiful women reclining nude is not sexual (nudity doesn't in anyway equate to sexuality, there's lots of things you can wear that are more sexual then being nude) to me, even though I am a straight man. Unless she's got her legs spread and is touching herself.
Likewise the boy.

The only one that will hold interest for me when I touch myself, is the picture of the woman touching herself. :D

I haven't read the entire thread, so excuse me if I'm repeating anybody when I say this.

I believe that all sexual offenders should be relocated to a colony out in the middle of nowhere, and then studied to find out what causes such behavior. It's definitely not natural, so we should really try to figure out what the hell is wrong with them. If not to benefit the people who suffer from this disorder, but to benefit the human gene pool as a whole.

Yes, when they're, like, two - NOT when they're 9. Unless they're rather slow.
Try again, children are not able to understand conservation of mass till age 7ish.

In any case, throughout most of the world, throughout most of history, the masturbation of small children to help them get to sleep was practiced, with no ill consequences discovered. It seems to me that you are doing a lot of equivocating. I'm getting the feeling that you have a problem with abstract thought.
You've made this claim before, got proof to back this one up, or do you have a problem with actually proving what you are saying with actual sources?

Exactly why does it have to be some big, momentous choice? Sexuality is natural to children. It is not quite as imperative as eating, drinking, and breathing, but it is just as natural a part of being human, and a very strong need. Methinks you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
Eating and breathing doesn't get one pregnant. Drinking, unless you're consuming too much, doesn't cause damage. Mountain out of a molehill? BULL! I have seen and worked with children who were abused who are now having massive issues. The thought that you are willing to damage a child for your sexual gratification is wrong. See, that's what I am after. You do this for your own pleasure, NOT the child's.

Never heard of a girl who had her daddy wrapped around her little finger? Power imbalance - typical Feminist bullshit.
No, this isn't men vs women, this is child and adult. This is real. This is not a mini-adult who can resist another adult, but rather a child who has been told that he or she should follow adults and through whatever explination that is your cup 'o tea, they DO SO. Why do children follow teachers? Why do children obey adults otherwise? Adults DO hold power over children and trying to deny it by dismissing it with a wave of the hand isn't going to work.

Or can you find me something that says children are equal with adults? Please? I can start citing a whole buch of stuff that says they are not.

I see many adults in their 50s who have problems thinking about their future - and I've known children who make good plans. No fool like an old fool, you know. Perhaps we shouldn't make presumptions based on age?
Perhaps you should actually read about human devlopment and mental growth. The problem is not so much that your 50 isn't doing so, but that the child cannot do so. Every single devlopmental theory has shown this. Every. Single. One. There is nothing in anything that has ever shown a child can reason with the same facilities that an adult can. Whether an adult chooses to do so or not is not the point.

Again, YOU need to stop trying to give abilties to childrent that are not there in order to justify your own sexual urges and make it ok in your own mind. You are attempting to provide excuse and reasons for this.

My grandmother carried a rifle with her when she went to elementary school. She and the other kids would simply stack their rifles in the cloakroom until after school. Back then, kids were expected to be responsible, and they were responsible. Now, kids are taught to be good little subjects of Uncle Sam - not free citizens - and they are often in their 20's before they begin to learn personal responsibility. I'm not sure how that's an improvement.
Was your grandmother beded when she was 9 by a man who was in his 30's? This isn't about teaching children responcibility, this is about protecting them from those who want to use them for their own sexual gradification, and who use honeyed words to sway those into thinking that it is ok.

Link?
Of course.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10539984&postcount=305

I also recomend (but never posted due to limits on Jolt's server):
Title: The Effects of Child Sexual Abuse : Comment on Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998)
Author(s): Dallam, Stephanie J., Science Directorate, Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania
Gleaves, David H., Science Directorate, Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania; Department of Psychology, Texas A & M University
Cepeda-Benito, Antonio, Department of Psychology, Texas A & M University
Silberg, Joyanna L., Science Directorate, Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania; Trauma Disorders Program, Sheppard Pratt Health System, Baltimore, Maryland
Kraemer, Helena C., Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine
Spiegel, David, Science Directorate, Leadership Council for Mental Health, Justice, and the Media, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine
Source: Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 127(6), November 2001. pp. 715-733.

Got anything that shows something?

The problem with your example is that those folks who collect pictures of children have a tendancy to eventually try to touch a child (NOT will, a tendancy).
But I believe number two is not caused by number one. I'm sure people who watch gay videos only rape persons of the same sex. And it's normal that those who collect kiddie pics only abuse children. They do both things because of their sexual orientation, but one is not caused by the other. In fact, one may alleviate the other. I remember a study discussing homosexuality. The case of Danemark 50 years ago was presented. People there were against gay porn, believing that it would lead to an increase in the ammount of gay rapes. After gay porn was eventually legalised, however, there was a decrease in the number of gay rapes. The homosexuals now had a new way to release their sexual frustrations other than abusing other people.

Also, again, you fail to note the supply and demand side of the issue. Most of your friend's collection was made during something else, war for example. I ahve never heard of someone chopping off the head of someone to make pictures to sell or trade over the internet for those interested in such.
That's because there are already free pics easily available free of charge over the internet. Why go to so much trouble and risk a prosecution when you can get them for free, legally and in just a few minutes? But try banning them and you'll see a black market appearing in no time.

Child porn however is exactly that, they pictures are made for those who wish to see them, are traded or sold.
If people are abused, then by all means prosecute the abusers. But those who simply download the pics from net are not encouraging the industry in any way, as long as they're not paying. And hitting hard on them makes it easier for the big fish to escape. The police often makes deals with the drug addicts in order to get to the mafia boss, in stead of sending them to prison. When dealing with the pedophiles, they adopt an opposite policy. It is, in my oppinion, a mistaken and inefficient approach.

Great, it's the son of Dark Shadowy Nexus.

Alright, I got a Holly spear ready for you, Baldur. Shall we dance?
what ever happend to DSN anyway?

That's because there are already free pics easily available free of charge over the internet. Why go to so much trouble and risk a prosecution when you can get them for free, legally and in just a few minutes? But try banning them and you'll see a black market appearing in no time.
That's not answering the issue of supply and demand though. No one is making those pictures for the purpose of making those pictures.

If people are abused, then by all means prosecute the abusers. But those who simply download the pics from net are not encouraging the industry in any way, as long as they're not paying. And hitting hard on them makes it easier for the big fish to escape. The police often makes deals with the drug addicts in order to get to the mafia boss, in stead of sending them to prison. When dealing with the pedophiles, they adopt an opposite policy. It is, in my oppinion, a mistaken and inefficient approach.
Wrong, often times police use the users to trace back up to where the pictures were made. But, as you noted, this is on the Net where those who get them are often times not aware of where and when they were made. But police have gone after where they got the pictures from, IF it is possible,

But in answer, we also arrest those who recive stolen goods, even if they did not steal those goods should they know that the property was stolen. What harm did they do, just buying stolen property? Well, if they hadn't bought it, those who steal for money wouldn't be able to get the money that way.

A picture of a beatiful women reclining nude is not sexual (nudity doesn't in anyway equate to sexuality, there's lots of things you can wear that are more sexual then being nude) to me, even though I am a straight man. Unless she's got her legs spread and is touching herself.

The only one that will hold interest for me when I touch myself, is the picture of the woman touching herself. :D
Most men would disagree with you. If getting a hardon means disagreeing, that is. ;)

Likewise the boy.
Again, most prosecutors would disagree with you. ;)

What you said are "normal" (as in, non-perverted) oppinions. In our society, however, sometimes the "non-normal" prevails.

what ever happend to DSN anyway?
Dammned if I know, left maybe?

Dammned if I know, left maybe?

I suspect our "friend" here is him.

However, DSN made an appearence 3 days ago.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10930065&postcount=98

I would have blocked his view and stared at him with unblinking belligerence.

:sniper:

That's not answering the issue of supply and demand though. No one is making those pictures for the purpose of making those pictures.
But that's precisely because they're not banned! If kiddie pics (not pedophilia) were legalised, then those with pedophiliac tendences would have no trouble finding pics for them, thus reducing the need to create new pics.

But, as you noted, this is on the Net where those who get them are often times not aware of where and when they were made.
So, if this is proven, should they be considered guilty of anything? They haven't harmed anybody and they're not encouraging the harming of others by paying money for the pictures.

But in answer, we also arrest those who recive stolen goods, even if they did not steal those goods should they know that the property was stolen. What harm did they do, just buying stolen property? Well, if they hadn't bought it, those who steal for money wouldn't be able to get the money that way.
Agreed with that.

To end my presence on this thread: I'm still not sure what my position on the topic of legalising pedophilia should be. I mean, I got my first hardon at the age of nine or ten, looking at the picture of a naked woman. I was fairly sexual even at that age and I have to tell you I wouldn't have been against having sex with an "older" (for me at that age) woman. Unfortunatelly, this never happened. :( :D

OK.

Just noticed where this conversation's been heading.

If you're too young to live on your own, you're too young to be having sex.

If you can't be trusted to support yourself, then you can't be trusted to use your body responsibly.

Twelve year olds (much less NINE year olds) should not be having sex!

A good rule of thumb:

So long as your parents are paying for your livelihood, they decide what you may or may not do.

No pot or sex or drinking or smoking or anything your parents might not like if your living with your parents.

But if your living out of your own pocket, then I think you should be able to do whatever you want.

OK.

Just noticed where this conversation's been heading.

If you're too young to live on your own, you're too young to be having sex.

If you can't be trusted to support yourself, then you can't be trusted to use your body responsibly.

Twelve year olds (much less NINE year olds) should not be having sex!

A good rule of thumb:

So long as your parents are paying for your livelihood, they decide what you may or may not do.

No pot or sex or drinking or smoking or anything your parents might not like if your living with your parents.

But if your living out of your own pocket, then I think you should be able to do whatever you want.
I'm 21, and still depend entirely on my parents. does that mean, for example, that if they "ground" me and I can't go outside, I have to stay home and do nothing, as if I was a 9 year old?

In any case, throughout most of the world, throughout most of history, the masturbation of small children to help them get to sleep was practiced, with no ill consequences discovered.

I'm just gonna share my two cents on this one... Notice it says small children... It probably means under the age of 5 or 6, probably even younger than that. My little brother, who is now 5, hasnt had trouble getting to sleep for over a year at least, if not two. Besides, they probably stopped before the child really knew what it was, i mean, i sure as hell wouldn't know at that age, ecspecially back then, when everything was so guarded...


EDIT: not to mention, thats a disturbing thought, my mom... :eek: gee, thanks, lol

I'm 21, and still depend entirely on my parents. does that mean, for example, that if they "ground" me and I can't go outside, I have to stay home and do nothing, as if I was a 9 year old?

And you'll damn well like it. :D

If people are abused, then by all means prosecute the abusers. But those who simply download the pics from net are not encouraging the industry in any way, as long as they're not paying. And hitting hard on them makes it easier for the big fish to escape.

Which is why, no where on the internet are there any images of my child.

I think what South Niflheim is trying to say is

1 - He's Dark Shadowy Nexus
2 - He's a pedophile

Case closed, quit arguing.

A short question to play devil's advocate.

To those saying that children lack the mental capacity to decide. What of people with mental disorders etc?

Are you in essence advocating a psychology test for a sex licence?

And you'll damn well like it. :D
lol :p

lol :p

It's funny, cuz your situation is the same as mine... I don't think I've been grounded since I was 11.

Got in trouble, just never needed punished to get across the point 'you shouldn't do that' after awhile.

A short question to play devil's advocate.

To those saying that children lack the mental capacity to decide. What of people with mental disorders etc?

Are you in essence advocating a psychology test for a sex licence?

I work with the developmentally disabled (adults). And they are not allowed to freely engage in sex. It's called a "Rights Restriction". Since most of these adults are not their own legal guardians, some other adult is making this decision for them. I haven't met a parent yet that want his/her DD adult child to be procreating. Some said legal guardians have had their adult children sterilized without discussing it with the adult child.

Sorry. But that's the way it is.

A short question to play devil's advocate.

To those saying that children lack the mental capacity to decide. What of people with mental disorders etc?

Are you in essence advocating a psychology test for a sex licence?

i've read that the brain isn't finished developing the part we use to make decisions until we're 24. or some age around there. yet we all manage it. i think it deals more with experiences. children and possibly people with mental disorders lack the experiences in life to make logical and sane decisions.

This has a very slight tang of vigilanteism. While it is entirely justified, it's leading down a dark and possibly slippery path. Last thing we need is a thought monitor in any shape, form or purpose.
Why is it that pedophiles trigger the reaction in people such that our very existence causes people to find uterly reprehensible (things like thought-crime and restricting unpopular speech) to be perfectly acceptable?

Sounds like he was rather too obvious

Too obvious? It baffles me that we find ourselves socially in this situation. Because of the neccisary secrecy due to this taboo, we've created an environment that favors child molestors and inhibits parents. I mean they start learning the tricks of keeping their interests hidden long before the idea ever enters their head to do anything. If people weren't of the mind to beat us to death upon identifying us, perhaps the child molestors wouldn't get so much practice disguising their intentions, and maybe more of them would slip up and get caught.
kiddie porn pics, or just plain old adult porn?
Does it really matter? Twenty pictures netted a guy a 200 year sentence without the possibility of parolle. Serial killers get less time, and he didn't so much as lay a finger on anyone.
its going to be a sad sad society when men are no longer allowed to even look at girls.
Did you miss the memo? That makes you a pedophile, and worthy of being beaten to death for so much as glancing in the direction of someone's cute kid.
Pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation. It is classified as a behavioral disorder, and a severe one at that, since it involves abusing children. What two consenting adults do behind closed bedroom doors and abusing children can not be compared in any way.

Actually, pedophelia may be classified as a behavioral disorder, but it does not neccisarily involve abusing children. Only the attraction is neccisary for the diagnosis. The actual sex is more commonly reffered to as child molestation. Please kindly separate the two terms, both in your future posts, and in your mind.

If you, or any other sane person of adult age(disregard this comment if you're still a teenager) is attracted to a 12 years old girl, I believe that person may have quite a warped view on sexuality. To be aroused by children certainly seems unhealthy to me.

Didn't you just say that it was a behavioral disorder. By definition, those who have such attractions aren't sane. (Of course sane is such a relative term anyway, I can't believe you bothered to mention it at all.)

It isn't healthy. It means that we're subjected to a near constant psychological reinforcement that we're all malevolent monsters interested only in raping small children, and that we should be either shot, castrated, or beaten until we "learn our lesson" which since this condition is largely identified as incurable, we're beaten to death instead.

On this I agree, though. Someone who is attracted to a child but never acts on his/her desire should be left alone, and rightly so. However, I live in Canada, and here pedophiles are let off the hook too easily. I support harsher prison sentences for repeat offenders, at the very least. While it's true they don't control who they're attracted to, they have to realise that unfortunately for them, acting on their desires involves hurting children. Repeat offenders should be watched closely to prevent them from making more victims.
Again, please separate the two terms. I'm a pedophile, but not a child molester. I take offense at being lumped in with those pieces of human garbage.
Mary, the mother of Jesus, is generally considered to have been about 12 years old when she was pregnant with Jesus, based on the description in the Gospels and the normal age at which girls were married in that time and place.
Never heard that one before. I'm going to need to ask for a link on this one, since I doubt that the church would ever let such a consencus stand, regardless of any theoretical historical evidence in its support.

Im just wondering, is this Dark shadowy nexus?

I doubt it. He's not the only pedophile in the world, and South Niflheim seems to be a far more eloquent speaker than DSN was.
:headbang:

Kiddie porn is and should remain illegal. When you see pornographic photos of adults, these people are consenting to thiese photos.

Funny. I hear all the time about how much the adult porn industry is demeening and exploits the people involved in it.

Childrend aren ot capable of making decisions and are not mature enough to understand this kind of sexuality and should not be exposed to it.

And of course by not being given access or exposure to such information, their ability to make informed decisions is crippled and your arguement justifies itself. Bravo.

Children do not belong in pornography. Most of the pictures of children in porn are taken by abusers, pedophiles who sexually molest these children. The children you see in kiddie porn are victims. Anyone who can't see that is either retarded or should be shot.:headbang:
I agree. Many of the children in child porn have been abused in the making of it. Terrible things were done to them, and the people who have done so should be punished. Moving on to the actual issue (I saw you sidestepping) what harm is the viewer of such materials causing? I understand the manufacturer, but what the hell is the viewer doing to those kids?
As a high school teacher I can tell you, any adult person who has sex with one of my students, I will lay them the fuck out. It has nothing to do with love, caring, or sexuality. It is about an adult using a naive, immature young person for their own gratification. Ever wonder why most paedophilia victims are the most vulnerable members of society?

Is anyone going to stop using pedophile and child molester interchangably?

Nope, but he's a friend of mine. Thanks for asking. ;-)

DSN? Part of the reason I joined this forum was because of him. He was a poor debater, uninformed about the issues he was advocating, and seemed to enjoy hinting that he'd been raping children. I wanted to tell him off because he was giving people like me a bad name.
Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation, contrary to your claims. Why do you think the vast majority of pedophiles who act on their desires abuse both male and female children?

Because just like with adult rape, sexual arrousal has little if anything to do with it? Because you don't even need to be sexually attracted to your victum to rape someone? Because you're CONFUSING PEDOPHILES AND CHILD MOLESTERS AGAIN!!!

It's not because they're all bisexual. Psychologists who have studied the behaviour of pedophiles found that it's much more about control, and domination, and getting a "pure" child do nasty things.

Those psychiatrists, unlike you, are also quick to point out that sexual attraction toward children, the defining characteristic for pedophelia, is not even present in the majority of such child molesters.

Most pedophiles who abuse children get off over the power trip they have, the control over their victim. It's not a sexual orientation, because they're not "attracted" to the child itself, per se. They're attracted to the power they can hold over him/her. That's why they abuse children of both sexes. As such, it's much closer to a fetish(sexual practice) than it is to sexual orientation.

Oh, you did know that. In that case I ask you this:
If they aren't attracted to children, WHY ARE YOU STILL USING THE WORD PEDOPHILE?

Read up some psychology papers on the subject, there are plenty lying around, and they're enlightening.

I immagine they are, unlike the second hand drivel we get from one another on internet forums.

Yes, I did bother pointing that out. A person attracted to children, or fantasming about having sex with children should certainly be left alone if that person doesn't try to act on his/her desires.

You seem to be in the minority with this opinion. Or at best part of a silent majority who wouldn't lift a finger to stop a nonmolesting pedophile from being beaten to death by an angry mob.

Well, no offense, but at 12 years old a girl, or a boy, certainly is still a child. Being a teenagers starts at thirteen. Even if at 12 the puberty has started, I've never seen a 12 years old who was even remotely developed like an adult. 12 years old girls may dress like adults, but they certainly don't have adult bodies.

Actually, physiologically, there is a great deal of difference in the rate at which people develop. If a five year old girl can become pregnant and carry to term (look it up) then that should tell you that our development is not on a clock. Sometimes maturity comes at different rates for different people, both physiologically and otherwise.

Being attracted to 12 years old is not normal sexuality. At least, not for most adults. It's normal to be attracted to a 12 years old girl if you're still a teenager yourself, but a grown man over 20 attracted to 12 years old has questions to ask himself. As for the definition, I agree you're right about it: in a case like this, the correct word would be pederastry.

That doesn't make any sense. If one is allowed to be attracted to children at one point, then it suddenly becomes wrong after the clock strikes some magic number, all you're going to do is send mixed messages. If you're going to burn the adults, don't be a hypocrite, and burn the underage pedos too.

Well, as far as the opening post goes, there are two things to be remembered.

First, there is absolutely nothing that could even remotely taken for proof that the old man was indeed checking her out in a sexual manner. Mob justice and on-the-fly assumptions about culpability are better left to the centuries pas.

True.

Second, even if he was indeed a pedophile, he did not try to touch or even talk to the girl. I think the mother and OP poster had somewhat normal reactions, wanting to protect the girl in the even that the man indeed was a sexual predator. But anything more than those passive measures they've taken would have been seriously wrong. They certainly would not have been justified in verbally or physically assaulting the man.
Agreed completely.
If you possess them then someone had to produce them. You create a market with Demand, and someone will be the Supplier.

By owning such pictures, even if you didn't take the pictures yourself, you are telling someone out there that you want them to make more.
How many people out there think to themselves, "There's a market for child porn. Ordinarily, I wouldn't bother, but if there's money in it, I think I'll go kidnap and rape some kids and post pictures of me doing it on the internet."?

The supply and demand arguement doesn't fly with me.

BTW, check your history, those girls did not choose their husbands or choose marriage. They were GIVEN in marriage to serve the political and economic ends of the two families involved.

Nope, back then kids were treated as pretty much the property of their parents. They weren't allowed to think or act for themselves, and were constantly told what they couldn't do. We've come such a long way.

I think there should be a no tolerance policy towards adults exploiting children in any way. No prison, no "treatment", just a firing squad. Or maybe the Death of a Thousand. There are few things more repugnant than sexual expoitation of children.

Exelent. My favorite method of execution. Anyway, so long as you aren't going to say something stupid like denying anyone due process or the right to a trial, I'm inclined to agree with you.

Also, as regards the alleged "right" to "leer". There are circumstances where such behavior is legally considered harrassment. Like on the job for instance.
Of course in those situations, it's illegal because the person being leered at can't leave. It's under the set of statutes regarding a "hostile work environment". The bus is most certainly not such a place, as people are perfectly capable of getting off the bus at any time if they are uncomfortable.
Neither do we. The difference is in the actions of those who have that disorder.

For example: a person who is schizoprenic certainly should be put to jail on that account. That would be ridiculous. That person is not responsible for being schizoprenic, and can't help it. However, if a schizophrenic person murders or beats up someone while in the midst of his/her delusions, well, thag person does to jail(or a securized mental ward).

Pretty much the same applies for pedophilia. A person attracted to children cannot, and should not, be sent to jail arbitrarily. But if he/she abuses one or more children, in jail it is.
I'm glad to see you have such a sane view of the issue. It's not as common as you think.

The Law of Supply and Demand will assure that child pornography continues to be produced, and the current blanket prohibition will be just as effective as the blanket prohibition on recreational drugs. That is, it will increase both the use and the intensity of the product.

Indeed. At the moment, there is some horrible, graphic stuff out there that would make one wish to throw up or beat the manufacturer to death with a hammer, even for someone like me who is attracted to children. That stuff is actually easier to find than simple nude immages, which are themselves easier to find than drawings and computer generated immages which completely remove the child from the equation entirely.

In a world where this stuff wasn't all "child porn" and illegal I immagine that those numbers would be reversed.
Well I really don't subscribe to it being a matter of nature such as homosexuality. If they find a biological reason it happens then I will change my views.

When exactly did they find the biological cause for homosexuality? I was under the impression that the nature of human sexuality was still more or less a complete mystery. I mean they've found things that correlate, but they've never been able to prove causal relationships with any physiological or psychological theory.

There is a big difference. Homo/hetrosexuality is between two consenting adults.

When a child is involved; it is simply preditory.

Why do I keep trying to tell people that "PEDOPHILES AND CHILD MOLESTERS ARE TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS"?

The thought crime comment was a joke as it was a reference to a book.

1984, and it isn't a joke. It's coming to pass. If you don't heed Orwell's warning, you or your children will be living in that nightmare. Sure, us pedophiles are the boogie man they'll use to convince you to put telescreens in your house, and to convince you to look the other way when people "disapear", but by the time you're the one on the chopping block, you'll have given up so much freedom that there will be nothing you can do.

My fight is your fight.

The problem with Pedos is that they have a general pattern they follow before actually attacking. So what do you do?

You obviously can't beat him because you really don't know.

However, as I mentioned, there is a certain look to it. I saw it once. It was hunger....
Nice to know I'm a horrible monster, incapable of consience in the face of my sex drive.

well, dont you wish you could have been born years ago so you can touch little kids all day?

Nice dodge. You seem to have effectively avoided addressing the point of his post and then turned around and insulted him. Would you like to address his point, or will you just be here to take cheap shots?

Is he really? you two seem like you would get along together,you both try to use backwards logic to justify your problem
Have you actually read DSN's posts? There's no comparison. DSN talked out his a** 9 times out of 10, and when confronted with a reasonable arguement, took a cheap shot then avoided the question. Kind of like someone else I know.
I don't think it's worse than murder, but I think it's right for it to be illegal, because there is an underground network of child porn. Some people, namely those who take the pictures, abuse children for money, to satisfy the urges of pedophiles. We have to outlaw these pictures if we are to have any chance of protecting the children from being abused at every corner.

Because making it illegal has stopped the exploitation? Because the materials that were being sold legitimately in bookstores involved so much more abuse than the stuff circulating around the usenet now that we've banned it? I think you haven't thought htis through well.

Think about it:if child porn was legal, what would be stopping anyone and everyone from taking and selling pictures of naked children in suggestive poses? That's clearly unacceptable. Teenagers are hypersexualized enough already, and I certainly won't stand for children to suffer the same fate, even moreso at an age where they don't understand what it is they're doing and the consequences at long term it may have.

You are aware that this wasn't always illegal, right? And that it didn't lead to the downfall of society, or every parent trying to get their kid into the porn business, right? Please take a step back and look at what you're saying?

I don't, however, have much against written stories. While I find them distasteful, no children needs to be abused in their making. I am also quite free not to read them(thank random deity). I don't know whether it's helping or hindering those who read them... but if it means they'll jack off to them instead of being out there and abusing a child, heck, I'm all for it.
At least this much of your stance is perfectly reasonable. (Though I'll add that your reasoning should by all rights apply also to drawings and CG immages.)
I don't know how anyone could advocate the harming, and having sexual relations with a child. It's just sick.
Need the two be the same thing. I realise that they are now, but must that be the case. So much harm comes after the fact, from the social stygma placed on the child precisely because of this taboo. Mightn't lessening the strength of the taboo result in less harm to those children? (Note, that in this society, it would be unconsionable to actually expose a child to sex if for no other reason than because the efforts made to "help" the child would scar him or her for life.)
I would have confronted him and let him explain himself, If I wasnt satisfied which I dont know that I ever could be, seeing as though I have two sisters, I prolly would have waited for him to get off, follow him and force the idea that pedaphilia is wrong into his nose with me fist.
Because of course beating up gays did wonders to make their sexual preferences go away.
The difference between an adult and a child is an adult is making an active and considered choice to engage in that activity. Children are easily manipulated. "If you do this for me, I know you won't like it, but I'll buy you a stereo system if you do." Very few vulnerable 14 year old children are going to say no.

With all due respect, isn't understanding the concept of delayed gratification one of those developmental abilities that make someone more capable of independent decisionmaking? Doesn't the fact that they're willing to put up with something unpleasant now to get something pleasant later suggest that they do understand nonimmediate consequences? Your example seems to be arguing against the idea that children are incompotent.
I think he wants to touch little kids and he wants us to tell him its ok.
And now I know that your opinion means nothing and can safely dismiss you in the future.
Read his posts, he has basically admitted to being a pedophile and even supports child porn.
Which, in spite of what the media may have told you, is not the same as being a child molester.

Simple things reduce the risk of "Stranger Pedophiles"--
You see a strnager in your area, neighborhood, block, building, whatever...Smile, approach and ask "Can I help fnd something?" or "Who ya looking for ?" This is not confrontational and should not be said in anyway that could be taken as being confrontational...but what it does do is let this person know there is at least one witness of them being in the area at a specific time ...they dont like that--neither do theives for that matter.

Also in your little greeting you might comment on the make and model of their car "Hey thats a XX what year is that? I love those." or " I have shirt just like that, looks better on me...just kidding...Let me know if you need anything I will be around" Now you are that nosy fecker and your street is not worth the additional hassle.

And yes, I do know every car on my block, I know my neighbors friends and if I dont know you...I do indeed confront you, nicely, but I do it.

Good advice. No one wants to put a stop to child molesters more than I do. Not only are they morally reprehensible creatures, but because people can't tell the difference between a pedophile and a child moleste, I end up taking crap for what they do.
Kiryu-shi can request a close, but other than that, Max has gone on record of leaving things like this open till another rule comes into play (like no flaming or threats). As much as it's rather disturbing, the notion is that it is better to challenge such people and show that we are not giving them a free pass than just banning them and letting them go elsewhere and hear how normal and wonderful this is in an echo chamber.
And it's a good policy. When I went to log on today, I got a "you've been banned message" and guess where I turned to vent? (Turned out to be a forum error or something, but you get the idea.)
Children definitely have the ability to say no, in a wide and increasingly wonderful variety of ways. But how do you determine, when they say yes, whether they are fully cognizant of what they are consenting to? How do you determine whether they have been manipulated into consenting?

I like how you conveniently ignore the points that demonstrate the impracticality.

One would immagine it would function much the same way as we determine that the adults we have sex with are actually conscenting.

Incidentally, the need to err on the side of caution has led some pedophiles to suggest that in addition to requiring conscent, they suggest that it is neccisary that the child initiate all such encounters, and that even a suggestion by the adult effectively puts someone into dangerous territory.

I'm not suggesting that even such propositions by the child should be accepted given the current levels of hysteria surrounding this subject, but I am suggesting that it is not inconcevable that a proper ethical code of conduct might be constructed if the hysteria were absent.

Everyone's right. You just want us to tell you molesting children is okay. How dare you trivialise the suffering that your type causes? How dare you even attempt to present yourself as a victim?
So you think that someone who's told every day of his life that he's a monster and should be shot, castrated or worse because of something he has no contol over is not a victum? Biggotry is biggotry, whether the target is black, gay, or a pedophile.
Rind et al. not only has some major issues invloved with it (statistical problems, sample, and deffinition problems) it also does NOT say what you seem to think that is says.
I've read Rind. The reaction on both sides of this debate was WAY out of proportion to what was actually in the document. What the Rind study did was demonstrate just how insane they hysteria around this subject has gotten. Congress has no place condemning academic papers. Tha's what the peer review process, and Congress most certainly should not be invoking God when they make their official statements (see the second whereas clause in their resolution condemning Rind et al.).

You can't site problems with Rind's samples or statistucal problems, because Rind didn't actually have an experiement to go with it. The study was a metaanlasys, compiling information from a number of different studies, all with their own issues with their data and samples.

Regardless of the merrits and flaws about this one study, the reaction it inspired has PROVEN that the american public WILL NOT ACCEPT pedophilia, REGARDLESS OF ANY EVIDENCE suggesting that there is no real harm. I'm not saying that the Rind study ammounted to such evidence. Far from it, but even should evidence arrise, the reaction to Rind by people who had not even read it (DSN included I might add) proved that the hysteria is too great for scientific study on childhood sexual development to be seriusly undertaken.

I did not talk about Congress, nor do I talk about Dr. Laura or Dr. Dobbs before you bring them up, I am talking about Rind's own academic peers who tore that paper to shreads.
I'd like to point out that those peers were writing their reviews in the midst of the hysteria involving those parties you claim to be ignoring. Given the political climate, it would have been suacide to come out in favor of Rind's findings. I'm not saying that there weren't problems with the study. I'm saying that we'll never know so long as you've got people more concerned with enforcing their idea of morality on the scientific community.

Because they don't have the breath of experience to make informed decesions in such matters.

You should stick with the cognitive development arguement. It holds up better when confronted with children who have abnormally broad experiences for their age. With the cognitive development approach, you can claim that even those children who act mature and intelligent are still incompotent because "science says kids are stupid". Much safer arguement.
I asked a couple Muslims about that. Yes he did marry her but he didn't have sex with her until she was a proper age.
Can you say revisionist history?
Naked pictures of children =/= kiddieporn.

Most laws require an image to have some degree of sexuality to it to be considered kiddieporn. Although, if you keep pictures of your kids in the tub with pictures from "barelylegal.com", they might play connect the dots.
I believe you are mistaken. As with ordinary pornography, the only determiner that says whether there is "some degree of sexuality to it" is the subjective judgement of the prosecutor.
Look up Jean Piaget, give yourself about 2 weeks to read through his theories of mental devlopment and what those terms mean. Yes, children cannot think abstractly, not in the way that adults can. There is a famous experiment about the conservation of mass, where water from a tall, skinny glass is poured into a short, fatter glass. Children cannot understand the laws of the conservation of mass and to them, they will state that the shorter glass holds less water, even though they saw the water being poured from one glass to the other. An adult knows that no water has been lost (not in any great amount). Children can be taught rules, like negative numbers and Zeno's Paradox, but they cannot comprehend what that actually means until much later.

I feel it's important to point out that the conservation of mass really is just a law we're taught. There's nothing inately intuitive about it. For centuries human beings (adults and scientists no less) didn't understand this concept.

Try this experiment. Dig a hole in your yard. Then put that same dirt back in the hole. You'll often find that the yard is not level after you do this. A nontrivial ammount of material seems to have been lost. In fact, what has happened is a simple change in configuration and density, but all appearences will suggest a violation of the conservation of matter.

It should further be noted that this is an express violation of the cognitive concept of reversibility, which is really what Piaget was talking about in the first place.

Because it ain't about "This feels good, this feels bad", it's about "Do I really want this? Can I handle this?" We don't let impared adults mach such choices (adults who are drunk, stoned, or mentally retarded cannot fully consent to sex) because they are not possive at that time of the mental capabilities to reconise the consequences of their actions and what it might mean.

And what does it mean? I mean if we take away the social structures surrounding us that would traumatise the child worse than a rape victum, what's left in terms of consequences? You don't know and neither do I, because scientific research into those questions can't be done as the Rind study proved.

Also, with the uneven power structure (adult and child), the adult has undue infulance that a child cannot counter.

Which of course can be corrected by empowering that child through social means. Unfortunately, the current trends which force secrecy on these relationships really do limit the participants to the adult and the child. In an ideal situation, advocates outside in society would be there to lend support to whatever decision the child made, to reballance the power scales.

Morally at that time, children are also still stuck in the 'rules' stage where the rules are handed down by adults and so that is what they follow, they cannot reason for or against those rules.

As a former child, I find that offensive. Morals aren't learned rules, no matter what your age. Morality is about empathy, not about blindly following the rules you've been given. Children can be rational and determine the reasons for the rules they live under. I did. Then again, because parents are so often too lazy to explain the rules properly to their children, there's a big case of "because I said so" going around. When you treat someone like an incompotent, is it any wonder when they act like one?

I would suggest that you actually read the rebuttals of Rind et al. because what they found was not some quibbles but some massive problems.
I read those rebuttals. They found some things which suggested that the study was not sufficiently in depth to draw meaningful conclusions from. This, in the normal course of scientific inquiry, would have been met with further studies. In this case, everyone's backed off from studying this subject because they know that if they make the "wrong" discoveries, they will be punished for it.
Baldur — pedophilia isn't a sexual orientation. It's a form of rape.
Tell me, do you go out and rape people when you aren't able to find conscenting partners? Being attracted to children does not mean someone's going to go have sex with them. Why can't people get this?
I haven't read the entire thread, so excuse me if I'm repeating anybody when I say this.

I believe that all sexual offenders should be relocated to a colony out in the middle of nowhere, and then studied to find out what causes such behavior. It's definitely not natural, so we should really try to figure out what the hell is wrong with them. If not to benefit the people who suffer from this disorder, but to benefit the human gene pool as a whole.
Please define sex offender. Are you just reffering to actual rapists and molesters (same thing but people like to make the distinction anyway) or would you extend this exile to include those who look at pictures and think illegal thoughts?

Eating and breathing doesn't get one pregnant. Drinking, unless you're consuming too much, doesn't cause damage. Mountain out of a molehill? BULL! I have seen and worked with children who were abused who are now having massive issues. The thought that you are willing to damage a child for your sexual gratification is wrong. See, that's what I am after. You do this for your own pleasure, NOT the child's.

No arguement that those who actually abuse children are the scum of the earth. Although, I'm not so sure you're clear on the origin of the damage that you observe. Is it because of the social condmenation? Does it have to do with some sort of biological bonding mechanism embedded in the human sex drive? If you can't tell me the source of the damage, you've got to admit the possibility that some potential explainations for it would cause that damage to vanish in a day should society transmogrify into one that accepts this kind of relationship.

Remember now, that I believe that even if the social stuff is the only thing that causes damage, the fact that those children have to live in this society should be more than enough modivation to prevent sex with minors. People who expose children to this gauntlet of psychological torture are probably the worst our race can spawn.

No, this isn't men vs women, this is child and adult.

Actually, under the prefeminist ideologies, women and children were considered to be part of the same sphere. Every female steriotype and behavioral restriction applied to women was applied to children. This goes beyond the "chaste" requirements we're talking about here, and extends to emotional, irrational, domestic, natural, and a host of other binary constructs.

This is real. This is not a mini-adult who can resist another adult, but rather a child who has been told that he or she should follow adults and through whatever explination that is your cup 'o tea, they DO SO. Why do children follow teachers? Why do children obey adults otherwise? Adults DO hold power over children and trying to deny it by dismissing it with a wave of the hand isn't going to work.

I would suggest that the reason is because we train children to obey rather than training them to reason. Parents systematically break down the free will of their children to the point where they cannot say no. After all, what do parents do whenever their children do say no? They punish them of course. I think not putting such psychological conditioning on our children might be a positive thing. Wouldn't you?
I think what South Niflheim is trying to say is

1 - He's Dark Shadowy Nexus
2 - He's a pedophile

Case closed, quit arguing.
And what you're saying is:

1 - you won't listen to the arguements of someone who disagrees with your point of view
2 - you're willing to mischaracterise people and focus on personal attacks so long as you don't have to actually respond to points being made

Case closed indeed.
A short question to play devil's advocate.

To those saying that children lack the mental capacity to decide. What of people with mental disorders etc?

Are you in essence advocating a psychology test for a sex licence?
Well, that would be an improvement. Then we could put aside all this arbitrary age line determining mental compotency stuff once and for all. We just get the kids we want to have sex with tested before we move on to the physical aspect of the relationship. No one's exploited, and everyone's happy.

On my way home from school today, I was sitting on a city bus minding my own business. A couple of stops after I got on, a 12(ish) year-old girl and her mother came on the bus. The girl, who was wearing a school uniform, sat a couple of seats away from me, and her mother was sitting across from her on the uncrowded bus. I paid them no mind. However, on the next stop, an old man, maybe 70 years old, boarded the bus and sat right next to the girl. I was slightly suspicious, because there were plenty of other seats available with more room. So I watched him out of the corner of my eye and sure enough, he is staring at the girl next to him. The girl, who was talking to her mother, didn't pay attention at all, but the mother noticed, and told the girl to sit next to her. I was angry at the situation, but I guessed that the old man would stop with the mother right there. In fact, the old man got up as if to exit the bus for the next stop, but instead of getting off, he sat down in a seat in which he could see the girl but couldn't be seen easily. Then, he put on a pair of sunglasses and appeared to be staring at the girl. By this time, I was so angry I felt like punching him in the face. Instead, I got up to offer my seat to somebody else and stood directly in his line of vision if he were in fact looking at the girl.

Sorry for the long paragraph, but I was wondering how other people would have reacted. I was also thinking if there should be any laws against this (if there arn't), or if looking at a child, while being immoral (imo), could not be illegal. Your opinions?


I also really felt like ranting about it to someone.You didn't know the old mans story. You jumped to a conclusion that may, or may not have been correct. Paedophilism is unnaceptable but so is the blind accusatary approach to it.

I remember a few years ago, in London; a Paedatrician was hounded out of her home because the local "silent majority" got it into their heads that she was a child abuser because of her professional title.

My advice, we live in a world where there is enough filth, do we need to create more? Take some time to evaluate before you go blundering in with your accusations. He might have just been a harmless old grandfather, enjoying the innocent pursuit of watching a child (which even younger people do)

I'm a victim of pedophilia. I was raped repeatedly by my father, until he was arrested. The police were kinda suspicious when I had to have an abortion at age 10. I still have nightmares about him. It's an experience that never leaves you.

Sounds like he was.

I would have screwed with him by sitting and blocking his view.
Pelvic thrusts.;)

I've read Rind. The reaction on both sides of this debate was WAY out of proportion to what was actually in the document. What the Rind study did was demonstrate just how insane they hysteria around this subject has gotten. Congress has no place condemning academic papers. Tha's what the peer review process, and Congress most certainly should not be invoking God when they make their official statements (see the second whereas clause in their resolution condemning Rind et al.).
When I speak of Rind et al. and responce to, I always mean the academic rebuttals, not Congress. Congress couldn't find an academic argument if it was pasted to its backside with a road map, both hands, and a bloodhound.

You can't site problems with Rind's samples or statistucal problems, because Rind didn't actually have an experiement to go with it. The study was a metaanlasys, compiling information from a number of different studies, all with their own issues with their data and samples.
Actually, I can. As noted in the responces to Rind et al., his choices in studies to run through the wringer led to some stat problems within his meta. Rind had attempted to use the number generated by earlier studies and run his own stats tests on them, this lead to some interesting attempts to pound square pegs into round holes, which again was noted.

Regardless of the merrits and flaws about this one study, the reaction it inspired has PROVEN that the american public WILL NOT ACCEPT pedophilia, REGARDLESS OF ANY EVIDENCE suggesting that there is no real harm. I'm not saying that the Rind study ammounted to such evidence. Far from it, but even should evidence arrise, the reaction to Rind by people who had not even read it (DSN included I might add) proved that the hysteria is too great for scientific study on childhood sexual development to be seriusly undertaken.
That depends, I would actually say that such studies could be accepted if they did not fall into the trap that Rind did. That meta opened the door to say, hey, there's something going on here that needs looking at. THAT is fine, that is a part of study, however, Rind went further and stated that based upon his meta, we should change how child abuse, sexual abuse, and adult child sexual contact was viewed. THAT is what got people upset.

There's a difference in saying we shoudl study this and suddenly annoucing that sexual abuse is not sexual abuse.

I'd like to point out that those peers were writing their reviews in the midst of the hysteria involving those parties you claim to be ignoring. Given the political climate, it would have been suacide to come out in favor of Rind's findings. I'm not saying that there weren't problems with the study. I'm saying that we'll never know so long as you've got people more concerned with enforcing their idea of morality on the scientific community.
That's a cheap walk away. Rind's critics attacked the paper and not him. I would always judge papers based upon the evidence presented and I feel that both papers I read did a good job at rasing issues within the study that Rind did not satisfactorally address. Again, what Congress said has no bearing on this.

I feel it's important to point out that the conservation of mass really is just a law we're taught. There's nothing inately intuitive about it. For centuries human beings (adults and scientists no less) didn't understand this concept.

Try this experiment. Dig a hole in your yard. Then put that same dirt back in the hole. You'll often find that the yard is not level after you do this. A nontrivial ammount of material seems to have been lost. In fact, what has happened is a simple change in configuration and density, but all appearences will suggest a violation of the conservation of matter.

It should further be noted that this is an express violation of the cognitive concept of reversibility, which is really what Piaget was talking about in the first place.
The point being, children do not and cannot reason the way an adult can. For your own experiment, adults can understand that something MUST be different as dirt doesn't magically disapear and that something else is causing the difference. Children however will state that there must be less dirt, somehow. Piaget of course conducted many experiments, the conservation one just being his most famous. It does not change the fact that children do not reason the way the adults can and cannot be said to be able to give consent the way and adult can.

And what does it mean? I mean if we take away the social structures surrounding us that would traumatise the child worse than a rape victum, what's left in terms of consequences? You don't know and neither do I, because scientific research into those questions can't be done as the Rind study proved.
Rind proved no such thing. The problem I have with the, "well, if is wasn't for the social trama it would be good", is the same I have with rapist saying, "if it wasn't for society, it wouldn't hurt the woman." Again, a child cannot give consent. Furthermore, how will you test this? Would you risk hurting a child for YOUR sexual gratification (because that's what this is about, do not attempt to pretend otherwise) on the chance that it MIGHT be ok? A child MIGHT live and enjoy running through trafic on a busy street, I'm not going to endanger one and make them run through.

Which of course can be corrected by empowering that child through social means. Unfortunately, the current trends which force secrecy on these relationships really do limit the participants to the adult and the child. In an ideal situation, advocates outside in society would be there to lend support to whatever decision the child made, to reballance the power scales.
No, it doesn't. A child is a child. They are NOT adults. Please understand this point. They cannot make decisions and the power will ALWAYS be unballanced between an adult and a child due to being adults and children.

As a former child, I find that offensive. Morals aren't learned rules, no matter what your age. Morality is about empathy, not about blindly following the rules you've been given. Children can be rational and determine the reasons for the rules they live under. I did. Then again, because parents are so often too lazy to explain the rules properly to their children, there's a big case of "because I said so" going around. When you treat someone like an incompotent, is it any wonder when they act like one?
No, as an adult NOW you are offended. As a child, you did NOT reason out your morality unless you happen to be the smartest being, ever. From now you cannot consive of a time that you throught differently, but as a child you did. Children of a certain age get rules from adult figures. Watch children play games and you will see this. How is hopscotch played? Were did the rules come from? Why don't children reason out new rules for the game?

Again, read Piaget, his work here is very interesting (I also recomend Kholburg and B. F. Skinner).

The levels of moral devlopment, BTW start out with the law is the law, then moves to back scratching, then fairness, then moves into higher plains.

I would suggest that the reason is because we train children to obey rather than training them to reason. Parents systematically break down the free will of their children to the point where they cannot say no. After all, what do parents do whenever their children do say no? They punish them of course. I think not putting such psychological conditioning on our children might be a positive thing. Wouldn't you?
Try to reason with a child, please. And if you manage to do so, I'll invite you over here and let you attempt to reason with my students. That should be entertaining to watch.

Children are not mindless robots, they are not blank slates, they cannot be broken the way a horse or a dog can. They are humans, yes. BUT they are NOT adults! I work with young teens everyday. Everyday I am startled both by how much and how little they think. They can do something incredably adult, then turn around and the next moment make me dream of taking up an easier job of hearding cats. I see the devlopment into adult behavore, I can see them growing into (God help us all) the future leaders of Japan. I saw the same at home, but to praphrase Vader, they are not Jedi yet. They are growing, they are devloping, but they are not there.

No, this isn't social construct because I have met children who run their households due to missing, or worse, parents. They have grown up, but they still have holes in their reasoning and logical thinking abilties. It's not the case that they will not use it, they cannot use it. So attempting to reason with a child the way you would with an adult is an exercise in frustration. It's very hit and miss, and the reason the a child may comply will probably have nothing to do with what would sway an adult.

This isn't to say we must beat our children into submission, but that we cannot view them as little adults, capable of reasoning the way an adult can in matters consering themselves and their sexuality.

In trying to make it so, you risk damaging a child for your sexual pleasure. That's what this is about, it ain't about the child, it's about you and your sexual drive, and your wants and needs. An attempt to make a child a mini-adult is an excuse for that and that alone.

All pedo's should have their dicks slowly cut off and then their balls.
Then they should be thrown in prison and spend the whole time their in their cell.

F*ck them. They don't deserve any rights whatsoever.

And if Loki is considered an equivalent of Satan, you've got to wonder why that would be the case. Loki is one of two archetypes I happen to venerate. I think it's quite convenient for a certain sort of person to try to re-cast the Loki archetype as something negative.

I thought the Norse themselves portrayed Loki as negative.

I've heard that Japan is rife with pædophilia. Any truth to the claim, NERVUN?

I've heard that Japan is rife with pædophilia. Any truth to the claim, NERVUN?
Depends upon what you mean by rife and pædophilia. There is an awful lot of ロリーコン in Japan, but it focuses mainly on high school (sometimes junior high) aged girls. MOST of the time, the stories that you hear are way over done, and fall within Japan's age of consent kinda, Japan's laws are a bit mixed). Technically since the interest is in teens, it isn't pædophilia, nor is it something done on every street corner.

Bottom line is that in Japan, the trend is towards young and innocent, which leads to some undesirable sitations at times.

And some really silly ones as well.

All pedo's should have their dicks slowly cut off and then their balls.
Then they should be thrown in prison and spend the whole time their in their cell.

F*ck them. They don't deserve any rights whatsoever.
They deserve the right to not be tortured

(This coming from a victem of child molestation)

Depends upon what you mean by rife and pædophilia. There is an awful lot of ロリーコン in Japan, but it focuses mainly on high school (sometimes junior high) aged girls. MOST of the time, the stories that you hear are way over done, and fall within Japan's age of consent kinda, Japan's laws are a bit mixed). Technically since the interest is in teens, it isn't pædophilia, nor is it something done on every street corner.

Bottom line is that in Japan, the trend is towards young and innocent, which leads to some undesirable sitations at times.

And some really silly ones as well.

People who go after teens are more appropriately termed ephebophiles.

The guy on the bus didn't do anything. If he's a pedophile, but he manages to live his life without hurting anyone, he hasn't done anything wrong.

People who go after teens are more appropriately termed ephebophiles.

The guy on the bus didn't do anything. If he's a pedophile, but he manages to live his life without hurting anyone, he hasn't done anything wrong.
Agreed we should not punish anyone for their thoughts ... but rather their actions

Kiddie porn is and should remain illegal.

What if it's not real?

Drawings. Works of fiction. CGI. Should those be illegal, too? Their creation doesn't harm anyone.

What if it's not real?

Drawings. Works of fiction. CGI. Should those be illegal, too? Their creation doesn't harm anyone.
I actualy started that thread a LONG time ago lol

My opinion is the same as for thought

We should not punsh people for thoughts just for actions. In real kiddie porn involving real kids there is no way to make it without the exploitation of kids

But drawings and stories do not harm anyone in the making ... while disgusting should not be illegal

What if it's not real?

Drawings. Works of fiction. CGI. Should those be illegal, too? Their creation doesn't harm anyone.

I have major issues with anime for this reason.

What do we do with female pedos?

I have major issues with anime for this reason.

What do we do with female pedos?
Pedophiles ... I was not aware there was a difference between make and female offenders


Edit: I misread your statement I apologize thought you said what do we call female pedo's I was confused I apologize

Pedophiles ... I was not aware there was a difference between make and female offenders

Well, just do the same to the equivalent anatomy. The balls would be the ovaries.

I have major issues with anime for this reason.
Not all anime (actually, even the vast majority of anime) gets anywhere near there.

All pedo's should have their dicks slowly cut off and then their balls.
Then they should be thrown in prison and spend the whole time their in their cell.

F*ck them. They don't deserve any rights whatsoever.

Perhaps they don't 'deserve' rights, but nor do many other types of criminals, that is not tantamount to saying that they should be deprived of them. Justice is not meant to be angry, it should be cold dispassionate and strong and should not pander to our baser instincts. Allowing a society to enact torture on various criminals simply out of revenge degrades that society almost as much as it does the criminals.

I do not wish to see centuries of rational philosophical progress and ideological advancement torn up in the wrathful wave of tabloid headlines.

Bottom line is that in Japan, the trend is towards young and innocent,
That's more than a little disturbing.

That's more than a little disturbing.
Yup, at times. But then again, when I go home and see the latest beer girls on TV... I wonder just how disturbing it is compared to the US.

The US seems to go for buxom youth, the Japanese for more child like. The US sees more teens and children attempting to be adult like and sexual, Japan sees more teens and young adults trying to be child like and innocent/cute.

Personally I think BOTH countries have issues. ;)

Well, just do the same to the equivalent anatomy. The balls would be the ovaries.

Sure, but they don't stimulate our sexuality. Women can have a hysterectomy but still be sexually satisfied. Men...not so much.

Personally I think BOTH countries have issues. ;)
Aye.

And what you're saying is:

1 - you won't listen to the arguements of someone who disagrees with your point of view
2 - you're willing to mischaracterise people and focus on personal attacks so long as you don't have to actually respond to points being made

Case closed indeed.

"Arguements?" Ha. A pedophile who's trying to justify his pedophilia is not making an argument. He's making a rationalization. You want to play games, fine, but I'm here to expess my opinion and if you think what I've done is a "personal attack," well, maybe you'd best try to argue in favor of pedophilia in the same room with me. Then you'd know the difference between words on a page and an attack.

Why is it that pedophiles trigger the reaction in people such that our very existence causes people to find uterly reprehensible (things like thought-crime and restricting unpopular speech) to be perfectly acceptable?




Perhaps you misunderstand. What I meant by "While entirely justified..." I meant the thread originator's action in blocking the old man's view. His reasoning, while incomplete, was sound and followed through to a restrained and logical conclusion. Then, I go on to state that attempting to predict or read someone's mind leads down a slippery path to a mind-reading technique, which I would be most vehemently against. Not especially that I have a lot to hide (I prefer my memories and thoughts private, mostly because I am positive I am the only one to understand the true significance, insignificance and meaning of each and everyone of my remembrances.) but that I'm sure if someone knows precisely what is in another person's mind, they are liable to go insane.

Not just figuratively, I mean literally. I doubt there is any medium possible that can let you read someone's mind and screen out the parts of their thoughts that makes them unique. Such close contact to another mind would (I believe) cause the reader to lose himself.

Also, I would like to add that those who advocate cruel and unusual punishment for a crime are barbarians of a worse sort than any child molestor (I'll keep this in mind Five Caste) could ever be. You are committing a crime against your intelligence. You are insulting the achievements of every human before, during and after your lifetime who dreamed of a better society. You wish to tear this down and debase the entire human race just so you feel ONE man/woman has gotten his justifiable punishment. I assure you, unless someone is insane, if they do a crime that is serious enough (murder and so on) they will provide their own worst punishment. It's just our duty as a society to ensure they live long enough to realize the true extent of their crimes.

That is all.

Why is it that pedophiles trigger the reaction in people such that our very existence causes people to find uterly reprehensible (things like thought-crime and restricting unpopular speech) to be perfectly acceptable?




Perhaps you misunderstand. What I meant by "While entirely justified..." I meant the thread originator's action in blocking the old man's view. His reasoning, while incomplete, was sound and followed through to a restrained and logical conclusion. Then, I go on to state that attempting to predict or read someone's mind leads down a slippery path to a mind-reading technique, which I would be most vehemently against. Not especially that I have a lot to hide (I prefer my memories and thoughts private, mostly because I am positive I am the only one to understand the true significance, insignificance and meaning of each and everyone of my remembrances.) but that I'm sure if someone knows precisely what is in another person's mind, they are liable to go insane.

Not just figuratively, I mean literally. I doubt there is any medium possible that can let you read someone's mind and screen out the parts of their thoughts that makes them unique. Such close contact to another mind would (I believe) cause the reader to lose himself.

Also, I would like to add that those who advocate cruel and unusual punishment for a crime are barbarians of a worse sort than any child molestor (I'll keep this in mind Five Caste) could ever be. You are committing a crime against your intelligence. You are insulting the achievements of every human before, during and after your lifetime who dreamed of a better society. You wish to tear this down and debase the entire human race just so you feel ONE man/woman has gotten his justifiable punishment. I assure you, unless someone is insane, if they do a crime that is serious enough (murder and so on) they will provide their own worst punishment. It's just our duty as a society to ensure they live long enough to realize the true extent of their crimes.

That is all.

Why is it that pedophiles trigger the reaction in people such that our very existence causes people to find uterly reprehensible (things like thought-crime and restricting unpopular speech) to be perfectly acceptable?

Well for one thing, the thought of a child being attacked kind of pisses people off.

SNIPPING the rationalization attempts


Funny. I hear all the time about how much the adult porn industry is demeening and exploits the people involved in it.

The difference is the fact it involves adults


I understand the manufacturer, but what the hell is the viewer doing to those kids?

He helps create the demand for it.

Is anyone going to stop using pedophile and child molester interchangably?
Child molesters are not pedophiles?


Snipping rationalizations again.


Because you're CONFUSING PEDOPHILES AND CHILD MOLESTERS AGAIN!!!

Child molesters are not pedophiles?

Snipping rationalizations again.

The supply and demand arguement doesn't fly with me.


And yet there is trading that goes on all the time. A pedophiles favorite tool. The USB memory stick. Many photos and easily hid.


When exactly did they find the biological cause for homosexuality? I was under the impression that the nature of human sexuality was still more or less a complete mystery. I mean they've found things that correlate, but they've never been able to prove causal relationships with any physiological or psychological theory.


Not at all. There hasn't been a "gene" located but there is evidense in the wild. Somebody posted a link that showed a possible reason involving lesbians I belive.


Why do I keep trying to tell people that "PEDOPHILES AND CHILD MOLESTERS ARE TWO DIFFERENT GROUPS"?


The only difference is one group attacks and the other hasn't.

Snipping more rationalizations.

Sorry man. When you have "moral" people and "immoral" people (ie convicted criminals) having the same stance concerning pedophila; you really can't justify it.

Look how many people left the Catholic Church over the scandle.

Also, I would like to add that those who advocate cruel and unusual punishment for a crime are barbarians of a worse sort than any child molestor (I'll keep this in mind Five Caste) could ever be. You are committing a crime against your intelligence. You are insulting the achievements of every human before, during and after your lifetime who dreamed of a better society. You wish to tear this down and debase the entire human race just so you feel ONE man/woman has gotten his justifiable punishment. I assure you, unless someone is insane, if they do a crime that is serious enough (murder and so on) they will provide their own worst punishment. It's just our duty as a society to ensure they live long enough to realize the true extent of their crimes.

That is all.

Ahh if we were only robots or vulcans. You argue violence as being cruel and unusal. Many would argue life in solitary confinement is the same if not worst.

As a parent I do not delude myself that I would simply say "yea the courts will deal with him" Any parent would want to hunt down and kill any that would assault their children.

Your comments suggest you don't have kids. Is that true?

If I am a barbarian so be it.

I personally beleive pedophiles, on their 3rd convication, should have their strong hand chopped off and be castrated.

For reasons that won't be named.

Ahh if we were only robots or vulcans. You argue violence as being cruel and unusal. Many would argue life in solitary confinement is the same if not worst.

As a parent I do not delude myself that I would simply say "yea the courts will deal with him" Any parent would want to hunt down and kill any that would assault their children.

Your comments suggest you don't have kids. Is that true?

If I am a barbarian so be it.

I know this question wasn't aimed at me, but I'll answer it nonetheless.

You are not a barbarian, you love your children. I am twenty years old and I have two younger sisters who I love immensely and I doubt that my reaction to such a travesty would be any less vehement than that of a parent. Yet whilst I do not seek to rationalise, "understand", qualify, condone or accept any sexual abuse of a minor I would not wish our legal system to be one orientated around wrath or vengeance, I would much rather see it be calculated, dispassionate and strong. Yet I do not deny that on a personal basis, cold fury would be the only normal response to such evil perversion.

I'm a victim of pedophilia. I was raped repeatedly by my father, until he was arrested. The police were kinda suspicious when I had to have an abortion at age 10. I still have nightmares about him. It's an experience that never leaves you.
It sounds like you've been in a bad situation, and I feel for you, but I again feel compelled to point out that not all pedophiles are rapists.
When I speak of Rind et al. and responce to, I always mean the academic rebuttals, not Congress. Congress couldn't find an academic argument if it was pasted to its backside with a road map, both hands, and a bloodhound.

Heh, true enough. Glad we at least agree on that.

Actually, I can. As noted in the responces to Rind et al., his choices in studies to run through the wringer led to some stat problems within his meta. Rind had attempted to use the number generated by earlier studies and run his own stats tests on them, this lead to some interesting attempts to pound square pegs into round holes, which again was noted.

I'll conceed that Rind was not a properly conducted study. The metaanalasys overreached by too much, and besides that, the paper focused too much on advocating for change based on a hypothesis rather than following the results of the research. In fact, I suspect that Rind and his collegues already had their minds made up before they took on the writing of that paper. The entire focus was on advocating for social change based on some evidence and a lot of speculation.

That depends, I would actually say that such studies could be accepted if they did not fall into the trap that Rind did. That meta opened the door to say, hey, there's something going on here that needs looking at. THAT is fine, that is a part of study, however, Rind went further and stated that based upon his meta, we should change how child abuse, sexual abuse, and adult child sexual contact was viewed. THAT is what got people upset.

And if the study had been good? If the study had offered solid evidence that the harm inflicted on these minors does stem largely from external social condmenation and that any trauma they experience is made worse because of the flawed cousiling methods? Would it have been going too far if his results actually could provide conclusive (or at least compelling) evidence for his hypothesis?

There's a difference in saying we shoudl study this and suddenly annoucing that sexual abuse is not sexual abuse.

That wasn't actually what Rind said. What he put forward was the idea that it might be less harmful to the child in question not to react harshly to the situation. The suggestion that the psychiatrists and social workers themselves might well be doing more harm than good in a small subset of cases. He was very careful about his wording, even if he wasn't so careful about his sources.

That's a cheap walk away. Rind's critics attacked the paper and not him. I would always judge papers based upon the evidence presented and I feel that both papers I read did a good job at rasing issues within the study that Rind did not satisfactorally address. Again, what Congress said has no bearing on this.

It would've been a cheap walkaway if that was all I said. I have, however, made numerous statements in the course of that post. If you honestly believe that scientific opinion is not influenced by the social norms of the time, I honestly don't know what I can say to make you understand. To support Rind is to invite your own credibility to be forfeit, actual evidence either way be damned.

The point being, children do not and cannot reason the way an adult can. For your own experiment, adults can understand that something MUST be different as dirt doesn't magically disapear and that something else is causing the difference. Children however will state that there must be less dirt, somehow. Piaget of course conducted many experiments, the conservation one just being his most famous. It does not change the fact that children do not reason the way the adults can and cannot be said to be able to give consent the way and adult can.

What does that prove except that children are more willing to accept the evidence of their senses, and willing to reject rules taught to them when they contradict their experiences? Just because adults are rigid thinkers doesn't mean that it is unreasonable for children to conclude what they do based on the evidence at hand.

Rind proved no such thing. The problem I have with the, "well, if is wasn't for the social trama it would be good", is the same I have with rapist saying, "if it wasn't for society, it wouldn't hurt the woman." Again, a child cannot give consent. Furthermore, how will you test this? Would you risk hurting a child for YOUR sexual gratification (because that's what this is about, do not attempt to pretend otherwise) on the chance that it MIGHT be ok? A child MIGHT live and enjoy running through trafic on a busy street, I'm not going to endanger one and make them run through.

If you really want to know, I would suggest rather than abusing children for the sake of this study (which you seem to be suggesting is the only option) the researcher should take two groups of children with similar experiences (who someone else had already molested) and apply different treatment styles. One group would get the traditional treatment and serve as a control group, and the other group would have the value-neutral terminology Rind suggested. These groups would be observed over a long period of time, with any signifiant trends scrutinised. It would be a long process, but in the end, the results would tell us a lot.

No, it doesn't. A child is a child. They are NOT adults. Please understand this point. They cannot make decisions and the power will ALWAYS be unballanced between an adult and a child due to being adults and children.

I see. It all makes sense now. Children aren't capable of making decisions because... children are't capable of making decisions? You aren't even trying to explain your point of view. You're just restating it as though it explains everything.

No, as an adult NOW you are offended. As a child, you did NOT reason out your morality unless you happen to be the smartest being, ever. From now you cannot consive of a time that you throught differently, but as a child you did. Children of a certain age get rules from adult figures. Watch children play games and you will see this. How is hopscotch played? Were did the rules come from? Why don't children reason out new rules for the game?

Wow. Smartest being ever. You give me too much credit, but thanks for the consideration.

As a matter of fact, I did establish reasons behind the set of rules I had to deal with in social situations. I have quite a clear memory of some of those rules coming to be. Morality derives from empathy not memorizing rules, and the moment a person is capable of understanding that other people have feelings, consience in its most elemental form exists.

Again, read Piaget, his work here is very interesting (I also recomend Kholburg and B. F. Skinner).

The levels of moral devlopment, BTW start out with the law is the law, then moves to back scratching, then fairness, then moves into higher plains.

How the hell can you state that with that much certainty? The origin of morality has been debated by philosophers for millenia, and you arrogantly believe that your opinion is the one correct one. (Yes, I'm guilty of the same crime.) Do you have any evidence, or is this really just opinion? I at least have the evidence of my own experience. (Admitedly not exactly compelling for the rest of you, but it's good enough for me unless you have something that directly contradicts my memories of my own cognitive development.)

Try to reason with a child, please. And if you manage to do so, I'll invite you over here and let you attempt to reason with my students. That should be entertaining to watch.

So even if I can manage to reason properly with some children, you feel that my failure to do so with even one proves your point? That makes no sense.

Children are not mindless robots, they are not blank slates, they cannot be broken the way a horse or a dog can. They are humans, yes. BUT they are NOT adults! I work with young teens everyday. Everyday I am startled both by how much and how little they think. They can do something incredably adult, then turn around and the next moment make me dream of taking up an easier job of hearding cats. I see the devlopment into adult behavore, I can see them growing into (God help us all) the future leaders of Japan. I saw the same at home, but to praphrase Vader, they are not Jedi yet. They are growing, they are devloping, but they are not there.

Am I reading this wrong, or are you contradicting yourself here? First you say that the only way children understand morals is by the rules enforced on them, then you say they can't be traied like dogs. Your theory on establishing morals (as far as I've been able to determine) is fundamentally identical to the theory of training a dog.

And for the record, I work with elementary school children every day. You aren't going to get off with some sort of appeal to authority BS (especially if you happen to be the authority you're appealing to).

No, this isn't social construct because I have met children who run their households due to missing, or worse, parents. They have grown up, but they still have holes in their reasoning and logical thinking abilties. It's not the case that they will not use it, they cannot use it. So attempting to reason with a child the way you would with an adult is an exercise in frustration. It's very hit and miss, and the reason the a child may comply will probably have nothing to do with what would sway an adult.

Can you give me any examples of those holes that you've noticed in their cognitive ability? I see that you believe they exist, but if you aren't going ot be more specific, how am I to even grasp your point?

This isn't to say we must beat our children into submission, but that we cannot view them as little adults, capable of reasoning the way an adult can in matters consering themselves and their sexuality.

"Where reason fails, force prevails." If you accept that reasoning with them is impossible, force is the only tool left to influence them. By arguing that children are by definition incapable of reason, you are arguing that they should be beaten into submission. For their own good of course...

In trying to make it so, you risk damaging a child for your sexual pleasure. That's what this is about, it ain't about the child, it's about you and your sexual drive, and your wants and needs. An attempt to make a child a mini-adult is an excuse for that and that alone.
Do you even understand my point of view? I'm against engaging in sexual activities with minors while there is a real chance that such activities would result in harm to the child.

I don't want children to be harmed for my or anyone else's gratification. I do believe that harm would be the most likely result of any such encounter undertaken in this society (likelyhood approaching 100%). Whether this is because of some physiological cause, because of some developmental psychological vulnerability, because of social condemnation, or because of any combination of those factors, it is almost certain that the experience would prove detrimental to the child in question.

My opinions on child rationality do not derive from an attempt to justify my desires. Do you know how I can be so certain? Because I formed those opinions long before those desires ever became apparent. I formed those opinions even before I reached puberty and began to have sexual feelings in general, and haven't had cause to change those opinions yet.
All pedo's should have their dicks slowly cut off and then their balls.
Then they should be thrown in prison and spend the whole time their in their cell.

F*ck them. They don't deserve any rights whatsoever.
And all because of an offensive set of thoughts.
They deserve the right to not be tortured

(This coming from a victem of child molestation)
EDIT:
I'm sorry. I misread your post the first time through. (I didn't see the word "not".)
"Arguements?" Ha. A pedophile who's trying to justify his pedophilia is not making an argument. He's making a rationalization. You want to play games, fine, but I'm here to expess my opinion and if you think what I've done is a "personal attack," well, maybe you'd best try to argue in favor of pedophilia in the same room with me. Then you'd know the difference between words on a page and an attack.
Do you honestly think you're intimidating anyone? Oh well, since you've resorted to bringing up violence, can I assume that I've won our little arguement?
Well for one thing, the thought of a child being attacked kind of pisses people off.

That I understand. What I don't understand is why it's enough to go against everything we stand for as a society just to "make sure he gets his"? If murder and rape don't trigger this kind of reaction, why is it so extreme with this particular brand of porn?

SNIPPING the rationalization attempts

You call it rationalization if you want. I know better, and so do those enterprising people with the stamina to read my post through.

(I'll be replying to this only once, so I'm snipping the rest of the places where you accuse me of rationalization without backing anything up.)

The difference is the fact it involves adults

True. What's your point?

He helps create the demand for it.

So... You actually believe that there are people who would ordinarily have no interest in molesting children who realise there's money in it and get into the buisiness? Let's say I agreed with that. What if no money changed hands in the process of obtaining it?

Child molesters are not pedophiles?

Child molesters are not pedophiles?

Change those into statement form. Not all pedophiles are child molesters, and not all child molesters are pedophiles. As many here have pointed out to me on more than one occasion, rape is about power and dominance, and has little to do with sexual attraction toward the victum. Simply having that kind of sexual attraction does not make one a child molester.

And yet there is trading that goes on all the time. A pedophiles favorite tool. The USB memory stick. Many photos and easily hid.

You're clearly much more knowledgable of the pedophile underground than I am. (As to what that says about your habbits...)

Not at all. There hasn't been a "gene" located but there is evidense in the wild. Somebody posted a link that showed a possible reason involving lesbians I belive.

I see. Then I should point out that similar evidence exists for pedophelia in animals. Particularly in primates. We humans may be creative, but we didn't invent a lot of the perversions we get credit for inventing.

The only difference is one group attacks and the other hasn't.

Finally you see it. Right? Oh wait. You didn't leave out the "yet" because you actually believe people like me don't molest children, did you?

Sorry man. When you have "moral" people and "immoral" people (ie convicted criminals) having the same stance concerning pedophila; you really can't justify it.

Look how many people left the Catholic Church over the scandle.
What are you even talking about?
I personally beleive pedophiles, on their 3rd convication, should have their strong hand chopped off and be castrated.

For reasons that won't be named.
3rd conviction of what? Are you suggesting that you wait for someone to molest three children? I'd go with the firing squad after the first such offense was proven.

Of course if you're talking about something other than molesting, I think your penalties definately cross into cruel and unusual.

Either way, I disagree.

You're clearly much more knowledgable of the pedophile underground than I am. (As to what that says about your habbits...)


Yes it suggest I listen/read the news and know a few cops. My cousin is a 911 dispatcher so I run into many cops.


I see. Then I should point out that similar evidence exists for pedophelia in animals. Particularly in primates. We humans may be creative, but we didn't invent a lot of the perversions we get credit for inventing.


Before you head down this route, you might be warned that pimatology is my thing. I can talk to you all about the activities of Pan Troglodytes and Pan Paniscus.


What are you even talking about?


Simple. You have to wonder when people who follow the laws and people who break the laws (ie. criminals and violent criminals) don't like pedophiles. Why else does the jail system have to seperate them from the general population?

Do you honestly think you're intimidating anyone? Oh well, since you've resorted to bringing up violence, can I assume that I've won our little arguement?

I think you'll assume you "won" no matter what.

I'm not trying to intimidate anyone, merely stating a truth relating to the relative safety of internet anonymity from which pedophiles like DSN like to make their rationalizations of criminal behavior. It produces a marvelous dichotomy in human actions.

Your "argument" was flawed - you claimed I made "personal attacks" and tried to "mischaracterise" this guy. I didn't.

The Five Castes:

You state that you work with elementary school children every day and yet you are a self-confessed paedophile with one prior. Out of interest are the school aware of this prior conviction or your sexual predisposition? I would imagine that if this is not prohibited by state or federal law, then at the very least one might consider it a slight conflict of interest no?

It sounds like you've been in a bad situation, and I feel for you, but I again feel compelled to point out that not all pedophiles are rapists.
You're right. I'm sorry. I should have said "I'm a victim of child molesting". Anyway, I mostly agree with The Five Castes. I may not agree with his sexual preferences, I may find them sick and perverted, but as long as he doesn't force children to partake in them, I don't see how any of you have any right to criticize him. He didn't choose to be a pedophile any more than gay people choose to be gay. There, now if I can get past his unusual orientation, then surely the rest of you can?

Yes it suggest I listen/read the news and know a few cops. My cousin is a 911 dispatcher so I run into many cops.

Personally, I've never found such tools as you suggested to be useful. Maybe I'm weird though. I'll conceed the point (whatever it was).

Before you head down this route, you might be warned that pimatology is my thing. I can talk to you all about the activities of Pan Troglodytes and Pan Paniscus.

And you should know that I get all my scientific knowledge from encyclopedia entries, discovery channel specials, and random things quoted on the internet that don't contradict what I understand already. This one admitedly fell into the third category.

So please, enlighten me. Was the source I got this snippet of information from accurate? Or do we humans actually have a monopoly on this particular perversion? I'm perfectly willing to listen.

Simple. You have to wonder when people who follow the laws and people who break the laws (ie. criminals and violent criminals) don't like pedophiles. Why else does the jail system have to seperate them from the general population?
Ah. I get it. You're reffering to how everyone views this attraction as somehow worse than serial murder, right? As though by thinking certain sexual thoughts I'm worse than someone who rapes and kills adults?

I immagine that says something about how much importance our society places on this issue. I also think people who can't tell the difference between attraction and rape are also partially to blame.

I think you'll assume you "won" no matter what.

I'm not trying to intimidate anyone, merely stating a truth relating to the relative safety of internet anonymity from which pedophiles like DSN like to make their rationalizations of criminal behavior. It produces a marvelous dichotomy in human actions.

Your "argument" was flawed - you claimed I made "personal attacks" and tried to "mischaracterise" this guy. I didn't.
What you're stating is that if we were physically present, you wouldn't bother with speaking, and would simply escalate the matter to violence. I know that. Why the hell do you think I argue about it on anonomous internet forums? It's not because I'm afraid my arguements won't hold their own. It's because people like you wouldn't even let me speak before forcing me into a violent confrontation.

Find a point where I attempt to rationalise victumising children, and I'll retract it immediately. Otherwise, make a real arguement.
The Five Castes:

You state that you work with elementary school children every day and yet you are a self-confessed paedophile with one prior. Out of interest are the school aware of this prior conviction or your sexual predisposition? I would imagine that if this is not prohibited by state or federal law, then at the very least one might consider it a slight conflict of interest no?
What the hell? Where are you getting this prior stuff? I've never done anything to anyone, and no one who knows my real identity even knows I have such interests.

I have no priors, and I don't know where you're getting this stuff from.

I do work with elementary school children. I need to do something to pay for colledge, and would you believe that they're the only ones who would accept my job application? I didn't even know that was what the job was when I accepted it. I figured that I'd be doing tech support at the district's office building or something based on the description I got of the position.

They're even pressuring me to change my major to eduation because they say I have a way with kids. Everytime they bring that one up, it's hard to keep a straight face.

Ultimately I don't want to be there. I'm not worried about the temptation. I'm worried about how this is exactly where people look when trying to find pedophiles. Unfortunately, quitting now would raise questions with my family I'm not ready to answer.
You're right. I'm sorry. I should have said "I'm a victim of child molesting". Anyway, I mostly agree with The Five Castes. I may not agree with his sexual preferences, I may find them sick and perverted, but as long as he doesn't force children to partake in them, I don't see how any of you have any right to criticize him. He didn't choose to be a pedophile any more than gay people choose to be gay. There, now if I can get past his unusual orientation, then surely the rest of you can?
Thank you. I can't tell you what it means to me to see you write that.

pedophilia is when you have sex with anyone who is under 35. It should be a crime and all who committ it should be executed.

pedophilia is when you have sex with anyone who is under 35. It should be a crime and all who committ it should be executed.
Under 35??? You'll be executing about 98% of the population, then.

And you should know that I get all my scientific knowledge from encyclopedia entries, discovery channel specials, and random things quoted on the internet that don't contradict what I understand already. This one admitedly fell into the third category.

So please, enlighten me. Was the source I got this snippet of information from accurate? Or do we humans actually have a monopoly on this particular perversion? I'm perfectly willing to listen.


You probably saw/read something on the Bonobo. The problem with comparing sexual "perversions" with the great apes is to not fall into the trap of anthropomorphism.

Many will argue the Bonobo is proof of homosexuality. It is and it isn't. Bonobos have male on male situtations but penitration never happens. Then there is the case of one using his hand on the other.....

Now people may interpret the fact that an elder "playing" with a youngster shows pedophilia. Yes it happens but there isn't a recorded case of an adult only seeking out the young.

The Bonobo use sex and pleasure as a way to reduce tension :D They don't have the violent interactions to the level of the chimpanzee. There has been cases of "murder" in the Bonobo but it's rare.

So back to the gay question. There are cases of adult males prefering other males. It's it exact proof of homosexuality? It's not damning. At best it shows bisexuality. However, it goes against "Gods design" that sex is only for procreation. That animals only act on impulse and not gratification.

If you are intrested in this stuff. Franz De Waal has written a great deal on it.

On my way home from school today, I was sitting on a city bus minding my own business. A couple of stops after I got on, a 12(ish) year-old girl and her mother came on the bus. The girl, who was wearing a school uniform, sat a couple of seats away from me, and her mother was sitting across from her on the uncrowded bus. I paid them no mind. However, on the next stop, an old man, maybe 70 years old, boarded the bus and sat right next to the girl. I was slightly suspicious, because there were plenty of other seats available with more room. So I watched him out of the corner of my eye and sure enough, he is staring at the girl next to him. The girl, who was talking to her mother, didn't pay attention at all, but the mother noticed, and told the girl to sit next to her. I was angry at the situation, but I guessed that the old man would stop with the mother right there. In fact, the old man got up as if to exit the bus for the next stop, but instead of getting off, he sat down in a seat in which he could see the girl but couldn't be seen easily. Then, he put on a pair of sunglasses and appeared to be staring at the girl. By this time, I was so angry I felt like punching him in the face. Instead, I got up to offer my seat to somebody else and stood directly in his line of vision if he were in fact looking at the girl.

Sorry for the long paragraph, but I was wondering how other people would have reacted. I was also thinking if there should be any laws against this (if there arn't), or if looking at a child, while being immoral (imo), could not be illegal. Your opinions?


I also really felt like ranting about it to someone.

not to condone pedo's...i have a daughter...but he may have been blind/stupid/ or reminded of his daughter.
dont ever look at my kid or i will stomp you.....

dont jump to conclusions,or you should have confronted the fella..i would have,nicely.

wow..thought police...nice world you live in.

i understand you got creeped out,and you may have spidey sense...but if it bothered you..say something or ....get a grip until you do...being accused of being a pedo is no laughing matter,so you best be sure.

if your sure...confront and or beat the person,if not...you got some nerve.

Thank you. I can't tell you what it means to me to see you write that.
You're welcome. For the record, I'm pretty sure my father wasn't a pedophile. He was only in it for the power trip. When I asked him why, he'd say things like "'Cos you're a bad girl," or "'Cos you need to be punished".

pedophilia is when you have sex with anyone who is under 35. It should be a crime and all who committ it should be executed.

Come on Robert. How do you really feel about it?

Come on Robert. How do you really feel about it?


someone has issues.

And if the study had been good? If the study had offered solid evidence that the harm inflicted on these minors does stem largely from external social condmenation and that any trauma they experience is made worse because of the flawed cousiling methods? Would it have been going too far if his results actually could provide conclusive (or at least compelling) evidence for his hypothesis?
If the study had been good, then we have much to look at. If the study had been good, obviously further study would be needed. We do not change the world on one study, as my stats professor was so damn fond of saying every class.

It would've been a cheap walkaway if that was all I said. I have, however, made numerous statements in the course of that post. If you honestly believe that scientific opinion is not influenced by the social norms of the time, I honestly don't know what I can say to make you understand. To support Rind is to invite your own credibility to be forfeit, actual evidence either way be damned.
Which is what is usually brought up, the "Oh, it might have been true, but no one would say otherwise" excuse.

What does that prove except that children are more willing to accept the evidence of their senses, and willing to reject rules taught to them when they contradict their experiences? Just because adults are rigid thinkers doesn't mean that it is unreasonable for children to conclude what they do based on the evidence at hand.
The difference being that adults use logic and are not likely to believe in magical disapearing dirt. Cause and effect is not linked the way it will be in a teen and an adult.

I see. It all makes sense now. Children aren't capable of making decisions because... children are't capable of making decisions? You aren't even trying to explain your point of view. You're just restating it as though it explains everything.
I have no particular wish to restate a number of hears of studying human devlopment. I would be glad to provide a reading list if you are serious about studying child cognative devlopment, theories behind it, and so on.

Wow. Smartest being ever. You give me too much credit, but thanks for the consideration.

As a matter of fact, I did establish reasons behind the set of rules I had to deal with in social situations. I have quite a clear memory of some of those rules coming to be. Morality derives from empathy not memorizing rules, and the moment a person is capable of understanding that other people have feelings, consience in its most elemental form exists.
So you mean you remember back to age 1 when your mom slapped your hand after grabbing something and told you not to take? And you also were able to in that moment reason out an ethic rule based upon the idea that taking food before mom gave it to you was wrong because...

AND when you got put into time out and told not to hit at age 4, you again were empathic enough to reason out a universal rule. Absolutely amazing.

The rest of the human race seems to just react to "I shouldn't do that 'cause mommy told me not to".

How the hell can you state that with that much certainty? The origin of morality has been debated by philosophers for millenia, and you arrogantly believe that your opinion is the one correct one. (Yes, I'm guilty of the same crime.) Do you have any evidence, or is this really just opinion? I at least have the evidence of my own experience. (Admitedly not exactly compelling for the rest of you, but it's good enough for me unless you have something that directly contradicts my memories of my own cognitive development.)
Because I am not talking in the philosphical sense, I am talking in terms of understanding. I am talking in terms of cognative development and reasoning skills.

As for proof, look at every child devlopment study in regards to morals. Not what rules are right, not where do the rules come from, but how do we learn them?

So even if I can manage to reason properly with some children, you feel that my failure to do so with even one proves your point? That makes no sense.
My point being that anyone who attempt to reason with a child as one would and adult is going to fail sooner or later. Everything I have ever read trough graduate school, eveything I have seen as a teacher shows me this. Children don't reason as adults, they reason as children!

Am I reading this wrong, or are you contradicting yourself here? First you say that the only way children understand morals is by the rules enforced on them, then you say they can't be traied like dogs. Your theory on establishing morals (as far as I've been able to determine) is fundamentally identical to the theory of training a dog.
You're misreading. *sighs* Ok, here is moral devlopment in a nutshell as devloped by Kohlberg ( http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html for a nice summary). The idea being that humans move through progressive moral devlopment. The first stage is reward and punishment. This is the baby stage. Babies do not come out of the womb spounting Plato after all. At this stage, the very begining, it is a matter of, as Skinner would have, optimal conditioning. A child gets a sense of right from wrong from parents and others around him. This is re-enforced through rewards and punishments (smacking your hand for taking, praise for being quiet and so on). The level of moral thought in this case isn't the Decleration of Human Rights, but the old "You shouldn't hit other people". The second level is exchange, the you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Someone at THIS stage is using that "What's in it for me?" reasoning of moral behavore.

Note, again, nothing here suggests where morals come from or so on, just how a person progresses in understanding and thought about them.

Levels three and four are conventional, they are the Good boy/good girl models were one is moral to fit the definition of what is "good". Law and Order is number four, something is right because it's the law.

5 and 6 start working on the social contratacs and univeral human rights bit. Teen agers usually are in 4 with leaps into 5 (which explains teen outrage at whatever social injustice they are outraged at). Children in elementrary school work more towards good boy/good girl. They will go with that they view as moral based upon what they think society/peers/parents/adults define as moral and right.

And for the record, I work with elementary school children every day. You aren't going to get off with some sort of appeal to authority BS (especially if you happen to be the authority you're appealing to).
An admited peadophile working with children?

Can you give me any examples of those holes that you've noticed in their cognitive ability? I see that you believe they exist, but if you aren't going ot be more specific, how am I to even grasp your point?
Alright, for example the daily fight of getting students to pay attention. It's amazing how we have to use different methods to get a student engaged. I oftened wondered, when I was studying to be a teacher, why did our professors make such a point in telling us to have interesting, engaging classes, and then direct lecture to us all the bloody time. The reason is simple, adults (like college students) have the capasity to attend to something even if we dislike it, children however live in the here and now.

In my students, there is an amazing inability to see beyond their nose. I can observe some wonderful events of kindess, amoung friends and other students, but being an outsider, I may as well come from the other side of the moon (Students have expressed amazment that I come out of school).

When I ask them why they have done something, I will get answers ranging from the well reasoned to the wildly off kilter (My personal fav was asking students why they thought it was ok for them not to clean when they were supposed to, their answer was along the lines of it'll be ok because only teachers use this room).

"Where reason fails, force prevails." If you accept that reasoning with them is impossible, force is the only tool left to influence them. By arguing that children are by definition incapable of reason, you are arguing that they should be beaten into submission. For their own good of course...
You misunderstand, I do not state that children are incapable of reason, they are incapable of reasoning as an adult does. Their reasoning ability is that of a child (for obvious reasons).

With all due respect, isn't understanding the concept of delayed gratification one of those developmental abilities that make someone more capable of independent decisionmaking? Doesn't the fact that they're willing to put up with something unpleasant now to get something pleasant later suggest that they do understand nonimmediate consequences? Your example seems to be arguing against the idea that children are incompotent.

So you are seriously suggesting that a vulnerable child should be prostituting themselves? You are actually suggesting that there is nothing predatory about this? That it shows their reasoning is sound? You say yourself that they are doing something unpleasant in order to get something nice. And you feel that that is perfectly acceptable? Explain to me how what you said is not rationalising the exploitation of children for sexual purposes?

On my way home from school today, I was sitting on a city bus minding my own business. A couple of stops after I got on, a 12(ish) year-old girl and her mother came on the bus. The girl, who was wearing a school uniform, sat a couple of seats away from me, and her mother was sitting across from her on the uncrowded bus. I paid them no mind. However, on the next stop, an old man, maybe 70 years old, boarded the bus and sat right next to the girl. I was slightly suspicious, because there were plenty of other seats available with more room. So I watched him out of the corner of my eye and sure enough, he is staring at the girl next to him. The girl, who was talking to her mother, didn't pay attention at all, but the mother noticed, and told the girl to sit next to her. I was angry at the situation, but I guessed that the old man would stop with the mother right there. In fact, the old man got up as if to exit the bus for the next stop, but instead of getting off, he sat down in a seat in which he could see the girl but couldn't be seen easily. Then, he put on a pair of sunglasses and appeared to be staring at the girl. By this time, I was so angry I felt like punching him in the face. Instead, I got up to offer my seat to somebody else and stood directly in his line of vision if he were in fact looking at the girl.

Sorry for the long paragraph, but I was wondering how other people would have reacted. I was also thinking if there should be any laws against this (if there arn't), or if looking at a child, while being immoral (imo), could not be illegal. Your opinions?


I also really felt like ranting about it to someone.
Dude you need to see a psychiatrist for you mental problem. There is neither nothing illegal nor immoral about looking at child. If there were, then you yourself would belong in jail. If he had made a move to grab her you would have a case. But you don't. Instead what you have is paranoia: Oh he's looking at child that automatically makes him a pedophile.

It cause of people who think like that the whole system is nothing more than a freaking witchhunt conducted by the paranoid nut cases.

And the fact that you are calling him a pedophile is actually slander and libel and he could sue you for it.

Dude you need to see a psychiatrist for you mental problem. There is neither nothing illegal nor immoral about looking at child. If there were, then you yourself would belong in jail. If he had made a move to grab her you would have a case. But you don't. Instead what you have is paranoia: Oh he's looking at child that automatically makes him a pedophile.

It cause of people who think like that the whole system is nothing more than a freaking witchhunt conducted by the paranoid nut cases.

And the fact that you are calling him a pedophile is actually slander and libel and he could sue you for it.

Actually he isn't needed to demonstrate a witch hunt.

Pedophilia is NOT a sexual orientation. It is classified as a behavioral disorder, and a severe one at that, since it involves abusing children. What two consenting adults do behind closed bedroom doors and abusing children can not be compared in any way.


If you, or any other sane person of adult age(disregard this comment if you're still a teenager) is attracted to a 12 years old girl, I believe that person may have quite a warped view on sexuality. To be aroused by children certainly seems unhealthy to me.


On this I agree, though. Someone who is attracted to a child but never acts on his/her desire should be left alone, and rightly so. However, I live in Canada, and here pedophiles are let off the hook too easily. I support harsher prison sentences for repeat offenders, at the very least. While it's true they don't control who they're attracted to, they have to realise that unfortunately for them, acting on their desires involves hurting children. Repeat offenders should be watched closely to prevent them from making more victims.
and exactly how do you define "child"? To me a 16 or 15 year old is not really child. A child is someone who is 12 or younger. If you are attracted to those, yes you have a warped mind. But if she is older than 12, and you don't think she's attractive, you also have a warped mind.
Attraction to teen girls is only natural for humans. It's actually part of our human evolution after all. What you are trying to do is change millions of years of biological evolution to suit your extremist agenda.
That is why such policies and laws fail to prevent pedophilia. The only way, I can see for society to make men stop being attracted to young teen girls is to engage in brain washing of all men. And that is something that goes against a free society.

Actually he isn't needed to demonstrate a witch hunt.
The thing that pisses me off about it is that while they have the police engaged in a witch hunt against the innocent, the real perpertrators are running around the streets and really preying on children.

Well, he WAS only looking at her. I would've felt uncomfortable, to say the least, to be in your shoes, but who's to say he was looking with pedophilic intent in mind? It could've been purely innocent.

and exactly how do you define "child"? To me a 16 or 15 year old is not really child. A child is someone who is 12 or younger. If you are attracted to those, yes you have a warped mind. But if she is older than 12, and you don't think she's attractive, you also have a warped mind.
Attraction to teen girls is only natural for humans. It's actually part of our human evolution after all. What you are trying to do is change millions of years of biological evolution to suit your extremist agenda.
That is why such policies and laws fail to prevent pedophilia. The only way, I can see for society to make men stop being attracted to young teen girls is to engage in brain washing of all men. And that is something that goes against a free society.

Ok, why is it acceptable to look at minors in a sexual manner? I've never understood that. I mean they're jail bait, and frankly not nearly old enough to be attractive. I always find it vaguely creepy when someone comments about a kid who's very plainly under age. Hell I'm 25, I couldn't picture dating anyone under the age of about 20.

If you possess them then someone had to produce them. You create a market with Demand, and someone will be the Supplier.

By owning such pictures, even if you didn't take the pictures yourself, you are telling someone out there that you want them to make more.
That line of argument is what makes the war on drugs such a losing battle.

The FBI recently said that most Americans have viewed or downloaded "child pornography" at some point. According to your argument, most American's (3 out of every 5 or thereabouts) should be jailed for 200 years.

The thing that pisses me off about it is that while they have the police engaged in a witch hunt against the innocent, the real perpertrators are running around the streets and really preying on children.
No DSN wants the whole "pedophile" witch hunt killed

Meaning he would prefer it legal to sleep with kids, not just view the pictures.

Ok, why is it acceptable to look at minors in a sexual manner? I've never understood that. I mean they're jail bait, and frankly not nearly old enough to be attractive. I always find it vaguely creepy when someone comments about a kid who's very plainly under age. Hell I'm 25, I couldn't picture dating anyone under the age of about 20.
How do you know they are looking at them in a sexual manner? And again how do you define minor?
That they're jail bait doesn't mean there is anything wrong with looking, or talking to them if the subject is appropriate.
It depends entirely on the comment. Saying a kid is attractive is not necessarily a sign of a desire to engage in sex. If I said your car was beautiful, does that mean I want to sexually molest your car? Or if I said your sister was beautiful does that mean I want to rape and molest her?
I would warn against going down that slippery road.

I myself would have no problem dating an 18 year old. It's the 16 year olds you should avoid. Not because they are jail bait but because they all play games and throw temper tantrums when they dont get their way plus they tend to be concieted at that age. Let's not forget that some 16/17 year old girls think that just because you talk to them a lot or go out with them, that you are their personal property and they act accordingly. That is the real reason why SOME guys your age don't date 16 year olds. Not because they don't find them attractive.

In fact it is more common than you think for 25 year olds to date 16 year olds. And its perfectly legal and moral too. As long as there is no touching.
This one girl I used to talk to, and I've mentioned her on this forum awhile back, dated a 25 year old when she was 16. He had sex with her. But it was because she wanted it. Not because he had a power trip. Her words, not mine. A couple of years later they got married. It had nothing to do with "need to control" but it had everything to do with mutual love they felt for each other.
A few year back this chick who was 23 at the time was dating 15 year old. Unlike the previous couple they avoided sex. They got married on the boy's 18th birthday. Does that make her a pedophile?

No DSN wants the whole "pedophile" witch hunt killed

Meaning he would prefer it legal to sleep with kids, not just view the pictures.
In that case his mind is warped and he needs to be reeducated before he can act on his impulse.


But seriously, if he really thinks that, he's suffering from biochemical misfiring of the neurons in his brain.

5 Castes: I misread an early post you made and was under the impression that you had been cautioned for possessing indecent images of children or something similar. I wasn't implying that you had actually done anything directly, merely been caught doing something that you freely admit to.

An interesting pillar of this debate I find, is that it seems to have implicitly embraced the idea that someone can be morally justified in doing whatever they like so long as nobody else is directly hurt. The five castes rationalises his actions by stating that it's okay because he doesn't abuse children directly he only watches clips of other people doing it and other people have argued that the act is wrong since it 'creates a demand' rather than talking about the rights and wrongs of the act itself.

Merely because a person does not get directly hurt does not make an action morally acceptable, were that the case I would be quite justified in digging up dead people and having sex with them so long as their relatives didn't find out. Taking pleasure out of watching someone degrade and abuse a child for their own sexual gain is simply wrong and whilst I'm not prone to simple majoritarianism the fact that the overwhelming majority of people believe this slaps a lot of weight behind this point.

Five castes: In life people tend to draw lines in certain fields that they do not cross. You must take a lot of comfort in knowing that you haven't crossed yours, maybe it helps you get to sleep at night - "I wasn't doing the abusing m'lord, I just watched and jacked off whilst some other guy did".

How do you know they are looking at them in a sexual manner? And again how do you define minor?
That they're jail bait doesn't mean there is anything wrong with looking, or talking to them if the subject is appropriate.
It depends entirely on the comment. Saying a kid is attractive is not necessarily a sign of a desire to engage in sex. If I said your car was beautiful, does that mean I want to sexually molest your car? Or if I said your sister was beautiful does that mean I want to rape and molest her?
I would warn against going down that slippery road.

I myself would have no problem dating an 18 year old. It's the 16 year olds you should avoid. Not because they are jail bait but because they all play games and throw temper tantrums when they dont get their way plus they tend to be concieted at that age. Let's not forget that some 16/17 year old girls think that just because you talk to them a lot or go out with them, that you are their personal property and they act accordingly. That is the real reason why SOME guys your age don't date 16 year olds. Not because they don't find them attractive.

In fact it is more common than you think for 25 year olds to date 16 year olds. And its perfectly legal and moral too. As long as there is no touching.
This one girl I used to talk to, and I've mentioned her on this forum awhile back, dated a 25 year old when she was 16. He had sex with her. But it was because she wanted it. Not because he had a power trip. Her words, not mine. A couple of years later they got married. It had nothing to do with "need to control" but it had everything to do with mutual love they felt for each other.
A few year back this chick who was 23 at the time was dating 15 year old. Unlike the previous couple they avoided sex. They got married on the boy's 18th birthday. Does that make her a pedophile?

Why quote me if you're not going to respond to anything I actually said? Just curious.

In that case his mind is warped and he needs to be reeducated before he can act on his impulse.


But seriously, if he really thinks that, he's suffering from biochemical misfiring of the neurons in his brain.
I am fairly sure that is what he ment ... he has expressed simmilar wishes in other threads.

Why is it that pedophiles trigger the reaction in people such that our very existence causes people to find uterly reprehensible (things like thought-crime and restricting unpopular speech) to be perfectly acceptable?




Perhaps you misunderstand. When I said "While entirely justified..." I meant the thread originator's action in blocking the old man's view. His reasoning, while incomplete, was sound and followed through to a restrained and logical conclusion. Then, I go on to state that attempting to predict or read someone's mind leads down a slippery path to a mind-reading technique, which I would be most vehemently against. Not especially that I have a lot to hide (I prefer my memories and thoughts private, mostly because I am positive I am the only one to understand the true significance, insignificance and meaning of each and every-one of my remembrances.) but that I'm sure if someone knows precisely what is in another person's mind, they are liable to go insane.

Not just figuratively, I mean literally. I doubt there is any medium possible that can let you read someone's mind and screen out the parts of their thoughts that makes them unique. Such close contact to another mind would (I believe) cause the reader to lose himself.

Also, I would like to add that those who advocate cruel and unusual punishment for a crime are barbarians of a worse sort than any child molestor (I'll keep this in mind Five Castes), murderer or terrorist could ever be. You are committing a crime against your intelligence, your humane-ness. You are insulting, nay forfeiting, the achievements of every human before, during and after your lifetime who dreamed of a better society. You wish to tear this down and debase the entire human race just so you feel ONE man/woman has gotten his/her justifiable punishment. I assure you, unless someone is insane, if they do a crime that is serious enough (murder and so on) they will provide their own worst punishment. It's just our duty as a society to ensure they live long enough to realize the true extent of their crimes.

That is all.

If the study had been good, then we have much to look at. If the study had been good, obviously further study would be needed. We do not change the world on one study, as my stats professor was so damn fond of saying every class.

I actually agree with that. Rind made a major mistake when attempting political advocasy based on his pet theory. Scientific papers are supposed to tell us what's going on. The only thing they should legitimately advocate is further study. A number of such papers, presenting compelling findings might eventually emmerge, but it is not the place of those authors to advocate change. The place to do so is in the policy discussions. Those papers can provide a supporting role, but should not be used to advocate.

Still, I do think Rind was blown out of proportion by both sides.

Which is what is usually brought up, the "Oh, it might have been true, but no one would say otherwise" excuse.

There's a reason that keeps coming up. There is no stronger taboo in this society, so any attempt to change the status quo is going to be met with significant and possibly violent oposition. It keeps being brought up because it happens to be true. (I mean look at the contents of this thread for evidence.)

The difference being that adults use logic and are not likely to believe in magical disapearing dirt. Cause and effect is not linked the way it will be in a teen and an adult.

There's nothing intrinsicly wrong with the conclusion that you've made dirt disapear, except that it violates a learned rule. The only reason adults believe in the conservation of matter in those situations is because we're also aware that matter can change dencity, and configuration so as to fool the observer. Take away the learned rules, and the adult and child are likely to reach the same conclusion.

I have no particular wish to restate a number of hears of studying human devlopment. I would be glad to provide a reading list if you are serious about studying child cognative devlopment, theories behind it, and so on.

You don't wish to explain your reasoning, so you simply present your point of view as though it were established fact. If you aren't going to bother defending a statement, why do you bother to make it in the first place?

So you mean you remember back to age 1 when your mom slapped your hand after grabbing something and told you not to take? And you also were able to in that moment reason out an ethic rule based upon the idea that taking food before mom gave it to you was wrong because...

Slapping a child at the age of ONE? This is what you view as normal?

And I'm the monster.

AND when you got put into time out and told not to hit at age 4, you again were empathic enough to reason out a universal rule. Absolutely amazing.

You're still operating from your "rules first, reasoning comes later" point of view. I was helped through my reasoning, and concluded on my own why it was a bad thing to hit people.

The rest of the human race seems to just react to "I shouldn't do that 'cause mommy told me not to".

That's really sad. I'd truly pitty them if I believed you were right about this.

Because I am not talking in the philosphical sense, I am talking in terms of understanding. I am talking in terms of cognative development and reasoning skills.

As for proof, look at every child devlopment study in regards to morals. Not what rules are right, not where do the rules come from, but how do we learn them?

They're the same thing. If all the moral truths we accept were learned on the basis of "mommy said so", then there must not be any true universal moral code or empathy, and we simply all internalize authority figures' words. Under that point of view, morality is possible only because parents brainwash their children into believing in their morals. I couldn't operate under those assumptions.

My point being that anyone who attempt to reason with a child as one would and adult is going to fail sooner or later. Everything I have ever read trough graduate school, eveything I have seen as a teacher shows me this. Children don't reason as adults, they reason as children!

You're really begging for this one:
Anyone who attepts to reason with an adult as one would with an adult is going to fail sooner or later.

You're misreading. *sighs* Ok, here is moral devlopment in a nutshell as devloped by Kohlberg ( http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html for a nice summary). The idea being that humans move through progressive moral devlopment. The first stage is reward and punishment. This is the baby stage. Babies do not come out of the womb spounting Plato after all. At this stage, the very begining, it is a matter of, as Skinner would have, optimal conditioning. A child gets a sense of right from wrong from parents and others around him. This is re-enforced through rewards and punishments (smacking your hand for taking, praise for being quiet and so on). The level of moral thought in this case isn't the Decleration of Human Rights, but the old "You shouldn't hit other people". The second level is exchange, the you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Someone at THIS stage is using that "What's in it for me?" reasoning of moral behavore.

Note, again, nothing here suggests where morals come from or so on, just how a person progresses in understanding and thought about them.

The bolded parts are in contradiction with one another.

Levels three and four are conventional, they are the Good boy/good girl models were one is moral to fit the definition of what is "good". Law and Order is number four, something is right because it's the law.

5 and 6 start working on the social contratacs and univeral human rights bit. Teen agers usually are in 4 with leaps into 5 (which explains teen outrage at whatever social injustice they are outraged at). Children in elementrary school work more towards good boy/good girl. They will go with that they view as moral based upon what they think society/peers/parents/adults define as moral and right.

Is this somehow supported by anything more than anecdotal evidence and the ego of the theorist? I've seen a lot of theories, about a lot of things in psychology, but not a lot of them with the kind of evidence we require of the hard sciences.

An admited peadophile working with children?

I've already responded to this in another post. Point is that you aren't the only one with experience in education.

Alright, for example the daily fight of getting students to pay attention. It's amazing how we have to use different methods to get a student engaged. I oftened wondered, when I was studying to be a teacher, why did our professors make such a point in telling us to have interesting, engaging classes, and then direct lecture to us all the bloody time. The reason is simple, adults (like college students) have the capasity to attend to something even if we dislike it, children however live in the here and now.

This derives from the concept of delayed gratification. In college, we accept the unpleasantness of attending classes, in exchange for the delayed reward we get of increased oportunities after graduation. Children are perfectly capable of understanding that concept.

"Clean your room and we'll go to the arcade."

It is perhaps a weakness of children, in that their ability to trust rewards so far temporally removed as we adults trust is less, but it's hardly a hole in their reasoning ability. They have no reason to trust that twelve years of unpleasant, seemingly pointless toil (aka school) will be rewarded.

Besides which at the university level, the rewards actually are closer. No one expects a college student to spent twelve years before any valuable reward is given. There are two and four year marks at the very least where a nontrivial reward in increased oportunity is provided.

In my students, there is an amazing inability to see beyond their nose. I can observe some wonderful events of kindess, amoung friends and other students, but being an outsider, I may as well come from the other side of the moon (Students have expressed amazment that I come out of school).

So what. You're in a largely adversarial relationship with your students. Like it or not, that's the cultural steriotype of the relationship between teacher and student. Just because they devalue you doesn't mean that they devalue everyone. You're the enemy.

When I ask them why they have done something, I will get answers ranging from the well reasoned to the wildly off kilter (My personal fav was asking students why they thought it was ok for them not to clean when they were supposed to, their answer was along the lines of it'll be ok because only teachers use this room).

That is under the reasoning (often provided by adults) that everything done in a school environment is for the benefit of themselves or other children. As such, it only makes sense that cleaning for the benefit of teachers doesn't fit with the reasoning they've been given for their own presence in the school.

You misunderstand, I do not state that children are incapable of reason, they are incapable of reasoning as an adult does. Their reasoning ability is that of a child (for obvious reasons).
What exactly is the reasoning ability of a child? What makes it fundamentally different from that of an adult?
So you are seriously suggesting that a vulnerable child should be prostituting themselves? You are actually suggesting that there is nothing predatory about this? That it shows their reasoning is sound? You say yourself that they are doing something unpleasant in order to get something nice. And you feel that that is perfectly acceptable? Explain to me how what you said is not rationalising the exploitation of children for sexual purposes?
I think you missed the point of my statements there. What I was trying to say was that the ability to look to long term rewards suggests mental maturity rather than immaturity. I was not suggesting that it was acceptable, only that the reasoning I was responding to seemed to contradict the idea that children are mentally incompotent.
That line of argument is what makes the war on drugs such a losing battle.

The FBI recently said that most Americans have viewed or downloaded "child pornography" at some point. According to your argument, most American's (3 out of every 5 or thereabouts) should be jailed for 200 years.
That statistic sounds suspect. Does this reffer to actual child pornography viewed for the sake of sexual interest, or does it also reffer to the innocent stuff like those bear skin rug shots your parents use to embarrass you?
No DSN wants the whole "pedophile" witch hunt killed

Meaning he would prefer it legal to sleep with kids, not just view the pictures.
That's DSN. He doesn't seem to have taken the long view of this, and seems to be frustrated by the fact that positive changes in this area aren't acheavable in the short term.
5 Castes: I misread an early post you made and was under the impression that you had been cautioned for possessing indecent images of children or something similar. I wasn't implying that you had actually done anything directly, merely been caught doing something that you freely admit to.

Good to hear. I was worried I'd either made a typo or that someone had been slandering me behind my back.

An interesting pillar of this debate I find, is that it seems to have implicitly embraced the idea that someone can be morally justified in doing whatever they like so long as nobody else is directly hurt. The five castes rationalises his actions by stating that it's okay because he doesn't abuse children directly he only watches clips of other people doing it and other people have argued that the act is wrong since it 'creates a demand' rather than talking about the rights and wrongs of the act itself.

You are also in this little trap. Look at all the times you used the word "directly". That implies that I'm indirectly causing harm to these children. You want to talk about the rights and wrngs of "the act itself", fine. Let's talk about that. How am I harming children by looking at this stuff?

Merely because a person does not get directly hurt does not make an action morally acceptable, were that the case I would be quite justified in digging up dead people and having sex with them so long as their relatives didn't find out.

Morality is about doing the right thing even when no one's looking. In your example, you actually would be harming someone. You'd be violating the property rites of the corpse's family by using their property without permission. Further, you would be degrading the value of said property by increasing the exposure of the corpse to open air and increasing the rate of decay.

Taking pleasure out of watching someone degrade and abuse a child for their own sexual gain is simply wrong and whilst I'm not prone to simple majoritarianism the fact that the overwhelming majority of people believe this slaps a lot of weight behind this point.

How is that not simple majoritanism?

Five castes: In life people tend to draw lines in certain fields that they do not cross. You must take a lot of comfort in knowing that you haven't crossed yours, maybe it helps you get to sleep at night - "I wasn't doing the abusing m'lord, I just watched and jacked off whilst some other guy did".
Why I'm bothering to dignify this with a response is beyond me.

You seem to think that I would sit by and let children be abused when it was in my power to prevent it. You imply that I'm somehow glad that these children have been scarred for life. That I'm rooting on the child molesters who make this stuff.

That is offensive on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

I can't undo the damage done to those children by looking away. If destroying the evidence would somehow unruin their lives, I would, but we both know it won't.

If I take you correctly, you seem to be arguing that it's wrong to get a sexual thrill from this source even if one were unaided by immages. That my friend is thought crime. No one wants to go down that road.

As for the thread intitiator, I think you jumped the gun thinking that he was a pedophile.

For real pedophiles, like NAMBLA members, do the world a favor and stick a shotgun under your chin and pull the trigger.

I'm a tall enough guy that, like you, I would have just blocked his view. If he touched her I might have become a little more agressive, but what are you going to tell a cop after you punch the guy, " I thought he was looking at the little girl."

But seriously, if he really thinks that, he's suffering from biochemical misfiring of the neurons in his brain.

Isn't that the same as saying that if his opinions differ from yours, there's something wrong with him?

People's opinions can vary. It's their actions that matter.

What if it's not real?

Drawings. Works of fiction. CGI. Should those be illegal, too? Their creation doesn't harm anyone.
I have major issues with anime for this reason.

What reason? Who's being harmed by the works of fiction?

Or are you abandoning the harm principle and prohibiting things simply because they're "wrong"?

The 5 castes:

Before I respond I'll point out, and I think most people will agree, that I don't think you're in a position to claim a moral high ground on this one.

The argument that necrophilia is wrong only because it's a violation of property rights is actually pretty amusing. What if the woman lived by herself, had no friends, no family and died in her room - would it be acceptable for someone to have sex with her before she was buried?

Or are we going to accept the conclusion that some things are wrong even if they do not harm another person. For instance if I had sat and watched 9/11 and laughed at the people hurling themselves to their deaths that would be wrong even though it would make absolutely no difference to the people concerned. In this instance, as I have said, taking pleasure out of the suffering, exploitation and abuse of children is wrong whether or not it makes the slightest bit of difference to the plight of the child concerned.

It is simple majoritarianism - as I said I'm not prone to it, but when the majority is so overwhelmingly opposed to something I think that says something.

Yes I think it is wrong to get a sexual thrill from thinking about children, but I'm not suggesting that the thought alone is criminalised. On the other hand accessing child porn websites and masturbating to videos and pictures of children been abused is acting on that thought and is totally different.

The 5 castes:

Before I respond I'll point out, and I think most people will agree, that I don't think you're in a position to claim a moral high ground on this one.

The argument that necrophilia is wrong only because it's a violation of property rights is actually pretty amusing. What if the woman lived by herself, had no friends, no family and died in her room - would it be acceptable for someone to have sex with her before she was buried?
Except that he isn't a necrophile and this is not about necrophilia.
Or are we going to accept the conclusion that some things are wrong even if they do not harm another person. For instance if I had sat and watched 9/11 and laughed at the people hurling themselves to their deaths that would be wrong even though it would make absolutely no difference to the people concerned. In this instance, as I have said, taking pleasure out of the suffering, exploitation and abuse of children is wrong whether or not it makes the slightest bit of difference to the plight of the child concerned.
He has never admitted to watching children being victimized, nor do I believe he ever would. Being esxually attracted to someone does not mean you are going to think it's okay if someone rapes them. Why is it impossible for you people to see this?
It is simple majoritarianism - as I said I'm not prone to it, but when the majority is so overwhelmingly opposed to something I think that says something.
If the majority is uneducated and unreasonable, i think this also says something. Most of the mjority, the ones who can't tel the difference between child molesters and pedophiles, don't even know what they're opposed to.

Yes I think it is wrong to get a sexual thrill from thinking about children, but I'm not suggesting that the thought alone is criminalised. On the other hand accessing child porn websites and masturbating to videos and pictures of children been abused is acting on that thought and is totally different.
So, by not going on the webistes, he would be helping these children somehow? If he was in the room and had the power to stop them, then I would agree with you.

Except that he isn't a necrophile and this is not about necrophilia.

He has never admitted to watching children being victimized, nor do I believe he ever would. Being esxually attracted to someone does not mean you are going to think it's okay if someone rapes them. Why is it impossible for you people to see this?

If the majority is uneducated and unreasonable, i think this also says something. Most of the mjority, the ones who can't tel the difference between child molesters and pedophiles, don't even know what they're opposed to.

So, by not going on the webistes, he would be helping these children somehow? If he was in the room and had the power to stop them, then I would agree with you.

So puppet? Who is your master?

The 5 castes:

Before I respond I'll point out, and I think most people will agree, that I don't think you're in a position to claim a moral high ground on this one.

Most people came to that conclusion the moment I admited to being a pedophile.

The argument that necrophilia is wrong only because it's a violation of property rights is actually pretty amusing. What if the woman lived by herself, had no friends, no family and died in her room - would it be acceptable for someone to have sex with her before she was buried?

A corpse is innert matter. An empty shell. The person isn't using it, and we have pretty good reason to believe that once a person abandons their body, they aren't going to want it back. You can't steal property that no one owns, and I assume in your example, there is no one who can exersise legal rights over the deceased's remains.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up the family, who do have legal ownership over the body. What if the husband wanted one last roll in the hay with the body? Nothing morally wrong with that. A little disturbing and not something I'd like to think about with food in my stomach, but not morally wrong.

Or are we going to accept the conclusion that some things are wrong even if they do not harm another person. For instance if I had sat and watched 9/11 and laughed at the people hurling themselves to their deaths that would be wrong even though it would make absolutely no difference to the people concerned. In this instance, as I have said, taking pleasure out of the suffering, exploitation and abuse of children is wrong whether or not it makes the slightest bit of difference to the plight of the child concerned.

You must think that my moral code is nothing more than an attept at rationalization. I can think of no other reason why you would keep bringing up things you obviously want me to find objectionable.

There would be nothing morally wrong with deriving enjoyment from watching the twin towers fall. Nothing wrong with laughing at holocaust jokes either (assuming you aren't in earshot of someone likely to be hurt emotionally). Where things cross into the territory of wrong is where you actually cause harm. I'm not going to change my tune, regardless of whatever example you bring up next.

It is simple majoritarianism - as I said I'm not prone to it, but when the majority is so overwhelmingly opposed to something I think that says something.

I wonder. Might you not just be internalizing majoritarianism in this instance just so that you can be on the oposite side of this arguement from me?

The presence of an overwhelming majority viewpoint is only evidence if you accept majoritarianism. If you don't accept it, then even if everyone else in the world believed something, that wouldn't make it right.

Yes I think it is wrong to get a sexual thrill from thinking about children, but I'm not suggesting that the thought alone is criminalised. On the other hand accessing child porn websites and masturbating to videos and pictures of children been abused is acting on that thought and is totally different.
How is it different? How is masturbating while looking at pictures different from masturbating while immagining kids? Why is one action, and the other just thought? Where the hell is the line?
So puppet? Who is your master?
I presume you're implying that only a pedophile would argue on the same side as pedophiles, even on the individual level. That me, SN, or DSN would be the only ones to have issues with Genaia3's post.

No point here. Just calling you on your implication.

Isn't that the same as saying that if his opinions differ from yours, there's something wrong with him?

People's opinions can vary. It's their actions that matter.
Well, look at what he's saying. He's saying that sex with people under 12 is ok. He claims that its natural for people to want sex with people under 12. That it is his opinion does not matter. It is not an educated opinion. It has no support in nature or evolution. Over evolutionary history, there are no cases that have been found that would suggest that human adults having sex with 5 year old humans was ever the norm in any society.

Pedophilia is the only sex that will never be socially acceptable. It strikes me as odd I suppose, to think that humanity will only go so far.

Well, look at what he's saying. He's saying that sex with people under 12 is ok. He claims that its natural for people to want sex with people under 12. That it is his opinion does not matter. It is not an educated opinion. It has no support in nature or evolution. Over evolutionary history, there are no cases that have been found that would suggest that human adults having sex with 5 year old humans was ever the norm in any society.
I believe the Greeks had something along those lines.

So puppet? Who is your master?
What is that suppsoed to mean?!!

To all: I think it's sad that so many posters on this forum seem to have such a limited notion of morality that anything is fine so long as nobody is directly hurt. I feel like society is sleepwalking into some kind of malaise where we cannot oppose the detestable if it does not violate John Stuart Mill's harm principle. It's very sad.

Space Mormons: Had you read more than one of my posts you would have discovered that I was offering examples of things that are clearly wrong yet do not directly harm another. Evidently I failed since the act of necrophilia is not sufficiently disgusting and depraved to warrant the condemnation of the five castes.

He has not admitted to watching children being victimised but yet has had ample opportunity to deny that he has and has not chosen to do so. The rest of your sentence did not seem to correspond to what I said so I'll repeat:

"In this instance, as I have said, taking pleasure out of the suffering, exploitation and abuse of children is wrong whether or not it makes the slightest bit of difference to the plight of the child concerned."

The difference between paedophiles and child molesters strikes me as being decidedly similar to the difference between "respectable" Nazis that would never beat up a Jew themselves and the SA who would be more than happy to do so. It's a loose offhand comparison so don't waste your time telling me why it doesn't relate.

5 castes: Majority belief in something does not make it an automatic truth, but popular support of an idea or a belief does add weight to the argument that their belief is more likely to be an accurate or justified one.

I do not "want" to have an aversion to you any more than I "want" to have an aversion to any other person that acts in a way that I vehemently disapprove of.

I have already stated my belief that whilst I believe imagining a child whilst you jack off is wrong I do not believe it is something that can or should be legislated on. Laws should not prohibit ones thoughts, however obtaining a visual stimulus on the other hand is an action that can be legislated against. I find it hard to believe that a paedophile could ever be totally at ease with themselves morally as you seem to be claiming you are, you want to know where the line is - take a look over your shoulder.

To all: I think it's sad that so many posters on this forum seem to have such a limited notion of morality that anything is fine so long as nobody is directly hurt. I feel like society is sleepwalking into some kind of malaise where we cannot oppose the detestable if it does not violate John Stuart Mill's harm principle. It's very sad.[QUOTE]
I think it's sad that you expect everyone else to oppose something simply because you decide it's detestable. I feel society is sleepwalking into a malaise where we cannot voice our opinions because everyone else is completely sure they know everything about it and are unwilling to see anything from anyone else's point of view.
[QUOTE]Space Mormons: Had you read more than one of my posts you would have discovered that I was offering examples of things that are clearly wrong yet do not directly harm another. Evidently I failed since the act of necrophilia is not sufficiently disgusting and depraved to warrant the condemnation of the five castes.
Again, just because you think something is disgusting and depraved, that makes it wrong. I personally am disgusted by the Five Castes' beliefs, but that does not give me any right to criticize him.
He has not admitted to watching children being victimised but yet has had ample opportunity to deny that he has and has not chosen to do so. The rest of your sentence did not seem to correspond to what I said so I'll repeat:
He hasn't said he hasn't, so that automatically means he has? Nice logic there.
"In this instance, as I have said, taking pleasure out of the suffering, exploitation and abuse of children is wrong whether or not it makes the slightest bit of difference to the plight of the child concerned."

The difference between paedophiles and child molesters strikes me as being decidedly similar to the difference between "respectable" Nazis that would never beat up a Jew themselves and the SA who would be more than happy to do so. It's a loose offhand comparison so don't waste your time telling me why it doesn't relate.
All right then, I won't. Just so you know how ridiculously unfair that analogy is.

What is that suppsoed to mean?!!
In case this was an actual question, me meant that because you pointed out how messed up the criticisms being leveled were, you must just be me, Dark Shadowy Nexus, or South Nifelheim, because only a pedophile would argue against someone criticising pedophiles.

It's the same thing that used to happen whenevery anyone spoke out in favor of gay rights. People assumed that they must be gay.
To all: I think it's sad that so many posters on this forum seem to have such a limited notion of morality that anything is fine so long as nobody is directly hurt. I feel like society is sleepwalking into some kind of malaise where we cannot oppose the detestable if it does not violate John Stuart Mill's harm principle. It's very sad.

Never heard of John Stuart Mill. If his principle is "do as you will but harm no one", then yes. That's pretty much the way my morality is set up. If not from the harm principle, where do your notions of morality originate? How can you even think to criminalize people who aren't hurting anyone just because they're "immoral"?

Let's take an example I've already brought up. Suppose that, like some biggots believe, homosexuality is wrong. Don't worry though, they wouldn't ever prosecute a person's thoughts. Just when those thoughts make it into action (even if that action harms no one).

The harm principle is the only way we can disempower biggots like that. If we accept that your version of victumless crimes is okay to prosecute, what makes their version any less valuable?

Space Mormons: Had you read more than one of my posts you would have discovered that I was offering examples of things that are clearly wrong yet do not directly harm another. Evidently I failed since the act of necrophilia is not sufficiently disgusting and depraved to warrant the condemnation of the five castes.

I KNEW IT! The only thing you were trying to do is test the depths of my commitment to the harm principle by bringing up things you thought I would condemn. It isn't that you haven't come up with a victumless crime sufficiently depraved yet. It's that there is no victumless crime sufficiently depraved to warrent condemnation by me.

He has not admitted to watching children being victimised but yet has had ample opportunity to deny that he has and has not chosen to do so. The rest of your sentence did not seem to correspond to what I said so I'll repeat:

If you mean sitting in the same room, nope. If I had, I'd have beaten the molester to death myself (or at least beaten him into unconsiusness and waited for the police).

If you mean viewing immages of said thing happening, I've seen them. Mostly they make me angry. They remind me of what happens when people cross th line and start hurting other people for their own gratification. I usually can't get past that feeling. It's why I don't usually go for the hardcore stuff. Not as much to be outraged about in the softcore stuff, and nothing to be outraged about in drawings and fiction.

Even so, I don't think that it would be morally wrong to derive satisfaction from such things, and I have on occasion been able to look past the harm done which is beyond my ability to fix, and derive some gratification from the end product.

I won't deny anything that's true.

"In this instance, as I have said, taking pleasure out of the suffering, exploitation and abuse of children is wrong whether or not it makes the slightest bit of difference to the plight of the child concerned."

I disagree.

The difference between paedophiles and child molesters strikes me as being decidedly similar to the difference between "respectable" Nazis that would never beat up a Jew themselves and the SA who would be more than happy to do so. It's a loose offhand comparison so don't waste your time telling me why it doesn't relate.

Don't worry. My time's pretty much worthless. And it'll be fun tearing it appart besides.

The difference is that those "respectable" Nazis in your example approve of the beating up of Jews, even if they can't bring themselves to do so, and wouldn't stop it if they could. In no way do I approve of harming children for my or anyone else's gratification. If I had the power to stop this exploitation, make no mistake, I would.

5 castes: Majority belief in something does not make it an automatic truth, but popular support of an idea or a belief does add weight to the argument that their belief is more likely to be an accurate or justified one.

Again, that only makes sense if you accept majoritarianism first.

I do not "want" to have an aversion to you any more than I "want" to have an aversion to any other person that acts in a way that I vehemently disapprove of.

I didn't say you want to have an aversion to me. I know you have an aversion to me regardless of your wants. What I am saying is that you may find that you want to be opposed to me on every point simply because you are so strongly opposed to me on this one point.

I have already stated my belief that whilst I believe imagining a child whilst you jack off is wrong I do not believe it is something that can or should be legislated on. Laws should not prohibit ones thoughts, however obtaining a visual stimulus on the other hand is an action that can be legislated against.
But why is one an action and the other not? If obtaining such stimuli doesn't reward the abuser, why is that any more active than simply using one's own immagination? I can't see a difference, morally or in terms of effect on the outside world.

The only difference I see is that one is provable and the other is not. If that's your dividing line, you don't really disagree with thought crime in theory. You just don't believe it is enforcable.
I find it hard to believe that a paedophile could ever be totally at ease with themselves morally as you seem to be claiming you are, you want to know where the line is - take a look over your shoulder.
Hard to believe or not. I exist. I came to terms with what I am a long time ago. It's not something I can change, and not something I would change if I could. I know where my line is.

It doesn't matter much to me that your line happens to be located at the point where you can prove I think like this.

To all: I think it's sad that so many posters on this forum seem to have such a limited notion of morality that anything is fine so long as nobody is directly hurt. I feel like society is sleepwalking into some kind of malaise where we cannot oppose the detestable if it does not violate John Stuart Mill's harm principle. It's very sad.

Space Mormons: Had you read more than one of my posts you would have discovered that I was offering examples of things that are clearly wrong yet do not directly harm another. Evidently I failed since the act of necrophilia is not sufficiently disgusting and depraved to warrant the condemnation of the five castes.

He has not admitted to watching children being victimised but yet has had ample opportunity to deny that he has and has not chosen to do so. The rest of your sentence did not seem to correspond to what I said so I'll repeat:

"In this instance, as I have said, taking pleasure out of the suffering, exploitation and abuse of children is wrong whether or not it makes the slightest bit of difference to the plight of the child concerned."

The difference between paedophiles and child molesters strikes me as being decidedly similar to the difference between "respectable" Nazis that would never beat up a Jew themselves and the SA who would be more than happy to do so. It's a loose offhand comparison so don't waste your time telling me why it doesn't relate.

5 castes: Majority belief in something does not make it an automatic truth, but popular support of an idea or a belief does add weight to the argument that their belief is more likely to be an accurate or justified one.

I do not "want" to have an aversion to you any more than I "want" to have an aversion to any other person that acts in a way that I vehemently disapprove of.

I have already stated my belief that whilst I believe imagining a child whilst you jack off is wrong I do not believe it is something that can or should be legislated on. Laws should not prohibit ones thoughts, however obtaining a visual stimulus on the other hand is an action that can be legislated against. I find it hard to believe that a paedophile could ever be totally at ease with themselves morally as you seem to be claiming you are, you want to know where the line is - take a look over your shoulder.
I am of the opinion, that you sir, are a religious zealot. One of many who are trying to turn the US into theocratic regime with laws based on a twisted interpretation of the Bible. Much like Al Qaeda is trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What are you guys going to do next? Ban young women from wearing shorts, skirts, or even short sleeved shirts? Censoring music lyrics and movies? How about book censorship? Are you going to start censoring what people put in their books to, if you find it morally disgusting? Where does it stop?
In the name of morality, people like you, deprive the American people of their just rights.
Wars have to be fought, because of people like you.

Further, I believe someone else said this earlier, but it is my personal opinion that you are a intolerant bigot.

Those who take away freedom in the name of security deserve neither.

What is that suppsoed to mean?!!

That "Space Mormons" is a temporary/puppet account.....

I presume you're implying that only a pedophile would argue on the same side as pedophiles, even on the individual level. That me, SN, or DSN would be the only ones to have issues with Genaia3's post.

No point here. Just calling you on your implication.

The implication is that the account is a puppet account for somebody.

In case this was an actual question, me meant that because you pointed out how messed up the criticisms being leveled were, you must just be me, Dark Shadowy Nexus, or South Nifelheim, because only a pedophile would argue against someone criticising pedophiles.

It's the same thing that used to happen whenevery anyone spoke out in favor of gay rights. People assumed that they must be gay.

Never heard of John Stuart Mill. If his principle is "do as you will but harm no one", then yes. That's pretty much the way my morality is set up. If not from the harm principle, where do your notions of morality originate? How can you even think to criminalize people who aren't hurting anyone just because they're "immoral"?

Let's take an example I've already brought up. Suppose that, like some biggots believe, homosexuality is wrong. Don't worry though, they wouldn't ever prosecute a person's thoughts. Just when those thoughts make it into action (even if that action harms no one).

The harm principle is the only way we can disempower biggots like that. If we accept that your version of victumless crimes is okay to prosecute, what makes their version any less valuable?

I KNEW IT! The only thing you were trying to do is test the depths of my commitment to the harm principle by bringing up things you thought I would condemn. It isn't that you haven't come up with a victumless crime sufficiently depraved yet. It's that there is no victumless crime sufficiently depraved to warrent condemnation by me.

If you mean sitting in the same room, nope. If I had, I'd have beaten the molester to death myself (or at least beaten him into unconsiusness and waited for the police).

If you mean viewing immages of said thing happening, I've seen them. Mostly they make me angry. They remind me of what happens when people cross th line and start hurting other people for their own gratification. I usually can't get past that feeling. It's why I don't usually go for the hardcore stuff. Not as much to be outraged about in the softcore stuff, and nothing to be outraged about in drawings and fiction.

Even so, I don't think that it would be morally wrong to derive satisfaction from such things, and I have on occasion been able to look past the harm done which is beyond my ability to fix, and derive some gratification from the end product.

I won't deny anything that's true.

I disagree.

Don't worry. My time's pretty much worthless. And it'll be fun tearing it appart besides.

The difference is that those "respectable" Nazis in your example approve of the beating up of Jews, even if they can't bring themselves to do so, and wouldn't stop it if they could. In no way do I approve of harming children for my or anyone else's gratification. If I had the power to stop this exploitation, make no mistake, I would.

Again, that only makes sense if you accept majoritarianism first.

I didn't say you want to have an aversion to me. I know you have an aversion to me regardless of your wants. What I am saying is that you may find that you want to be opposed to me on every point simply because you are so strongly opposed to me on this one point.

But why is one an action and the other not? If obtaining such stimuli doesn't reward the abuser, why is that any more active than simply using one's own immagination? I can't see a difference, morally or in terms of effect on the outside world.

The only difference I see is that one is provable and the other is not. If that's your dividing line, you don't really disagree with thought crime in theory. You just don't believe it is enforcable.

Hard to believe or not. I exist. I came to terms with what I am a long time ago. It's not something I can change, and not something I would change if I could. I know where my line is.

It doesn't matter much to me that your line happens to be located at the point where you can prove I think like this.
May I ask if you have ever personally looked at child porn?
I saw some by accident, to be quite honest. While some are nothing more than innocent nude shots, the others are so reprehensible that I cannot think of the word for it. When you see something that makes your stomach churn and you feel like vomiting but you can't vomit. And you are greatly offended at what you saw and feel it is a gross attack on human decency and fundamental human rights. For that reason, I oppose child pornography. The US Attorney General has seen samples. He knows what I am talking about. Because when he spoke about it in his speech a couple weeks back, he mentioned having the same reaction. And I'm not talking about innocent nude shots. One example I can use to describe it, comes from a newspaper account a year ago. A young girl, about 3, was deliberately cut, just so a 45 year old man's organ would fit inside her organ. How can you not find that repulsive? Or when young children are made to stick foriegn objects inside themselves? How can you not feel repulsive and outraged? How can you not feel the need to do something about it? If you look at such images and feel nothing, you are certainly are not human and cannot claim to be human.

Just accidentally seeing such things, is enough to scar a person's mind and make him want to declare war on the whole planet in the name of human decency. The closest thing I can compare such images to are the photos of victims of the Nazi holocaust. The images of the victims of Hitlers gas ovens and torture chambers. Is that something you really want to support?

Further, children cannot make rational decisions for themselves, therefore they cannot consent to be abused for the production of porn.

As one of America's founders once said, "The natural rights of mankind are such that they cannot be waived off, signed away, nor sold away."

May I ask if you have ever personally looked at child porn?

You just quoted a post of mine where I said I had. Did you even read it?

I saw some by accident, to be quite honest. While some are nothing more than innocent nude shots, the others are so reprehensible that I cannot think of the word for it. When you see something that makes your stomach churn and you feel like vomiting but you can't vomit.

Yep. It comes in all kinds. Telling that it's all the same in the eyes of the law.

And you are greatly offended at what you saw and feel it is a gross attack on human decency and fundamental human rights. For that reason, I oppose child pornography. The US Attorney General has seen samples. He knows what I am talking about. Because when he spoke about it in his speech a couple weeks back, he mentioned having the same reaction.

I'm sorry, but the US Atorney General is not someone I want to be taking moral advice from.

And I'm not talking about innocent nude shots. One example I can use to describe it, comes from a newspaper account a year ago. A young girl, about 3, was deliberately cut, just so a 45 year old man's organ would fit inside her organ. How can you not find that repulsive? Or when young children are made to stick foriegn objects inside themselves? How can you not feel repulsive and outraged? How can you not feel the need to do something about it? If you look at such images and feel nothing, you are certainly are not human and cannot claim to be human.

Again, did you read the post you quoted? I talked about a sense of moral outrage.

Just accidentally seeing such things, is enough to scar a person's mind and make him want to declare war on the whole planet in the name of human decency.

I've been in the mood to wipe out humankind myself over some of the abuses I've become aware of. The people who create the stuff you're talking about are horrible people abusing children for fun or profit.

The closest thing I can compare such images to are the photos of victims of the Nazi holocaust. The images of the victims of Hitlers gas ovens and torture chambers. Is that something you really want to support?
I think I'll again try to be clear. While there's nothing wrong with viewing and enjoying such immages, there's plenty wrong with creating them in the first place.

(And isn't there a rule somewhere that says when you bring up the Nazis you've run out of valid arguements?)
Further, children cannot make rational decisions for themselves, therefore they cannot consent to be abused for the production of porn.

As one of America's founders once said, "The natural rights of mankind are such that they cannot be waived off, signed away, nor sold away."
Again, did I disagree? A person cannot conscent to be tortured, and that's the ultimate result of such experiences, sooner or later. Even if there's no abuse in the relationship itself, society will traumatise the child as much as an actual rape would. Since a person cannot conscent to be tortured, a child cannot conscent to sex in this society.

Yep. It comes in all kinds. Telling that it's all the same in the eyes of the law.

They're not, actually. Those "innocent nude shots" are legally permitted in the United States and many other western nations. You can buy photography books in mainstream stores featuring them. Amazon. Barnes & Noble.

If you look at such images and feel nothing, you are certainly are not human and cannot claim to be human.

I had a professor at University who held exactly that position. He couldn't defend it, either.

What is your standard, them, for determining whether someone is human? Reduce humanity to a universal maxim so that I might be able to tell whether someone counts as human by your reckoning.

As one of America's founders once said, "The natural rights of mankind are such that they cannot be waived off, signed away, nor sold away."

This statement I would also consider indefensible. Without defining those natural rights, it's largely meaningless, but even with those definitions, why shouldn't someone be permitted to trade away his rights?

I am of the opinion, that you sir, are a religious zealot. One of many who are trying to turn the US into theocratic regime with laws based on a twisted interpretation of the Bible. Much like Al Qaeda is trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What are you guys going to do next? Ban young women from wearing shorts, skirts, or even short sleeved shirts? Censoring music lyrics and movies? How about book censorship? Are you going to start censoring what people put in their books to, if you find it morally disgusting? Where does it stop?
In the name of morality, people like you, deprive the American people of their just rights.
Wars have to be fought, because of people like you.

Further, I believe someone else said this earlier, but it is my personal opinion that you are a intolerant bigot.

Those who take away freedom in the name of security deserve neither.

Lol - of all the things I've been accused of, I've never been accused of being a Christian zealot, I've been "a member of the right wing hit squad" and a whole other range of things but never been denounced as persuing goals similar to Al-Qaeda.

I'll indulge you, aside from the fact that I do not live in America I am pro-choice on abortion, I support euthanasia if the patient is in extreme pain and wishes to die, I believe that the first amendment is a good one, I support the separation of church and state, I support gay marriage and despise Jerry Falwell and the Christian Right. I do believe in God, but I would not call myself Christian since there are massive chunks within the bible that I fundamentally disagree with. I do not support censorship other than when a publication contravenes the law as it currently stands and I happen to think that a lot of women look rather attractive in short skirts.

I just don't believe that a person should be legally free to access and jerk off to child pornography.

Whilst quoting Benjamin Franklin is always fun, it's kind've pointless if it doesn't assist your argument. I also feel that if your criteria for "being a religious zealot" consisted of thinking that taking sexual pleasure out of watching children be degraded and abused is wrong then I think you'd find that the vast majority of American citizens would be religious zealots by your definition.

Do not confuse a belief in objective morality with bigotry, merely because I believe in an objective right and wrong. I think that the rule of law should, for 99% of the time be orientated around the harm principle. However, I believe that there should be some exceptions to this rule and I also believe that the "harm principle" should not be considered the be all and end all of morality. That said I think morality and legality, for 99.9% of the time, should be consigned to distinctly separate realms.

The 5 castes: I really do hope that your aggressive stance towards child molesters is something that you deeply believe and not merely something that you have convinced yourself of because it provides you with a sharp point of contrast between them and you.

You have argued well, and you have made a lot of good points (loathe though I am to say it) and whilst I will never in any way condone what you do you otherwise sound like a decent person. I'm not sure whether I'm impressed that you've kept a cool head throughout the debate and refrained from personal insults or whether it struck me as an unnatural level of detachment - perhaps a shade of both. We clearly disagree on the nature of morality per se, but the issue of paedophilia aside, perhaps not so much as it would seem.

I'll state again that I believe that obtaining sexual gratification from either watching or thinking about a child being abused is abhorrent. There was a program on the BBC Two last year about a man fighting the global child sex trade. He said something that I still remember: "Every time a child is abused, the world becomes a little less human". I take some heart in knowing that at the very least we can agree to that.

They're not, actually. Those "innocent nude shots" are legally permitted in the United States and many other western nations. You can buy photography books in mainstream stores featuring them. Amazon. Barnes & Noble.
While it is technically true that such materials are given the lip service of free speach protection, the wording of the legislation is as vague as legislation about pornography in general.

The "I know it when I see it" standard is still used as the sole determining factor for when something is classified as innocent or pornography, and thus the definition changes with the judge or prosecutor.

This statement I would also consider indefensible. Without defining those natural rights, it's largely meaningless, but even with those definitions, why shouldn't someone be permitted to trade away his rights?
I disagree. A person cannot agree to become a slave, thus trading away the right to liberty. A person cannot agree to trade away the right to free expression.

The reasons we aren't allowed to trade away such things is because if we were legally able to do so, we would be pressured to do so by those with a compelling interest.

Sure, we haven't properly enumerated all of those "natural rights", but that doesn't mean we should be so quick to abandon those we definately do put in that category like free expression and self-determination.
Lol - of all the things I've been accused of, I've never been accused of being a Christian zealot, I've been "a member of the right wing hit squad" and a whole other range of things but never been denounced as persuing goals similar to Al-Qaeda.

When you started arguing that something should be criminalised under the assumption that no one is harmed directly or indirectly, you managed to alienate at least a few people. Any theocracy would agree with your point, but secular societies have to function on the idea that the individual moral codes of their citizens often differ from one another, and that the only way to protect the rights of their citizens is to limit the extent to which the government intrudes on a person's life.

It is not the purpose of a secular government to enforce "morality" on it's populice. The purpose of a secular government is to keep its citizens from causing one another harm.

I'll indulge you, aside from the fact that I do not live in America
Doesn't mean you don't have some similarities to those in America who actually are trying to remake it into a theocracy.
I am pro-choice on abortion,
Not a popular stance with the religeous right. True.
I support euthanasia if the patient is in extreme pain and wishes to die,
I presume you would require the patient himself to express that wish, rather than allow it to be guessed by others, right?
I believe that the first amendment is a good one,

Everyone pays lip service to that. Even the religeous right. To quote yet another of the founders (as it seems to be in style here at the moment):
"Free speech is for the hard words, not the soft words."

In other words, censoring unpopular forms of expression simply on the basis that they are unpopular goes against the very spirit of the first ammendment.

I support the separation of church and state,
Then why do you believe that we should step outside a secular method of governing "just this once" to deal with the question of child pornography?
I support gay marriage and despise Jerry Falwell and the Christian Right.
I don't follow politics enough to know who Jerry Falwell is.
I do believe in God, but I would not call myself Christian since there are massive chunks within the bible that I fundamentally disagree with.

There's a lot there to disagree with. The main problem, I think, is that too many people believe that everything in it is universally applicable and relavent. Most of the rules written therein were written for a specific society dealing with a specific set of problems. The pork and shellfish prohibitions were likely about preventing disease, rather than some indication of causing spiritual uncleanliness. As for the really objectionable stuff, content yourself in the knowledge that the Bible, even if dictated directly by God, was penned, edited, and translated by us fallable human beings.

Do what most reasonable Christians do. Take what makes sense, and ignore the rest of it.

I do not support censorship other than when a publication contravenes the law as it currently stands

That actually means something different than I think you think it means. It means that so long as someone passes a law against something, it automatically becomes okay for censorship to take place.

and I happen to think that a lot of women look rather attractive in short skirts.

I prefer tight pants myself. Most of the short skirt types, just come off as skanky. (Yea I'm a pedophile, but that doesn't mean I'm only attracted to kids.)

I just don't believe that a person should be legally free to access and jerk off to child pornography.

So you just believe in censoring this one kind of media... and criminalising this one kind of thought.

Whilst quoting Benjamin Franklin is always fun, it's kind've pointless if it doesn't assist your argument. I also feel that if your criteria for "being a religious zealot" consisted of thinking that taking sexual pleasure out of watching children be degraded and abused is wrong then I think you'd find that the vast majority of American citizens would be religious zealots by your definition.

The zealot thing was actually reffering to your suggestion that people be punished for a harmless indulgence.

Do not confuse a belief in objective morality with bigotry, merely because I believe in an objective right and wrong. I think that the rule of law should, for 99% of the time be orientated around the harm principle. However, I believe that there should be some exceptions to this rule and I also believe that the "harm principle" should not be considered the be all and end all of morality. That said I think morality and legality, for 99.9% of the time, should be consigned to distinctly separate realms.

And I take it that this is the only instance that fits into the .1% of the time that legislating "morality" is okay? If so, I think this is definately a case of you adopting exceptions to your philosophies just so that you can be against us pedophiles on every situation.

The 5 castes: I really do hope that your aggressive stance towards child molesters is something that you deeply believe and not merely something that you have convinced yourself of because it provides you with a sharp point of contrast between them and you.

I actually have more reason to dislike them than you do. Not only do I have the same moral outrage that you have to their abuses, but the fact that people can't generally tell the difference between a pedophile and a child molester means that I end up taking crap because of their reprehensible actions.

You have argued well, and you have made a lot of good points (loathe though I am to say it) and whilst I will never in any way condone what you do you otherwise sound like a decent person.

And while I'll never condone overreaching beyond the harm principle with our legal system and allowing exceptions to what should be absolute protections, I think you otherwise sound like a decent person as well.

I'm not sure whether I'm impressed that you've kept a cool head throughout the debate and refrained from personal insults or whether it struck me as an unnatural level of detachment - perhaps a shade of both.

I'm on the side that's losing, so I can't bring anything but my A game.

As for the "unnatural level of detachment" I was always taught that it was important to keep one's emotions in check when you're in a fight (whether a physical confrontation or a debate as we've been having). Letting too much emotion show usually undermines your arguement.

Also, I derive a great deal of forditude from my absolute knowledge that I'm right. (Real arrogance means that you aren't as worried about whether your arguements will hold water, so you don't snap as easily when someone challenges them.)

We clearly disagree on the nature of morality per se, but the issue of paedophilia aside, perhaps not so much as it would seem.

I hope that's true. If it weren't, I truly would have been wasting my time trying to get you to compare your stance on this issue to your overarching moral code and see the contradictions.

I'll state again that I believe that obtaining sexual gratification from either watching or thinking about a child being abused is abhorrent.

And I'll state again that there's nothing wrong with thinking or doing whatever the hell you feel like so long as no one else is affected by those thoughts or actions.

There was a program on the BBC Two last year about a man fighting the global child sex trade. He said something that I still remember: "Every time a child is abused, the world becomes a little less human". I take some heart in knowing that at the very least we can agree to that.
While I wouldn't use those exact words, I do agree with the sentiment.

The implication is that the account is a puppet account for somebody.
Well, with all due respect, which is none, fuck you.
So, because I've recently joined and happen to agree with Five Castes, that means my opinions don't matter? That you have some reason for believing that I'm not a real person?

Five Castes, I admire your honesty and forthrightness. As I understand it you cannot be held accountable for your sexuality, only for how you excercise your actions.

I oviously object to any form of abuse or sexual exploitation. Which I understand you do also.

As a Gay man, I know what it's like to experience the hatred and bigotry of others. I cannot judge you because you do not seem to have knowingly abused any other individual, I also note that you are happy with your sexuality. That I can understand, I would not wish to be heterosexual.

I think the main point is however, that your type of sexuality will never be accepted within the present western culture. While I admire your determination to face up to this difficulty, I cannot help but feel sympathy for how this must have blighted your life and relationships.

Sadly, I don't believe the average paedophile has similar viewpoints to those which you so honestly describe.

Well, with all due respect, which is none, fuck you.
So, because I've recently joined and happen to agree with Five Castes, that means my opinions don't matter? That you have some reason for believing that I'm not a real person?
You hit the nail right on the head. That's exactly the implication.
Five Castes, I admire your honesty and forthrightness. As I understand it you cannot be held accountable for your sexuality, only for how you excercise your actions.

That would be the reasonable view, but people get unreasonable around this subject. It may not be legally a crime to be a pedophile, but that doesn't mean that someone who doesn't abuse kids is off the hook.

If you think gays get discriminated against in employment, think about what an employer would do with an open pedophile. Add to that the presence of an entire subdivision of the police force dedicated to entraping us, and you've got plenty of systemic discrimination.

I oviously object to any form of abuse or sexual exploitation. Which I understand you do also.

Of course. Just because I happen to be attracted to people who can't conscent doesn't mean that I'm in favor of rape.

As a Gay man, I know what it's like to experience the hatred and bigotry of others. I cannot judge you because you do not seem to have knowingly abused any other individual,

Often the people I've talked about who are similarly disciminated against don't learn the lessons about the evils of hatrid and biggotry, but rather they become more dedicated to "paying forward" that intollerance. I'm glad to hear that you've managed to avoid that trap.

I also note that you are happy with your sexuality. That I can understand, I would not wish to be heterosexual.

I would never want to change my psychiatric makeup in any way, even if it were something society would view as an "improvement". Who I am is a delacate tapestry made up of the desirable and undesirable qualities alike. Pull on one lose thread, and the entire tapestry starts to unravel.

I think the main point is however, that your type of sexuality will never be accepted within the present western culture. While I admire your determination to face up to this difficulty, I cannot help but feel sympathy for how this must have blighted your life and relationships.

You're right that this will probably not be accepted in my lifetime. Opinions move too slowly for me to expect significant change in a subject so taboo that people refuse to even talk about it.

It has caused stress in my relationships. Have to keep secrets from my family and can't confide in even my closest friends because of how the knowledge would effect our relationship. This may be a different closet, but there's a lot of similarity in how it effects a person.

Sadly, I don't believe the average paedophile has similar viewpoints to those which you so honestly describe.
I think you may be right, but I wonder if the stress induced by the taboo itself might not be exacerbating the antisocial tendencies of some pedophiles. It's one thing to have a sexual desire you can't act on in good consience, but how about one that you can't even talk about for fear of violent consequences, one that puts you in a power category than a murderer just for thinking about it. You get called a demon enough times, and it becomes pretty easy to believe the hype.

In the eyes of the public, the only difference between a pedophile and a child molester is oportunity. That's it. We're constantly told that we're incapable of consience. When society tells you that there's no difference between one that doesn't act and one who does, what modivation is there to abstain?

I'm not trying to justify them, because there's no justification for subjecting innocent people to emotional torture. What I am trying to do is explain, in some small measure, why there seems to be such a disproportionate percentage of sociopaths in my sexuality.

It woud help my case if we were all saints, but that's an impossible standard. There are monsters in every category we put people in. I just want people to understand that we aren't all monsters.

Well, with all due respect, which is none, fuck you.
So, because I've recently joined and happen to agree with Five Castes, that means my opinions don't matter? That you have some reason for believing that I'm not a real person?

My my such a vulgarian.

It's a common tactic to use puppets to support arguments. You have to wonder when you see a new entry with a low post count.

Meh!

Enjoy.

I think the main point is however, that your type of sexuality will never be accepted within the present western culture.

Nobody in their "right" mind would trust one around a child. How do you tell if he is safe or not? You can't. A child has next to no chance at defending itself so people do get uptight. How many times have you heard the suprise when a person attacked a child?

So as a parent why would you take the chance?

It's not Western culture that holds this attitude, it's the same the world over.

Finally, your being gay is a little different. People will accept it before they accept pedophiles. Why? Because it involves adults.

Nobody in their "right" mind would trust one around a child. How do you tell if he is safe or not? You can't. A child has next to no chance at defending itself so people do get uptight. How many times have you heard the suprise when a person attacked a child?

So as a parent why would you take the chance?

It's not Western culture that holds this attitude, it's the same the world over.

Finally, your being gay is a little different. People will accept it before they accept pedophiles. Why? Because it involves adults.It wasn't so many years ago that no one would trust a homosexual around a child. But people became more aware that homosexuality did not equal child abuse. It was just another type of sexuality.

Children, like all of us are always at risk. No one is free from risk. The crime is not being a paedophile, it's committing an act of abuse that's the potential crime.

You are wrong about your assertion that it's a worldwide phenomenon that abhors paedophilism. Children under the age of 12, in India can be married off to adults over the age of 18. This is all done quite legally and with the glad consent of parents and the community.

As a person who has experienced bigotry and homophobia, I am not willing to go along with the mob and denounce paedophiles for their sexuality. They did not choose to have the sexuality they have, nor did I, nor did you.

If you abuse someone then obviously you are worse than a paedophile, however does that mean that all people who share your sexuality are just like you and should be subject to hatred and vilification?

It wasn't so many years ago that no one would trust a homosexual around a child. But people became more aware that homosexuality did not equal child abuse. It was just another type of sexuality.

Yes people were rather stupid. Even today there are some that will argue it's the homos that are attacking kids in the Priesthood.


Children, like all of us are always at risk. No one is free from risk. The crime is not being a paedophile, it's committing an act of abuse that's the potential crime.


Yes they are always at risk. But why increase the risk by letting them around known pedophiles?


You are wrong about your assertion that it's a worldwide phenomenon that abhors paedophilism. Children under the age of 12, in India can be married off to adults over the age of 18. This is all done quite legally and with the glad consent of parents and the community.

Buried in this thread is the discussion of 9 year olds. We are not talking about preteens. Even in India, how many people are going to let a 9 year old near a known pedophile. Not that many. I know because I have been there. A molester was beaten to death one day.


As a person who has experienced bigotry and homophobia, I am not willing to go along with the mob and denounce paedophiles for their sexuality. They did not choose to have the sexuality they have, nor did I, nor did you.


That's your choice. Your sexualilty involes adults. Not an adult and a child.


If you abuse someone then obviously you are worse than a paedophile, however does that mean that all people who share your sexuality are just like you and should be subject to hatred and vilification?

I have never suggested these people need to be run out of town. I just like to know who they are. I have 2 in the neighborhood and you don't find me or the other people burning them out.

You may think it's ok to be a pedophile. You are in a tiny group. Homosexuality will be accepted one day. Hell the fact people don't have to hide in the closet says things are improving.

Pedos will never be accepted simply because of the objects of their desire.