NationStates Jolt Archive

I used to live with a convicted child molester. I knew about it at the time. And I found him a bit creepy.

Did the neighbours know? No. Would I leave my kids alone with him? No.

5 castes:

You really needn't have gone through my post to check my non-evangelical credentials, I'm about as much a member of the Christian right as Mao Zedong. Jerry Falwell, incidentally, is a prominent television evangelist and the founder of a group called "The Moral Majority". He claimed that 9/11 was the fault of the liberals/homosexuals/ACLU/abortionists/feminists etc because they incurred God's wrath. He is also a professional dickhead.

Given that the percentage of people that believe that accessing child pornography websites should remain a criminal offence is likely to be overwhelming (I can't quote you a figure offhand, but I'm sure you'll agree that's true) the mere fact that I also believe this certainly does not make me in any way a hardcore Christian. I'll be honest, I'm actually laughing as I write this since it really is probably the most inaccurate thing I've ever been accused of.

I also said "I support the law as it CURRENTLY stands" - which means that were a new law passed prohibiting the circulation of all documents that mention say...homosexuals, I would not support that. You mis-read what I said.

You should take note that when I state that I believe something is immoral I am not necessarily implying that I believe it should be illegal. I'd also like to point out, just for the record and to dispel any illusions you may harbour, when I use the word "immoral" I do not mean to use it in the Christian sense - I do not derive what I believe to be right from any religious document or text. I also am not calling what you are immoral, but rather what you choose to do - even though I recognise that child abuse and paedophilia are not necessarily the same thing.

I do not seek to be against paedophiles in all occasions, if for instance you had said "I think George Bush has had a poor record in office, also I use child pornography" I would have agreed with you re Bush but condemned you for the second part. I do not seek to oppose you on all issues, just this one.

I find myself in a difficult position on this general subject since I, almost invariably would support the assertion that it is not the duty of a state to prescribe what is right but rather to protect the rights of its citizens. But then no ideology is entirely consistent. To claim as you do that a government should not impose or promote objective values on its people but rather uphold their rights and liberties contradicts itself since by taking such a stance you are stating that government should promote the value of freedom. No ideological outlook is entirely without its contradictions and whilst I'll almost invariably be on the other side of the argument, in this case I will not.

On my way home from school today, I was sitting....


I also really felt like ranting about it to someone.

Something like "Excuse me, sir...." or something. If I did hit him it probably would have killed him.

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.
How can you trust a woman around a straight man then, or vice versa? Or a gay man to be around a man?

How can you trust a woman around a straight man then, or vice versa? Or a gay man to be around a man?

Again ADULT vs CHILD......

Again ADULT vs CHILD......

Well, not really. In both cases, tghe person you're afraid of in an adult. In one, you trust that adult not to make unwatend advances. In the second case, you don't.

The only difference is that in the second case those advances will always be unwanted.

I'm not sure that there can be any laws passed to prevent people from looking at eachother. It's terrible that pedophiles can get off on watching kids, but it's too slippery a slope to attempt to try people on such means. Instead, parents should put some effort into making sure their children are dressed as appropriately as possible, and that the kids know not to talk to strangers. Most parents probably already do that, but I can't think of any other solutions.

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?Padophillia, in my opinion, is not a sexual orientation. I believe people have choice when commiting pedophilia, unlike when they are homosexuality. I think pedophillia is taking advantage of a child, and thus disagree with you there.

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.
Then why does Playboy (and other of their not-raunchy competitors) have a minimum age of 18? That does not add up.

All I can say about this issue is that I have saved my very best and very, very, very special rewards for all those sane men and women that engage on pedophilia.

I will receive them in my Kingdom with twelve arms wide open. I shall embrace them like brothers and they shall feast on my body one last time, before receiving what is theirs.

"Yes people were rather stupid. Even today there are some that will argue it's the homos that are attacking kids in the Priesthood."
So if homosexual paerdophiles abuse kids does that mean all priests are paedophiles or homosexuals? Just remember, it was you who raised this spurious notion. You cannot just say something inflamatory, then distance yourself from the bigotry.



"Yes they are always at risk. But why increase the risk by letting them around known pedophiles?"
The point I was making is that being at risk is part of life. Perhaps, you can spend some time with a non abusive paedophile who will hopefully help you identify the difference between abuse and having a paedophile sexuality.


"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."
I don't think it's that important to start distinctions between childrens ages, whether 9 or 14, a child is still a child. If you go along with your argument, it seems to be okay to allow adults to have sexual encounters with 12 year olds but not 9 year olds. I also have been to India but have never encountered a situation like the one you describe. Instead, I have seen children as young as 8 or 9, doing work that would be better done by adults, that I think is just as abusive as any sexual abuse.



"That's your choice. Your sexualilty involes adults. Not an adult and a child."
I do not choose to be gay, you (presumably) do not choose to be heterosexual and the paedophile does not choose his or her sexuality.



"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."
However, you do not criticise the violent thugs who do such things, you do not question your involvement in maintaining that mindset of judgement and violent response. You may not be part of the mob who runs paedophiles out of town but neither do you call for tolerance where no abuse has been committed

"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."
I'm not sure that I think it's okay to be a paedophile, I can't imagine what it's like. However, I can empathise with being on the receiving end of unreasoning hostility and hatred. In my experience, it's the bigots who are the true abusers, where no crime has been committed what gives the bigots the right to commit crimes. If child abuse has been found to have taken place, do I think violence is the accepted response....absolutely not. When you use violence against abusers, you become just like them....abusers.

"Pedos will never be accepted simply because of the objects of their desire."
I don't accept abusers of any type but I don't weant to judge people simply because they have a sexuality that is against what is perceived as "normal" How can a paedophile who is innocent of any form of abuse be held accountable for that which they haven't done?

Padophillia, in my opinion, is not a sexual orientation. I believe people have choice when commiting pedophilia, unlike when they are homosexuality. I think pedophillia is taking advantage of a child, and thus disagree with you there.I disagree, you (I guess) never at any point in your life decided "now what sexuality shall I decide to be". We are what we naturally develop ourselves to be. I didn't conciously decide one day to be gay, I simply am. Therefore, knowing as I do the intolerance towards homosexuality, why would I choose to embrace this?

I am gay, I enjoy being gay (though not the journey of self acceptance). I take from this that it cannot be too different for a paedophile.

If you have been reading 5 castes posts, which he writes with conviction and honesty, I think you have to see; here is a paedophile who chooses not to abuse but is nonetheless a paedophile.

As a human being, I have more respect for the honesty of 5 castes position of dealing with his/her sexuality, than I would do for the average bigotted and prejudiced attitude towards paedophilism.

I for one can distinguish between abuse, which comes in many forms, all of which is unacceptable and the dilemma of those whose sexuality is repugnant to the majority of society. Sexuality should not equate to abuse. Ignorance of others sexuality also should not equate to abuse.

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.
Actually not so. You can be arrested for taking pictures of your kids. Especially if they are naked in the bathtub. It happened to a woman in Kentucky with the Photomart called the police and accused her of being a pedophile. There was no investigation or anything. Just some wacko religious nut employee making a baseless acusation. And the woman had her kids seized by the state and spent 90 days in jail and ordered never to be around kids again.
Try telling me that she was not the victim of a witchhunt. What's next, arresting mothers for kissing their newborn babies and labeling them criminals for life?

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.
Okay, then I guess all noobs are puppets and their opinions can be immediately discounted.
HOW DARE YOU?!!!!
You think that I've lied about everything, that I'm just the product of some pedophile's imagination!!
You make these RIDICULOUS accusation, without any form pf evidence except for my low post count!
And what REALLY upsets me is that you think I lied about being sexually abused as a child. You think that I MADE IT ALL UP!!! Sometimes, he'd use a broken bottle instead of himself. You know how painful it was, and how long it took for my mom to dig out all the shards of glass? No. You don;'t care, because you think I'm not real.
Well, once again, fuck you.

Well, not really. In both cases, tghe person you're afraid of in an adult. In one, you trust that adult not to make unwatend advances. In the second case, you don't.

The only difference is that in the second case those advances will always be unwanted.

Yes the cases involve unwanted advances. Yet, there is a chance the adult could fight if the advance turns to force. A child has zero chances.

An adult can distrust a friendly face. Most children even when told about "strangers" still get tricked by one.

An adult knows what he wants with sex (well they are supposed to by then) a child barely knows what it is.

They are not the same.

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?

Why should anyone trust you around a child? How can they tell if you are safe or not? They can't.

I'm arround kids every day, and have seen plenty of oportunities to abuse the position of power and authority I've been trusted with. I don't avail myself of those oportunities. Given that I'm being honest about this, why does the fact that I've not abused anyone not suggest that I should be trusted.

So as a parent why would you take the chance?

Always, it's a chance when you let your kids out of your sight. You do the best you can to protect them, but needless steriotyping is not helpful. You don't leave your kids alone with "ordinary" rapists or murderers, and generally leaving your kids with someone you don't know is a bad idea (why I think parents should be more involved in their kids school life). Why is an admited pedophile who has proven repeatedly that he can be trusted not to act on that impulse less trustworthy than the total strangers parents leave their kids with?

It's not Western culture that holds this attitude, it's the same the world over.

I'll admit that most cultures value their children, but are you saying that they're all as sexually obsessed as the US?

Finally, your being gay is a little different. People will accept it before they accept pedophiles. Why? Because it involves adults.
That's pretty much the case.
Yes people were rather stupid. Even today there are some that will argue it's the homos that are attacking kids in the Priesthood.

As oposed to who it really is:
Sexually repressed priests who took a vow of celebacy they don't have it in them to keep.

Yes they are always at risk. But why increase the risk by letting them around known pedophiles?

Do you let young children go out alone anyway? Are you just dropping your kids off at places without leaving them with adults you would trust to defend them, should something happen? I get the impression that you think I'm asking you to drop your kids off at my house while you go see a movie, armed with only my word that I'm not going to hurt them. You should leave your kids only with people you can trust. I just don't think my sexuality makes me inherently untrustworthy.

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.

What the hell? The word preteen means twelve and under. That includes 9 year olds.

And a molester is a rapist. Don't confuse them with pedophies.

That's your choice. Your sexualilty involes adults. Not an adult and a child.

And it's your choice to denounce me along with the rest of the mob, I suppose. I just wish you'd realise you're condemning me for something outside my ability to control and something that doesn't hurt anyone.

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.

Would those 2 people be pedophiles, or convicted child molesters? I ask because usually the only ones you get to hear about are the child molesters. Pedophiles who haven't done anything wrong generally try to stay off the radar.

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.

And when homosexuality does become accepted, I hope they'll remember how horrible it is to be persecuted for having an unpopular sexualty. I hope they remember that no one choses who or what they're attracted to. I hope they remember that they were once the victums of thought-crime style legislation, and how immoral that is, regardless of the target.

Pedos will never be accepted simply because of the objects of their desire.
I hope you're wrong. I've managed to get a few people to see the difference between a pedophile and a child molester, and hopefully there are enough open minds out there that those of you who can't tell the difference will be in the minority.
5 castes:

You really needn't have gone through my post to check my non-evangelical credentials, I'm about as much a member of the Christian right as Mao Zedong.

It's all right. It was fun.

Jerry Falwell, incidentally, is a prominent television evangelist and the founder of a group called "The Moral Majority". He claimed that 9/11 was the fault of the liberals/homosexuals/ACLU/abortionists/feminists etc because they incurred God's wrath. He is also a professional dickhead.

Okay. Thanks. I'd herad of the group and their stand, but not the man himself.

Given that the percentage of people that believe that accessing child pornography websites should remain a criminal offence is likely to be overwhelming (I can't quote you a figure offhand, but I'm sure you'll agree that's true) the mere fact that I also believe this certainly does not make me in any way a hardcore Christian. I'll be honest, I'm actually laughing as I write this since it really is probably the most inaccurate thing I've ever been accused of.

To be clear to anyone who might have misinterpreted, I'm actually not the one who called you a right wing zeleot. I know you don't need to be on the right to be oposed to this. There are even anarchists who have problems with child porn.

I also said "I support the law as it CURRENTLY stands" - which means that were a new law passed prohibiting the circulation of all documents that mention say...homosexuals, I would not support that. You mis-read what I said.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

In that case, good for you. The law happens to support your way of doing things for today. Hope they don't change the law to something you wouldn't support tomarrow. If they do, there'll be plenty of people, probably a majority, who think that the new form of censorship is perfectly acceptable.

You should take note that when I state that I believe something is immoral I am not necessarily implying that I believe it should be illegal.

No, but you did overreach the harm principle when you advocated criminalizing the "action" of getting off on kiddie porn. Even when there is no way the obtaining and enjoying of said photos makes any difference one way or the other to the welfare of the child.

I'd also like to point out, just for the record and to dispel any illusions you may harbour, when I use the word "immoral" I do not mean to use it in the Christian sense - I do not derive what I believe to be right from any religious document or text.

I understand. I still don't think this particular moral stance of yours originates in some higher plane of "true morality". I think you've just internalised the taboo that is so strong in our society, and mistaken it for an absolute moral truth.

I also am not calling what you are immoral, but rather what you choose to do - even though I recognise that child abuse and paedophilia are not necessarily the same thing.

So I'm not immoral for being attracted to children? I'm just immoral for releasing my sexual tension through immages rather than letting it build up (with potentially disasterous results)?

I do not seek to be against paedophiles in all occasions, if for instance you had said "I think George Bush has had a poor record in office, also I use child pornography" I would have agreed with you re Bush but condemned you for the second part. I do not seek to oppose you on all issues, just this one.

It's good to hear you say that, because, as a matter of fact I do think George W. Bush has had a poor record in office.

I find myself in a difficult position on this general subject since I, almost invariably would support the assertion that it is not the duty of a state to prescribe what is right but rather to protect the rights of its citizens. But then no ideology is entirely consistent. To claim as you do that a government should not impose or promote objective values on its people but rather uphold their rights and liberties contradicts itself since by taking such a stance you are stating that government should promote the value of freedom. No ideological outlook is entirely without its contradictions and whilst I'll almost invariably be on the other side of the argument, in this case I will not.
And I really want to know why you happen to be violating a pattern that you generally hold to in order to take a strong stand against this?
Again ADULT vs CHILD......
Are your sexual relationships as adversarial as MAN vs WOMAN?
I'm not sure that there can be any laws passed to prevent people from looking at eachother. It's terrible that pedophiles can get off on watching kids, but it's too slippery a slope to attempt to try people on such means. Instead, parents should put some effort into making sure their children are dressed as appropriately as possible, and that the kids know not to talk to strangers. Most parents probably already do that, but I can't think of any other solutions.
I should probably mention that covering kids up isn't going to make a significant difference. Let them wear what's comfortable for the weather and what they're going to be doing. No need to have them covered head to toe in 90 degree weather because you're worried someone "might look at them". That's what we call being overprotective.

Of course teaching them not to talk to strangers is important. Equally important is that they have multiple positive adult figures in their lifes who know them and care about them. That makes it easier for them to tell someone if and when something does happen.
Padophillia, in my opinion, is not a sexual orientation. I believe people have choice when commiting pedophilia, unlike when they are homosexuality. I think pedophillia is taking advantage of a child, and thus disagree with you there.
Wait. Are you saying that pedophiles can chose not to be attracted to children, or are you saying that gays can't chose not to have sex? Your meaning got lost somewhere in there.
Then why does Playboy (and other of their not-raunchy competitors) have a minimum age of 18? That does not add up.
BINGO
I disagree, you (I guess) never at any point in your life decided "now what sexuality shall I decide to be". We are what we naturally develop ourselves to be. I didn't conciously decide one day to be gay, I simply am. Therefore, knowing as I do the intolerance towards homosexuality, why would I choose to embrace this?

Apparently, there are people who have accepted that your sexuality isn't a choice, but reject the idea that I have no choice in mine. And I would have even less reason to chose this sexuality than you would have had to chose yours. (After all, you at least have a chance to find conscenting partners.)

I am gay, I enjoy being gay (though not the journey of self acceptance). I take from this that it cannot be too different for a paedophile.

I immagine it is much the same.

If you have been reading 5 castes posts, which he writes with conviction and honesty, I think you have to see; here is a paedophile who chooses not to abuse but is nonetheless a paedophile.

Now I'm embarrased. I never could take a complement well.

As a human being, I have more respect for the honesty of 5 castes position of dealing with his/her sexuality, than I would do for the average bigotted and prejudiced attitude towards paedophilism.

I suspect that you understand better than most how dificult it is to deal with. I just hope one day we'll be able to put an end to biggotry whatever its target.

I for one can distinguish between abuse, which comes in many forms, all of which is unacceptable and the dilemma of those whose sexuality is repugnant to the majority of society. Sexuality should not equate to abuse. Ignorance of others sexuality also should not equate to abuse.
Agreed on all counts.

Then why does Playboy (and other of their not-raunchy competitors) have a minimum age of 18? That does not add up.

It's the intent.

Damn I just forgot his name. But there was a photographer who did some shots of that. He was convicted of molestation (if I remember right; he might have been accused).

I looked into the book since so many people were screaming for it's banning and found the pictures to be innocent in their presentation. How many times have you seen children ditch cloths or get dressed with no underware?

Yes the cases involve unwanted advances. Yet, there is a chance the adult could fight if the advance turns to force. A child has zero chances.

An adult can distrust a friendly face. Most children even when told about "strangers" still get tricked by one.

An adult knows what he wants with sex (well they are supposed to by then) a child barely knows what it is.

They are not the same.
So you're saying, if I may, that you don't trust adults not to rape you. You just trust your ability to fight them off if they decide to force the issue. What a sad and frightening world you live in.

Okay, then I guess all noobs are puppets and their opinions can be immediately discounted.
HOW DARE YOU?!!!!
You think that I've lied about everything, that I'm just the product of some pedophile's imagination!!
You make these RIDICULOUS accusation, without any form pf evidence except for my low post count!
And what REALLY upsets me is that you think I lied about being sexually abused as a child. You think that I MADE IT ALL UP!!! Sometimes, he'd use a broken bottle instead of himself. You know how painful it was, and how long it took for my mom to dig out all the shards of glass? No. You don;'t care, because you think I'm not real.
Well, once again, fuck you.

Now now don't be flaming.

I didn't read all of your posts. Just were I commented.

Advice: Watch the language. Even when it's warrented, you can still get booted.

It's the intent.

Damn I just forgot his name. But there was a photographer who did some shots of that. He was convicted of molestation (if I remember right; he might have been accused).

I looked into the book since so many people were screaming for it's banning and found the pictures to be innocent in their presentation. How many times have you seen children ditch cloths or get dressed with no underware?
The point was to contest the untrue statement that Llewdor made that such photos were safe.

So you're saying, if I may, that you don't trust adults not to rape you. You just trust your ability to fight them off if they decide to force the issue. What a sad and frightening world you live in.
It's called the real world. Sometimes you have to stand up and fight someone, like if they're trying to rape you.:rolleyes:

Now now don't be flaming.

I didn't read all of your posts. Just were I commented.

Advice: Watch the language. Even when it's warrented, you can still get booted.
I should probably point out then, for your benefit, that the first post he made in this thread was this:
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's called the real world. Sometimes you have to stand up and fight someone, like if they're trying to rape you.:rolleyes:
And I'm saying that suspecting everyone of being a potential rapist is no way to live your life. If you can only trust people you feel confident you could fight off, there's no reason those people should trust you, since they wouldn't be able to fight you off.

Why should anyone trust you around a child? How can they tell if you are safe or not? They can't.

Actually they do. They see me and my girl and look at the relationship we have. Over time, I am trusted with their children.

I'm arround kids every day, and have seen plenty of oportunities to abuse the position of power and authority I've been trusted with. I don't avail myself of those oportunities. Given that I'm being honest about this, why does the fact that I've not abused anyone not suggest that I should be trusted.


Have you told them about yourself?


Why is an admited pedophile who has proven repeatedly that he can be trusted not to act on that impulse less trustworthy than the total strangers parents leave their kids with?


Because parents don't view their children as sex objects. It doesn't help your cause when guys are busted with kiddy porn.


As oposed to who it really is:
Sexually repressed priests who took a vow of celebacy they don't have it in them to keep.


And again there is your problem. How do we tell? I am not going to take chances with my kid. Few parents are....

You should leave your kids only with people you can trust. I just don't think my sexuality makes me inherently untrustworthy.

And yet that family trusted somebody across the street from them. He was friendly. He got to know the family. He took the kid, raped her, and killed her. That would not have happened if they knew what he was.

What the hell? The word preteen means twelve and under. That includes 9 year olds.

Difference of definition.

And a molester is a rapist. Don't confuse them with pedophies.
Guess what? Many if not most are attracted to children. Many have collections of photos. Many go through a sequence before they attack.

Until there is a way to distinguish the two, just about nobody is going to take a chance.


And it's your choice to denounce me along with the rest of the mob, I suppose. I just wish you'd realise you're condemning me for something outside my ability to control and something that doesn't hurt anyone.


As long as the abilty to control is the key. One slip and some kid is screwed up for a long time if not the rest of their lives.


Would those 2 people be pedophiles, or convicted child molesters? I ask because usually the only ones you get to hear about are the child molesters. Pedophiles who haven't done anything wrong generally try to stay off the radar.

One is and is a sick fuck at that. We have an asst DA up the street. His wife violated many rules to tell people she knew with kids to watch out for him. She said he was a sick bastard but would not give details.

The other involved lewd and lacivious behavior. They don't give details.


And when homosexuality does become accepted, I hope they'll remember how horrible it is to be persecuted for having an unpopular sexualty. I hope they remember that no one choses who or what they're attracted to. I hope they remember that they were once the victums of thought-crime style legislation, and how immoral that is, regardless of the target.


Again inocence of a child at play. Until there is a way to guarantee a person to contain their desires; it will never be accepted.


I hope you're wrong. I've managed to get a few people to see the difference between a pedophile and a child molester, and hopefully there are enough open minds out there that those of you who can't tell the difference will be in the minority.

Time will tell.


So I'm not immoral for being attracted to children? I'm just immoral for releasing my sexual tension through immages rather than letting it build up (with potentially disasterous results)?


There's part of the problem. The ones that attack also have pictures.


Are your sexual relationships as adversarial as MAN vs WOMAN?

Of course they are. However, an adult understands sexual intimacy. A child does not.

I should probably point out then, for your benefit, that the first post he made in this thread was this:


He?

Originally Posted by Space Mormons
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.

;)


Space? Sorry. As I mentioned, I did not read your earlier post.

Okay, then I guess all noobs are puppets and their opinions can be immediately discounted.
HOW DARE YOU?!!!!
You think that I've lied about everything, that I'm just the product of some pedophile's imagination!!
You make these RIDICULOUS accusation, without any form pf evidence except for my low post count!
And what REALLY upsets me is that you think I lied about being sexually abused as a child. You think that I MADE IT ALL UP!!! Sometimes, he'd use a broken bottle instead of himself. You know how painful it was, and how long it took for my mom to dig out all the shards of glass? No. You don;'t care, because you think I'm not real.
Well, once again, fuck you.
You need to calm down. You might want to think about walking away from the computer for a bit before making shouting posts.

Actually they do. They see me and my girl and look at the relationship we have. Over time, I am trusted with their children.

Of course they do. The point was that by the standard you were using (it's a dangerous world and we shouldn't take risks with our kids) they shouldn't. The fact that they do anyway pretty much negates your dangerous world arguement.

Have you told them about yourself?

Why should I trust them to be any more reasonable than you are?

Because parents don't view their children as sex objects. It doesn't help your cause when guys are busted with kiddy porn.

I don't think you understand what my cause is.

I also think you have a really twisted view of sexuality when you're reducing another person to the status of "object".

And again there is your problem. How do we tell? I am not going to take chances with my kid. Few parents are....

You do every day. You take the chance that the bus driver will actually take your kids to school, rather than take them to some farm in the middle of nowhere to be sold as sex slaves. You take the chance that the overstressed teachers won't snap at the next stupid request your kid makes and beat him to death. You can't tell with them either, so why do you claim that I'm so much more of a risk?

And yet that family trusted somebody across the street from them. He was friendly. He got to know the family. He took the kid, raped her, and killed her. That would not have happened if they knew what he was.

So you're saying that there's no way you can be sure, and you should keep your kids in a plastic bubble?

Difference of definition.

What definition are you using?

Guess what? Many if not most are attracted to children. Many have collections of photos. Many go through a sequence before they attack.

Myth. The FBI has indicated that the majority of abusers are not pedophiles, but rather situational offenders (most often a family member). Just like with any other form of rape, sexual attraction is secondary to the real goal of exerting dominance and power over another person.

Get the terms pedophile and child molester separated in your mind.

Until there is a way to distinguish the two, just about nobody is going to take a chance.

Actually, you're right about that. We do need to help people distinguish between the two. Here's a helpful way to tell the difference:

If a person is attracted to children, that person is a pedophile.
If a person molests a child, that person is a child molester.

As long as the abilty to control is the key. One slip and some kid is screwed up for a long time if not the rest of their lives.

In which case, I make the same claim about you. You're one slip away from raping someone and screwing them up potentially for the rest of their lives.

See how it feels to be baselessly accused of being a potential rapist?

One is and is a sick fuck at that. We have an asst DA up the street. His wife violated many rules to tell people she knew with kids to watch out for him. She said he was a sick bastard but would not give details.

The other involved lewd and lacivious behavior. They don't give details.

If you're going to let someone out of prison, you agknowledge that they aren't a threat anymore. This hypocracy is overwhelming. They let child molesters back on the street, when the know full well that they're still a danger to society. If they didn't believe they were still a danger, then they wouldn't have put up the registry.

And I note that the two people "like this" you were talking about really were child molesters rather than pedophiles who haven't done anything wrong. You don't even see how unfair you're being by lumping me in with these criminals, do you?

Again inocence of a child at play. Until there is a way to guarantee a person to contain their desires; it will never be accepted.

Then again, I call you a potential rapist, since there's no gaurentee that you'll be able to contain your desires.

Time will tell.

So long as a few more people understand the difference, progress is being made.

There's part of the problem. The ones that attack also have pictures.

My God. Did you know that most "ordinary" rapists have looked at porn before too? It must be inciting them to violence. Don't you agree?

Of course they are. However, an adult understands sexual intimacy. A child does not.
You really do have a twisted view of sex if you consider such relationships to be adversarial by their very nature.

He?

Whops. My bad. I usually don't pay much attention to gender when I'm conversing with people in this disembodied state (over the internet).

*snip*

Good day to you.

Good day to you.
You too.

[QUOTE=Space Mormons]Originally Posted by The Black Forrest
"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."

"Okay, then I guess all noobs are puppets and their opinions can be immediately discounted.
HOW DARE YOU?!!!!
You think that I've lied about everything, that I'm just the product of some pedophile's imagination!!
You make these RIDICULOUS accusation, without any form pf evidence except for my low post count!
And what REALLY upsets me is that you think I lied about being sexually abused as a child. You think that I MADE IT ALL UP!!! Sometimes, he'd use a broken bottle instead of himself. You know how painful it was, and how long it took for my mom to dig out all the shards of glass? No. You don;'t care, because you think I'm not real."

Black Forest , do you not think that perhaps you have some responsibility towards Space Mormons heightened emotional response?

Like I have said in previous posts, abuse comes in many forms. Emotional abuse through ignorance is no excuse.

I think emotional abuse is a tad melodramatic, and ignorance is an excuse. Also I think that given that Space Mormons has endured such horrors in her past the fact that some guy on an internet blog briefly thought that she wasn't real isn't going to cause any lasting damage.

Five castes:

The terms "paedophile" and "child abuser" are not mutually exclusive concepts it is possible to be a paedophile that abuses children or to be a child abusing paedophile. But here's the point - all child abusers are paedophiles but not all paedophiles are child abusers.The fact is that nobody is going to suddenly wake up one day and say to themselves out of the blue "you know what, I feel like abusing a kid today" - inevitably it will be a gradual downward slide. A person will become a paedophile before they become a child abuser.

I don't see how Black Forrest's stating that a child does not understand sexual intimacy is at all adversarial.

You stated that "power" is the motivating force, not sexual attraction for abusers. You're making the mistake of separating the two - the power of abusing a kid is a source of sexual arousal for many childs abusers, it's inexorably bound up with the whole act. Also, do you really think that power isn't a factor most non-abusing paedophiles.

Perhaps there is no way to ever completely protect children from abuse and perhaps you cannot ever completely trust anyone (sad though it is to say that). However there are ways to limit the chances of them suffering abuse. For example it would seem a lot safer to leave a child with an elderly couple you have been friends with for years than drop them off with some lonely 40 year old man that lives by himself and has a stash of kiddie-porn in his sock drawer. Surely you can see that. Surely you see that choosing the elderly couple is not merely mindless bigotry - even if the 40 year old does 'promise' that he won't touch the kid. What if it was one of your children - who would you choose.

But here's the real question, do you really think that the % of paedophiles that abuse children is no higher than the % of ordinary people that are rapists. Is that really what you are arguing?

[QUOTE=Genaia3]I think emotional abuse is a tad melodramatic, and ignorance is an excuse. Also I think that given that Space Mormons has endured such horrors in her past the fact that some guy on an internet blog briefly thought that she wasn't real isn't going to cause any lasting damage.QUOTE]
So you take it upon yourself to decide what is emotional abuse for others (or not) as the case may be.

Unless you are one who is feeling the emotion, I suggest you have no premise to make this distinction. If you clearly read the post by Space Mormons, she is indicating a great degree of emotional stress in her language, yet you can quite blithely dismiss this as "melodramatic".

You then go on to lecture 5 castes in such a fashion that you clearly have no viable argument except an unreasonable assumption based upon age.

You are adopting an irrational emotional response to something that obviously requires a rational aproach. I have been swayed by the points 5 castes makes. It puts into proper perspective some issues of concern I had about paedophiles. I have tried to do this without getting all tied up in a mindset of ignorance.

Paedophiles exist, they are not going to disappear. If there is a way they can be encouraged and supported to live reasonable and valued lives without abusing others, then I think one of the ways is for people to get off their moral high horses and regard this issue in a proper and reasonable fashion.

The point was to contest the untrue statement that Llewdor made that such photos were safe.

Miss January, 1958 was only 17. Sure, it got Hefner arrested, but the charges were dropped.

Photography by artists such as Jock Sturges and David Hamilton can be freely purchased in mainstream bookstores, and both routinely feature pictures of naked children.

If photography of naked children was illegal, you'd constantly have problems with family photos among nudists.

[QUOTE=Genaia3]I think emotional abuse is a tad melodramatic, and ignorance is an excuse. Also I think that given that Space Mormons has endured such horrors in her past the fact that some guy on an internet blog briefly thought that she wasn't real isn't going to cause any lasting damage.QUOTE]
So you take it upon yourself to decide what is emotional abuse for others (or not) as the case may be.

Unless you are one who is feeling the emotion, I suggest you have no premise to make this distinction. If you clearly read the post by Space Mormons, she is indicating a great degree of emotional stress in her language, yet you can quite blithely dismiss this as "melodramatic".

You then go on to lecture 5 castes in such a fashion that you clearly have no viable argument except an unreasonable assumption based upon age. Shame on you.

You are adopting an irrational emotional response to something that obviously requires a rational aproach. I have been swayed by the points 5 castes makes. It puts into proper perspective some issues of concern I had about paedophiles. I have tried to do this without getting all tied up in a mindset of ignorance.

Paedophiles exist, they are not going to disappear. If there is a way they can be encouraged and supported to live reasonable and valued lives without abusing others, then I think one of the ways is for people to get off their moral high horses and regard this issue in a proper and reasonable fashion.

You see when you accuse me of "taking it upon myself to decide what constitutes emotional abuse in others" you miss the glaringly obvious point that in accusing Black Forrest of emotional abuse you did just that yourself.

It is precisely our place to decide what constitutes emotional abuse in others - how else would we otherwise seek to prevent it. Also merely because a person responds in a manner that indicates distress does not necessarily mean that the person who instigated that reaction has done something heinous, much less so when they are unaware of all the circumstances surrounding that person.

If I responded to your post by telling you that I was in a car crash, that the part of my brain controlling logical deduction was severely damaged and that I was severely distressed by your accusation that my post was irrational, would you then be culpable for inflicting emotional abuse on me? Of course not.

My approach is perfectly rational, as are my arguments which I notice you choose to ignore. If your contention is that being reluctant to leave children in the presence of a convicted paedophile is irrational bigotry then it is one so absurd that it simply beggars belief.

But since you did not respond to any of my points I cannot offer any specific refutations.

I will however point out that if you're going to accuse me of an irrational and emotive response I’ll make the observation that a considerable portion of your own approach to these questions concerning paedophilia seems to have been shaped by your personal experience of homophobia and your conflation of the two separate issues.

You really do have a twisted view of sex if you consider such relationships to be adversarial by their very nature.


No, you have the twisted view here. Whether or not it is rape is not important, what is important is that you are abusing a child by taking them into a situation that they cannot completly understand that can have lasting negative repercusions on their lives. It would like me murdering a three year old that had asked me to: of course, I had consent, but the person consenting could not comprehend "death."

And there is one major difference between homosexuality and padophilia. Homosexuality can be seen in nature (animals other than humans do it). However, padophillia is not.

You see when you accuse me of "taking it upon myself to decide what constitutes emotional abuse in others" you miss the glaringly obvious point that in accusing Black Forrest of emotional abuse you did just that yourself.

[QUOTE]I thought you might try to grab this as a justification for contradicting what I said. In actual fact, I responded in an empathetic fashion to Space Mormons. You howver, completely disregarded her obvious distress with what Black Forest posted. If he had had the courage to apologise for upsetting her (albeit in ignorance, then fine, but he didn't. He ignored her distress and instead concentrated on how she was posting.

You for your part thought this was just melodramatic, thats an indifferent approach at best.
It is precisely our place to decide what constitutes emotional abuse in others - how else would we otherwise seek to prevent it. Also merely because a person responds in a manner that indicates distress does not necessarily mean that the person who instigated that reaction has done something heinous, much less so when they are unaware of all the circumstances surrounding that person.
We cannot decide what constitutes other's emotional abuse, we can merely recognise it's symptons. You may be able to deal with some things in a way that I cannot and vice versa. You are right (to a point) that someone can cause distress unknowingly, however, when it's recognised then I think it's only human to express concern and seek to alleviate such distress. Again neither you nor Black Forest thought this was necessary

If I responded to your post by telling you that I was in a car crash, that the part of my brain controlling logical deduction was severely damaged and that I was severely distressed by your accusation that my post was irrational, would you then be culpable for inflicting emotional abuse on me? Of course not.
Well actually, I may well be, I would know more about you and would therefore seek to temper how I communicate with you. I work with Austiic people and do precisely that in my professional capacity

My approach is perfectly rational, as are my arguments which I notice you choose to ignore. If your contention is that being reluctant to leave children in the presence of a convicted paedophile is irrational bigotry then it is one so absurd that it simply beggars belief.
I don't accept your arguments are rational, the way you write your posts tells a different story. I also didn't ignore your posts, if you had read earlier, you would have established that I had posted comments that dealt precisely with the arguments you are pursuing.

Also and more importantly, your comments were directed in the main towards 5 castes. From what I have read of his posts, he is quite articulate and can offer his own responses to your comments

But since you did not respond to any of my points I cannot offer any specific refutations.
As I said earlier, read my previous posts

I will however point out that if you're going to accuse me of an irrational and emotive response I’ll make the observation that a considerable portion of your own approach to these questions concerning paedophilia seems to have been shaped by your personal experience of homophobia and your conflation of the two separate issues.The main difference however, is that I am not using personal emotional issues to deal with whether paedophilism can ever be recognised and accepted withing society. Rather I have used my own experiences in dealing with homophobia, bigotry and hatred as a tool to coming to terms with what I feel about paedophilism as a sexuality. I can not say I hate any paedophile just because that is their sexuality. I (lilke many others) have different feelings towards abusers. Again, in my line of work, I have came across adults with learning difficulties and mental health issues who have been through the most awful types of abuse.

I don't think there is any valid distinction between adults and children in this regard. It's usually the vulnerable and disempowerd who become victims of abuse.

Hetrosexual adults can abuse other adults, homosexual adults can abuse other adults.
Hetrosexual adults can abuse children, homosexual adults can abuse children.

That does not mean all heterosexuals or Homosexuals will abuse either other adults or children. Somewhere amongst those people are paedophiles. Some will abuse, most (I hope) will not.

No, you have the twisted view here. Whether or not it is rape is not important, what is important is that you are abusing a child by taking them into a situation that they cannot completly understand that can have lasting negative repercusions on their lives. It would like me murdering a three year old that had asked me to: of course, I had consent, but the person consenting could not comprehend "death."
Read thses words carefully: At no point in this thread has he atmitted to having sexual relations with a child. Read them again if you didn't understand them the first time. You have no right to accuse him of doing so, simply because he is a pedophile.

And there is one major difference between homosexuality and padophilia. Homosexuality can be seen in nature (animals other than humans do it). However, padophillia is not.
This is completely irrelevant.

Anyway, with regards to Genai3 and Spurious Squirrel, I think Gneai is right. Although Black Forrest made a stupid, unfounded accusation, it by no means constituted emotional abuse and my response was overly-emotional.

Miss January, 1958 was only 17. Sure, it got Hefner arrested, but the charges were dropped.

Photography by artists such as Jock Sturges and David Hamilton can be freely purchased in mainstream bookstores, and both routinely feature pictures of naked children.

If photography of naked children was illegal, you'd constantly have problems with family photos among nudists.
The charges may have been dropped - but they were made. Meanwhile Playboy still does not accept 17yr old models AFIK.

As far as the photography books - I don't have a clue why it would be acceptable. Do you?

This is completely irrelevant.


Actually it does. It offers an answer to the question of it occuring naturally or being a choice as what has been claimed against homosexuality.

There are examples of acts between same genders.

I have not seen or read and example of pedophillia in the primate world.

This is a good example of how extreme the witchhunt has gotten:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12810956/?GG1=8199

Apparently the girl, supposedly the guy's victim, insists they never had sex. Zealous prosecuters are claiming she's lieing because they want to crucify the guy.
So they grabbed her off the street like a bunch of thugs and have locked her up and denied her right to an attorney.

She may be a hostile witness (according to the zealots) and she may only be 14 but she is still an American citizen and as such she has a right to speak with an attorney. Her basic constitutional rights are being violated. That's what happens the majority of the time in this witch hunt. People's rights get trampled and the state doesn't even have to apologize and when it does, it is only in private so the public does not know the state apologized. So the public doesn't know that the state falsely accused and imprisoned someone. Hell they don't even have to pay the victims of the false charges restitution or anything.

This is what is meant when people say that pedophilia is being to dismantle the Constitution. And the girl, it should be noted, is most definately not an enemy combatant and the country prosecutors do not have federal authority to deny her access to an attorney even if she was. Only the feds can do that.

This is a good example of how extreme the witchhunt has gotten:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12810956/?GG1=8199

Apparently the girl, supposedly the guy's victim, insists they never had sex. Zealous prosecuters are claiming she's lieing because they want to crucify the guy.
So they grabbed her off the street like a bunch of thugs and have locked her up and denied her right to an attorney.

She may be a hostile witness (according to the zealots) and she may only be 14 but she is still an American citizen and as such she has a right to speak with an attorney. Her basic constitutional rights are being violated. That's what happens the majority of the time in this witch hunt. People's rights get trampled and the state doesn't even have to apologize and when it does, it is only in private so the public does not know the state apologized. So the public doesn't know that the state falsely accused and imprisoned someone. Hell they don't even have to pay the victims of the false charges restitution or anything.

This is what is meant when people say that pedophilia is being to dismantle the Constitution. And the girl, it should be noted, is most definately not an enemy combatant and the country prosecutors do not have federal authority to deny her access to an attorney even if she was. Only the feds can do that.

But the cops think he did it. She's just lying to cover up for a child rapist. They should both be locked up for a long time. Monsters. :headbang: :mad:

Five castes:

The terms "paedophile" and "child abuser" are not mutually exclusive concepts it is possible to be a paedophile that abuses children or to be a child abusing paedophile.
That is true, though I'll point out that it's also possible to be a heterosexual male that rapes women.
But here's the point - all child abusers are paedophiles but not all paedophiles are child abusers.

Your point is incorrect. Again, the FBI has made statements to the effect that the majority of CSCs involving a minor are not perpetrated by those who fit the psychological definition of a pedophile. These people are ordinarily not attracted to children, but the desire for power and dominance gets twisted in with their sex drives, resulting in rape.

But you are right that not all pedophiles are child abusers.

The fact is that nobody is going to suddenly wake up one day and say to themselves out of the blue "you know what, I feel like abusing a kid today" - inevitably it will be a gradual downward slide.

Of course.

A person will become a paedophile before they become a child abuser.

You make it sound like there's some set path to mental illness, with pedophile being some sort of route marker along the way to being a child molester. This ignores everything we know about criminal psychology.

I don't see how Black Forrest's stating that a child does not understand sexual intimacy is at all adversarial.

He didn't. He stated that sexual relationships were inherently adversarial. He used this as support for the "power imballance" arguement against pedophelia.

You stated that "power" is the motivating force, not sexual attraction for abusers. You're making the mistake of separating the two - the power of abusing a kid is a source of sexual arousal for many childs abusers, it's inexorably bound up with the whole act.

Again, it's the power that is the source of the pleasure they get from the abuse, rather than any attraction to the child itself.

Also, do you really think that power isn't a factor most non-abusing paedophiles.

I can't speak for a majority of pedophiles. I can only speak for me. One example is not enough to indicate trends, certainly, but it is exactly the ammount required to invalidate general laws. "What goes up must come down" is disproven as soon as something goes up and doesn't come back down, for example.

Power isn't a factor for me. Sure, I like power, but it isn't tied in with my sex drive.

Perhaps there is no way to ever completely protect children from abuse and perhaps you cannot ever completely trust anyone (sad though it is to say that). However there are ways to limit the chances of them suffering abuse. For example it would seem a lot safer to leave a child with an elderly couple you have been friends with for years than drop them off with some lonely 40 year old man that lives by himself and has a stash of kiddie-porn in his sock drawer. Surely you can see that. Surely you see that choosing the elderly couple is not merely mindless bigotry - even if the 40 year old does 'promise' that he won't touch the kid. What if it was one of your children - who would you choose.

You're making a false comparison. You've already painted the elderly couple as friends and the pedophile as a stranger, which already colors the choice. Try reversing the roles. How about an elderly couple that you don't now and a pedophile they've known for years (and has proven trustworthy in that time)?

But here's the real question, do you really think that the % of paedophiles that abuse children is no higher than the % of ordinary people that are rapists. Is that really what you are arguing?
Not at all.

I am however saying that in any population, there are those who's sex drive overrides their consience for whatever reason. Sex is more important to those people than morality. This is not to say that these people always act in immoral ways, just that they do if they have no other choice.

For those people who are attracted to adults, it's possible for them to get sex through morally and socially acceptable means. For those people who are attracted to children, it is not possible.

Do you see where this is coming from?
Miss January, 1958 was only 17. Sure, it got Hefner arrested, but the charges were dropped.

But he was arrested. That kind of proves that they aren't safe, doesn't it?

Photography by artists such as Jock Sturges and David Hamilton can be freely purchased in mainstream bookstores, and both routinely feature pictures of naked children.

Never heard of them.

If photography of naked children was illegal, you'd constantly have problems with family photos among nudists.
Actually, nudists do have a disturbing tendency to get in trouble with the law over "child pornography" in their family albums.
Actually it does. It offers an answer to the question of it occuring naturally or being a choice as what has been claimed against homosexuality.

There are examples of acts between same genders.

I have not seen or read and example of pedophillia in the primate world.
Actually, I think you'll be hard pressed to find an example of animals waiting until they're 18.

Okay, that was mostly a joke.

Didn't you yourself mention that the bonobo chimpanzee will engage in sexual activities with immature bonobos, but that scientists just haven't observed this behavior to be an "exclusive" attractin to immature members of the species? I mean doesn't it sound like the only thing that "evidence" could even potentially argue is that "exclusive pedophiles" are "unnatural"?

Is intent to sexually assualt a crime, if it can be proven? Just wondering.
No. The only thing that comes close would be conspiracy to commit an offense, but a conspiracy necessarially requires more than one party.

Read thses words carefully: At no point in this thread has he atmitted to having sexual relations with a child. Read them again if you didn't understand them the first time. You have no right to accuse him of doing so, simply because he is a pedophile.

Point of fact, I've actually denied it a couple of times.

More often, rather than directly denying it, which just opens me up to being called a liar, I've spoken at some length on why it's unconsionable to expose minors to sex in this society.

No. The only thing that comes close would be conspiracy to commit an offense, but a conspiracy necessarially requires more than one party.

Ummm...That was Kiryu-shi that said that, not me...

No. The only thing that comes close would be conspiracy to commit an offense, but a conspiracy necessarially requires more than one party. Ummm...That was Kiryu-shi that said that, not me...

Um, yeah...

And also, as a note, I was sorta angry at life at the time of that post, I know all the arguements against it. Another note, I have been getting on the same bus since then, and I have never seen that guy again (which makes me suspect he is not some calculated child molestor). Just in case anyone was wondering.

Genaia 3: Please stop saying that because someone is a child abuser, that automatically means he is also a pedophile. Although the two traits can co-exist, by no means does one require the other. My father, for example, had no sexual attraction to me at all. He was simply using it as a means to keep me downtrodden and under his control. He was a sadist, not a pedophile.

I would have decked the asshole.

I would have decked the asshole.
Why? He had no evidence or any reason the believe that the man was doing anything other than enjoying watching a child. That's unprovoked assault, that is.

Didn't you yourself mention that the bonobo chimpanzee will engage in sexual activities with immature bonobos, but that scientists just haven't observed this behavior to be an "exclusive" attraction to immature members of the species? I mean doesn't it sound like the only thing that "evidence" could even potentially argue is that "exclusive pedophiles" are "unnatural"?

The question of "exclusive" is not something that can be applied to the Bonobo. That is why I choose "prefered" Exclusive would definatly be answer the question but I don't think it will happen.

However, if there was a majority of couplings with young vs same age or older then the question has a possible answer.

Otherwise, it is explained as simply teaching the skills to fit in or simply a response to calm the youngster down and thus maintain peace in the group.

When observed situations occur then obviously it will beg the question and viewpoints will change. Even mine. ;)

The question of "exclusive" is not something that can be applied to the Bonobo. That is why I choose "prefered" Exclusive would definatly be answer the question but I don't think it will happen.

However, if there was a majority of couplings with young vs same age or older then the question has a possible answer.

Otherwise, it is explained as simply teaching the skills to fit in or simply a response to calm the youngster down and thus maintain peace in the group.

When observed situations occur then obviously it will beg the question and viewpoints will change. Even mine. ;)
But even if we are the only animals to do it, what does that prove? Crocodiles are the only animals to eat rocks. I guess that's unnatural too. Elephants are the only animals that fear their own skeletons. Another unnatural thing.

But even if we are the only animals to do it, what does that prove? Crocodiles are the only animals to eat rocks. I guess that's unnatural too. Elephants are the only animals that fear their own skeletons. Another unnatural thing.

Actually something else eats rocks as well. Just blanked on what it was.

Some people are scared of skeletons as well.

The fact that it occurs in nature eliminates the claim of choice. Homosexuality has been observed in nature and in fact different species. As such the choice arguement is pretty well eliminated.

The pedo argument is left to ones viewpoints. Either you think it's natural or you don't.

Actually something else eats rocks as well. Just blanked on what it was.

Some people are scared of skeletons as well.

The fact that it occurs in nature eliminates the claim of choice. Homosexuality has been observed in nature and in fact different species. As such the choice arguement is pretty well eliminated.

The pedo argument is left to ones viewpoints. Either you think it's natural or you don't.
True, true. I guess it is all a matter of opinion. However, since you're not a pedophile yourself, one would think that Five Castes would be much more qualified to say whether or not it was a choice. And I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that if he really had a choice, he wouldn't be a pedophile. It seems to have caused him great inconvenience in all walks of life.

True, true. I guess it is all a matter of opinion. However, since you're not a pedophile yourself, one would think that Five Castes would be much more qualified to say whether or not it was a choice. And I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that if he really had a choice, he wouldn't be a pedophile. It seems to have caused him great inconvenience in all walks of life.

Well my opinion is one that he should not be concerned about. He should be worried about the ones that would seek to harm him.

My opinion is both the fears of a parent but the views of a scientist. Show me a DNA strand. Something in the brain or primates and I will say "well this does suggest it happens"

Violence is only worthy for those that attack children. Be it the pedo rapist or the sadist like your father.

He is one I would gladly beat for you.

[QUOTE=Genaia3]The main difference however, is that I am not using personal emotional issues to deal with whether paedophilism can ever be recognised and accepted withing society. Rather I have used my own experiences in dealing with homophobia, bigotry and hatred as a tool to coming to terms with what I feel about paedophilism as a sexuality. I can not say I hate any paedophile just because that is their sexuality. I (lilke many others) have different feelings towards abusers. Again, in my line of work, I have came across adults with learning difficulties and mental health issues who have been through the most awful types of abuse.

I don't think there is any valid distinction between adults and children in this regard. It's usually the vulnerable and disempowerd who become victims of abuse.

Hetrosexual adults can abuse other adults, homosexual adults can abuse other adults.
Hetrosexual adults can abuse children, homosexual adults can abuse children.

That does not mean all heterosexuals or Homosexuals will abuse either other adults or children. Somewhere amongst those people are paedophiles. Some will abuse, most (I hope) will not.

Firstly Black Forrest did apologise, he has done about ten posts up: “Sorry as I mentioned I did not read your earlier post”. What I actually said that your characterisation of the incident was melodramatic. I certainly did not seek to play down or minimise such horrific abuse and Space Mormons has my total sympathy, yet I did not comment on this since it was not in any way relevant to the point I was making and since her reaction was not in relation to a post that I had made.

The Five Castes is indeed articulate and has responded to a number of my posts in considerable depth – likewise he can do now if he chooses to.

My writing style has nothing to do with my writing content.

I have a natural aversion to paedophiles even the ones that do not abuse – sure, I won’t deny that, nor do I attempt to. Whilst I think that people do not choose to be paedophiles, it certainly is not a particularly pleasant characteristic. Likewise I do not believe a person chooses to be arrogant, or conceited, or devious – are these not sufficient grounds to take a disliking to someone merely because they did not choose to possess these features. It’s not the same as homosexuality since being aroused by the thought of other men is very different to being aroused by the thought of children being abused.

Certainly all types of people can commit abuse. But that’s not the same as saying that all types of people are equally likely to commit an act of abuse. A known paedophile is far more likely to abuse a child than a person who does not feel sexually attracted to the child. In the case of the paedophile it is a case of hoping that he can restrain his desire (if indeed he wants to) in the case of the other person it is the knowledge that they harbour no such desire in the first place. As a parent/elder brother/guardian/ whatever, the goal is not to eliminate all the chances of abuse, but to minimise it. And here’s the most obvious point of all – the best way to do that is to keep children away from paedophiles.

Five castes: this is not meant personally. I have no doubt that you would not ever abuse a child. However, you are not typical of all paedophiles and it’s about playing the percentages. If I had to leave my child with two people: either person A or person B and all I knew about them was that person A was a paedophile and person B was not, I would leave my child with person B – it is not discrimination, it is merely common sense.

But the cops think he did it. She's just lying to cover up for a child rapist. They should both be locked up for a long time. Monsters. :headbang: :mad:
Then give her a polygraph. Just because the cops think something, does not mean they are right.

From Page 3:

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?

Sure, you can find them attractive, but you can't do anything about it. Chances are, in your state, you are not allowed to consent to sex unless you're above the age of 16. That means you can't even have intercourse with someone UNDER 16, either. The state is simply saying that you're not mature enough to deal with the consequences.

Whether they are correct or not I won't get into.

From Page 3:



Sure, you can find them attractive, but you can't do anything about it. Chances are, in your state, you are not allowed to consent to sex unless you're above the age of 16. That means you can't even have intercourse with someone UNDER 16, either. The state is simply saying that you're not mature enough to deal with the consequences.

Whether they are correct or not I won't get into.

Figures. :p "Dang dirty coitusnazis!"

Also...Sunday Sun?

Yeah, that's what they call the sunday paper here :P My old nation got deleted due to inactivity, and I saw the paper while thinking of a name (note in Spanish it's actually Domingo, I threw in an extra I)

Then give her a polygraph. Just because the cops think something, does not mean they are right.

Perhaps not, but don't be under the illusion that a 14 year old girl's defence of a 20 year old man that slept with her is neither unprecedented nor necessarily unlikely.

That said the manner in which the state has acted in this instance is utterly repugnant.

Then give her a polygraph. Just because the cops think something, does not mean they are right.

That was sarcasm. ;)

For the record I think the cops should piss off and leave her and her boyfriend/fuck buddy/friend alone. They're close enough to being peers that they should be fair game for each other, the extreme of that range, but within it.

The question of "exclusive" is not something that can be applied to the Bonobo. That is why I choose "prefered" Exclusive would definatly be answer the question but I don't think it will happen.

However, if there was a majority of couplings with young vs same age or older then the question has a possible answer.

Doesn't the fact that there are such couplings at all, suggest that pedophelia (as it is currently defined) does occur in the natural world?

Otherwise, it is explained as simply teaching the skills to fit in or simply a response to calm the youngster down and thus maintain peace in the group.

Um... That sounds a lot like the "rationalizations" I hear all the time from humans who engage in this behavior.

When observed situations occur then obviously it will beg the question and viewpoints will change. Even mine. ;)
How was your opinion effected by the observation that animals will occasionally have sex with imature specimins of their species? I suspect not at all.
Actually something else eats rocks as well. Just blanked on what it was.

Some people are scared of skeletons as well.

The fact that it occurs in nature eliminates the claim of choice. Homosexuality has been observed in nature and in fact different species. As such the choice arguement is pretty well eliminated.

The pedo argument is left to ones viewpoints. Either you think it's natural or you don't.
Ah, the choice arguement. I always love this one, whether we're talking about this or homosexuality. My response is always:
Then you think you could chose to become a pedophile? That you could suddenly chose to become arroused by children?

No one choses their sexual prefference, or any other preference for that matter. Did you chose whether to prefer vanilla or chocolate icre cream? Preferences are inherently involentary.
Well my opinion is one that he should not be concerned about. He should be worried about the ones that would seek to harm him.

And I am. Very concerned about them.

My opinion is both the fears of a parent but the views of a scientist. Show me a DNA strand. Something in the brain or primates and I will say "well this does suggest it happens"

Can you show me the gay gene now please? After all, you seem to have accepted homosexuality.

The Five Castes is indeed articulate and has responded to a number of my posts in considerable depth – likewise he can do now if he chooses to.

Thank you.

My writing style has nothing to do with my writing content.

True, and I try to stick to the content of your arguements as best I understand them. Unfortunately, it will occasionally come up that we have a misunderstanding which arrises from style rather than content, so if that happens, I think it's best that we settle any such trivial matters quickly so we can get back to the real focus of this discussion, rather than suffer over the placement of commas and the like.

I have a natural aversion to paedophiles even the ones that do not abuse – sure, I won’t deny that, nor do I attempt to. Whilst I think that people do not choose to be paedophiles, it certainly is not a particularly pleasant characteristic. Likewise I do not believe a person chooses to be arrogant, or conceited, or devious – are these not sufficient grounds to take a disliking to someone merely because they did not choose to possess these features. It’s not the same as homosexuality since being aroused by the thought of other men is very different to being aroused by the thought of children being abused.

Which is very different to being arroused by the thought of trees, which is very different to being aroused by the thought of animals, which is very different...

Well, you get the idea. I don't see where your difference in the thought comes in to play.

Certainly all types of people can commit abuse. But that’s not the same as saying that all types of people are equally likely to commit an act of abuse. A known paedophile is far more likely to abuse a child than a person who does not feel sexually attracted to the child. In the case of the paedophile it is a case of hoping that he can restrain his desire (if indeed he wants to) in the case of the other person it is the knowledge that they harbour no such desire in the first place. As a parent/elder brother/guardian/ whatever, the goal is not to eliminate all the chances of abuse, but to minimise it. And here’s the most obvious point of all – the best way to do that is to keep children away from paedophiles.

Of course you're more likely to have trouble with a known pedophile. Most of the pedophiles you ever know about, you know about because they've done something.

Five castes: this is not meant personally. I have no doubt that you would not ever abuse a child.

Did I read that right? Did you just suggest that you would trust me with your children?

However, you are not typical of all paedophiles and it’s about playing the percentages. If I had to leave my child with two people: either person A or person B and all I knew about them was that person A was a paedophile and person B was not, I would leave my child with person B – it is not discrimination, it is merely common sense.
You're using statistical trends to make sweeping generalizations. If you had to leave your child with one of two people, and person A is white and person B is black, you're saying that chosing person A is not because you're racist, but because blacks are statistically more likely to be criminals?
From Page 3:



Sure, you can find them attractive, but you can't do anything about it. Chances are, in your state, you are not allowed to consent to sex unless you're above the age of 16. That means you can't even have intercourse with someone UNDER 16, either. The state is simply saying that you're not mature enough to deal with the consequences.

Whether they are correct or not I won't get into.
Actually, the ammount this varies means it's impossible to say what your state says about it or why without consulting a lawier. Some restrict only sex between the two sides of their arbitrary age line, and say nothing as long as both parties are on the same side of the line. Others say that anyone below their arbitrary line is unable to conscent to sex and deal with anyone who has sex with a minor (by whatever definition they use) as a child molester, even if a child themselves. Others have incredibly complicated systems that make it impossible to know where your kind of sexual relationship legally stand.

Edit:
I forgot to mention that the judiciary and the like will often ignore both the letter and spirit of the law when making their rulings, so you really can't tell where you legally stand unless you know the opinions of every judge who could potentially be judging your case.

Doesn't the fact that there are such couplings at all, suggest that pedophelia (as it is currently defined) does occur in the natural world?

Not really. The pairings are not frequent enough and there isn't a noted preference of the young nor young idividuals as seen with the adults.


Um... That sounds a lot like the "rationalizations" I hear all the time from humans who engage in this behavior.

That is what the Bonobo do. Their rate of violence is extreamly low. They are unique in their approach to conflict resolution. The examples of involving the young almost always involve the young adult throwing a long term tempertantrum.


How was your opinion effected by the observation that animals will occasionally have sex with imature specimins of their species? I suspect not at all.

You have made the assumption I have declared it a choice. I have never said that. I have said there isn't an example to declare it as natural. There isn't a clear example to make such claims. Nobody will declare it as pedophilia. To make such a claim you need a great deal of data to back it up and it's just not there.

In matters of homosexuality, there is a great deal of evidence. But as I mentioned with the Bonobo, it's more bisexuality .


No one choses their sexual prefference, or any other preference for that matter. Did you chose whether to prefer vanilla or chocolate icre cream? Preferences are inherently involentary.


Again. Examples of homosexuality in the wild exist and there isn't really an example of pedophilia. Again. If they existed it would greatly add to the defense.


Can you show me the gay gene now please? After all, you seem to have accepted homosexuality.

As said I take my stance from the primate research and the examples of other species. It's rather convincing argument and I use their examples all the time.

Never had issues with homosexuality and I was raised Catholic.

Not really. The pairings are not frequent enough and there isn't a noted preference of the young nor young idividuals as seen with the adults.

So you're saying that these primates are sexually servicing underage members of their species without being sexually interested in underage members of their species? I'm not sure how that works. You cite conflict resolution and social education, but isn't that just a reason for the behavior to evolve, rather than the actual reason the animals do it?

That is what the Bonobo do. Their rate of violence is extreamly low. They are unique in their approach to conflict resolution. The examples of involving the young almost always involve the young adult throwing a long term tempertantrum.

If the method is unique, doesn't that suggest that it's unnatural? I mean if pedophiles being unique to homo sapiens makes it unnatural, how could the nonviolent conflict resolution unique to the bonobo be any more natural? I mean unless you're going with the "natural means anything untouched by human hands" point of view.

You have made the assumption I have declared it a choice. I have never said that. I have said there isn't an example to declare it as natural. There isn't a clear example to make such claims. Nobody will declare it as pedophilia. To make such a claim you need a great deal of data to back it up and it's just not there.

In matters of homosexuality, there is a great deal of evidence. But as I mentioned with the Bonobo, it's more bisexuality .

What evidence do you need beyond an adult animal banging an animal below sexual maturity?

Again. Examples of homosexuality in the wild exist and there isn't really an example of pedophilia. Again. If they existed it would greatly add to the defense.

What does this have to do with the part you quoted? My point was that preferences can't be choices because preferences are the mechanism we use for resolving our choices. You can't chose to prefer anything. Either you do or you don't.

As said I take my stance from the primate research and the examples of other species. It's rather convincing argument and I use their examples all the time.

Never had issues with homosexuality and I was raised Catholic.
Oh. I see now. You haven't been suggesting that my position is wrong, only that I don't have "scientific evidence" to back it up. Fair enough.

Well, coming back after a break. Going to be replying to some posts.

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?

Adults manipulate children all the time. For example, many prosecutors and so-called child sexual abuse specialists have been documented as manipulating children to lie in court. Common tactics included denying children food, water, a chance to go to the bathroom, or contact with their parents until the children told the story the "experts" wanted them to tell. What's more, these animals have subjected children to unwanted and invasive physical examinations, essentially raping children, in the name of the law. Of course, the results of these examinations are notoriously suspect as well, for various reasons, but no amount of protests from the children does any good. But these assholes are the "good guys", and anyone who respects what children want are the "bad guys", because, well, just because.

No one gives a damn about whether children are manipulated or not, or whether they consent or not, unless they say "Yes" to sex. Then it's no holds barred, and you end up with things like Janet Reno giving the orders to kill children because someone told they might be being molested. (Incidentally, she was also prominently involved in some of the witchhunts that put innocent people in jail - and that's all documented.) That's the goddamn reality.

In the meantime, for someone who really respects kids, it's not that big a problem to figure out if a kid is being manipulated or not. All that would be necessary is to let the kids lead.


How dare you trivialise the suffering that your type causes? How dare you even attempt to present yourself as a victim?

Whoa!!! My type? Did you miss the memo? Well over 90% of molestors are not by any means attracted to children. That's not just what I say - that's what the FBI concluded - among many researchers. Abusers tend to be people with little self control and/or problems with anger and/or violent tendencies. They abuse children because children are easy or convenient targets. That is not my type.

What's more, there's a fair amount of evidence than even in cases of real abuse, most of the harm comes not from the incident itself, but from the hysterical reaction of society. That means that it's your type that causes most of the harm. How dare you trivialise the suffering that you cause children, much less the suffering you cause me.

And as for being a victim - I'm not really into that. I'm working on being a victor. Much better that way, you see. But, considering the many abuses directed at myself and those like me, I think I'm quite justified in considering myself a target. If I were to lie down and take your abuse, I'd be a victim - but I prefer to fight back.


Baldur

Adults manipulate children all the time. For example, many prosecutors and so-called child sexual abuse specialists have been documented as manipulating children to lie in court. Common tactics included denying children food, water, a chance to go to the bathroom, or contact with their parents until the children told the story the "experts" wanted them to tell. What's more, these animals have subjected children to unwanted and invasive physical examinations, essentially raping children, in the name of the law. Of course, the results of these examinations are notoriously suspect as well, for various reasons, but no amount of protests from the children does any good. But these assholes are the "good guys", and anyone who respects what children want are the "bad guys", because, well, just because.

Like the 14 year old the cops kidnapped and locked up because she wouldn't admit to fucking her 20 year old boyfriend? How dare people suggest the police might cause emotional trauma.

Well, coming back after a break. Going to be replying to some posts.

Saw things were peetering out, did you?

So you're saying that these primates are sexually servicing underage members of their species without being sexually interested in underage members of their species? I'm not sure how that works.

It is tough and it can be confusing as it's easy to read in human condition into their actions. For one thing, penetration does not always happen and there is question if there is a climax. Sometimes a male will stroke another as if to say "No worries"


You cite conflict resolution and social education, but isn't that just a reason for the behavior to evolve, rather than the actual reason the animals do it?


That question can only be answered by knowing what they did before. They may have always been that way. It maybe they fought like chimps and then one day somebody said "Hey lets try this out."

Compared to their chimp cousins, it is an evolution of behavior.


If the method is unique, doesn't that suggest that it's unnatural? I mean if pedophiles being unique to homo sapiens makes it unnatural, how could the nonviolent conflict resolution unique to the bonobo be any more natural? I mean unless you're going with the "natural means anything untouched by human hands" point of view.

Pedo's could very well be unique to homo sapians. That is where the genome might explain it someday. When? Nobody could know at this point. We only mapped it, now the work of understanding it will take time. Even now there is an effort to map the chimp genome. Once that is done, we might start finding answers to questions.

Then the ethics question will cause a greator problem. If we map a gay gene, how many people will say "Hey lets correct the flaw!" If a pedo gene is discover, you know what will be the result.

So as to the bonobo and their approach. Well to simply label it as unnatural opens the door to anthropomophism as the human condition is being used to measure their actions.

For example, people can claim homosexuality in the Bonobo, yet there isn't a recorded instance(that I know of) were penetration has occured.

What does this have to do with the part you quoted? My point was that preferences can't be choices because preferences are the mechanism we use for resolving our choices. You can't chose to prefer anything. Either you do or you don't.


The quote doesn't deal with pedos being what they are. It was talking about the people judging their condition. A pedo can claim "what choice did I make?" The only response will be the people that don't belive them (as in it's a choice and they are sick bastards) and those that say it's just the way they are built.


Oh. I see now. You haven't been suggesting that my position is wrong, only that I don't have "scientific evidence" to back it up. Fair enough.

Exactly.

Yes, children cannot think abstractly

I just wanted to point out, that in your hurry to make children into automatons rather than humans, you have effectively denied the ability of children to love.

Not only, under your system, can a child not love me, but children cannot love their parents, their brothers and sisters, or anything or anything else. After all, what is more abstract than Love? This is the ultimate end of your argument.


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.


I have long felt that the official policy on people with mental retardation is extremely cruel.

They are too much of a person to be legally sterilised, because they have reproductive rights that are inviolate . . . but they can never be allowed the joys of an intimate, sexual relationship because they're unable to understand the consequences, so they are kept away from one of the great joys in life, and if a mentally retarded girl manages to get pregnant anyway, well then she's just shit out of luck and has to deal with the consequences. What a mess y'all make! Such abominations in the name of morality - it is simply beyond my comprehension how anyone can be so callous and cruel.

Hmmn. Seems I'm making more replies to posts I already made replies to earlier - but there are so many things that need countering, I can't do it all in one post. ;-)


Baldur

Hmmn. Seems I'm making more replies to posts I already made replies to earlier - but there are so many things that need countering, I can't do it all in one post. ;-)

Why not? I did it for the first eleven pages or so that accumulated while I was trying to sort out my weird ban glitch. ;)

It is tough and it can be confusing as it's easy to read in human condition into their actions. For one thing, penetration does not always happen and there is question if there is a climax. Sometimes a male will stroke another as if to say "No worries"

I'll freely admit I'm no primatologist, but doesn't even the "no worries" interpretation seem to just be us humans anthropomorphising them?

That question can only be answered by knowing what they did before. They may have always been that way. It maybe they fought like chimps and then one day somebody said "Hey lets try this out."

Compared to their chimp cousins, it is an evolution of behavior.

Actually, what I'm saying is that unless these animals are able to handle the abstract concepts of "what's good for society is good for me", aren't they operating on the "this feels good so I do it" level?

Pedo's could very well be unique to homo sapians. That is where the genome might explain it someday. When? Nobody could know at this point. We only mapped it, now the work of understanding it will take time. Even now there is an effort to map the chimp genome. Once that is done, we might start finding answers to questions.

Could be, but even if it is, that doesn't make it unnatural. Human beings are products of nature (unless you go in for the whole "God made us and we're special" point of view). Everything we do is "natural".

Then the ethics question will cause a greator problem. If we map a gay gene, how many people will say "Hey lets correct the flaw!" If a pedo gene is discover, you know what will be the result.

Yep. That "flaw" will be wiped out within a generation, since it's the only form of genetic tampering that no one will object to, even the christian right.

(Incidentally, it's the kind of tampering I find most objectionable, messing with mental and behavioral triggers.)

So as to the bonobo and their approach. Well to simply label it as unnatural opens the door to anthropomophism as the human condition is being used to measure their actions.

Actually, I was just trying to point out how arbitrary the term "natual" is rather than say anything about the bonobo.

For example, people can claim homosexuality in the Bonobo, yet there isn't a recorded instance(that I know of) were penetration has occured.

Then why is it that you used the absence of penetration as one of many indicators that pedophelia doesn't occur?

The quote doesn't deal with pedos being what they are. It was talking about the people judging their condition. A pedo can claim "what choice did I make?" The only response will be the people that don't belive them (as in it's a choice and they are sick bastards) and those that say it's just the way they are built.

That is true, but then there's no satisfying some people.

Exactly.
Well. That does make things a bit clearer.

I just wanted to point out, that in your hurry to make children into automatons rather than humans, you have effectively denied the ability of children to love.


Actually you are dodging his point. He is correct abstract thought comes at a latter age.


Not only, under your system, can a child not love me,

Yes. A child does not have the maturity to deal with a physical relationship. They don't understand what's involved.


but children cannot love their parents, their brothers and sisters, or anything or anything else. After all, what is more abstract than Love? This is the ultimate end of your argument.


Bad example. Family members are different then non-family members. Even in this case, ask them why they love their parents, they can't really give an explanation.

You can hate a family member and yet still love them. Few people can do that with an "outsider"


I have long felt that the official policy on people with mental retardation is extremely cruel.

They are too much of a person to be legally sterilised, because they have reproductive rights that are inviolate . . . but they can never be allowed the joys of an intimate, sexual relationship because they're unable to understand the consequences, so they are kept away from one of the great joys in life, and if a mentally retarded girl manages to get pregnant anyway,


And that is why she can't have children. She does not posses the maturity to deal with the responcibilities invovlved.

That is why we have laws. To protect people from preditors.


well then she's just shit out of luck and has to deal with the consequences.

What a mess y'all make! Such abominations in the name of morality - it is simply beyond my comprehension how anyone can be so callous and cruel.


Awww the laws get in your way?

That was sarcasm. ;)

For the record I think the cops should piss off and leave her and her boyfriend/fuck buddy/friend alone. They're close enough to being peers that they should be fair game for each other, the extreme of that range, but within it.
Oh. I wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic or not.
I was just responding to the thing that that is exactly what the thinking of the prosecutors is. So my response to that line of reasoning is give her a polygraph and stop violating her rights.
The Dems and the Reps are fucking everything up. They've had over a century. And they've squandered all the time the American people have given to them. And it leads to shit like this.

What they need to do in November, is remove every single incumbent. Put people in there that have fresh, real life, perspective.
I probably not voting this year because, I don't care for the incumbent, but I don't like who the GOP is putting up either. It will probably end up being for the best of worst. Which would make me a typical American.

Actually you are dodging his point. He is correct abstract thought comes at a latter age.

I'm not sure how you're defining "abstract thought".

Yes. A child does not have the maturity to deal with a physical relationship. They don't understand what's involved.

Don't or can't. I mean it's safe to say they don't understand because society is set up to hide the actual details from them. Seems to me that you'll know for sure what they can and can't understand if you actually give them the oportunity to try and understand.

Bad example. Family members are different then non-family members. Even in this case, ask them why they love their parents, they can't really give an explanation.

Why do you love your parents?

You can hate a family member and yet still love them. Few people can do that with an "outsider"

Do you include spouses in this "outsider" category? After all, they come from outside.

And that is why she can't have children. She does not posses the maturity to deal with the responcibilities invovlved.

That is why we have laws. To protect people from preditors.

Part of his statement was that it's inconsistent to say we can't sterilise them when we say that they can't deal with the responsibility of having children.

Awww the laws get in your way?
Are you reading the same post I am? He's still talking about the conseqences to the mentally retarded woman who can't conscent to sex, is deemed incapabe of dealing with having children, yet has to deal with it anyway.

I don't see how that has anything to do with "laws getting in his way".

Regarding my friend who was framed by the British Police:

Hmmm got a link?

He's trying not to make waves right now. He is understandably afraid of the police.

Regarding John Knox - my mistake, his name was Stephen Knox. Guess I had too much religious education. Here's a quote:

In that case, U.S. v. Knox, the court ruled that language in the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977 prohibiting the “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” can include “non-nude depictions.” The court upheld the conviction of defendant Stephen Knox on the grounds that videotapes he had purchased showing children posing in leotards were marketed as being sexually exciting.

Which comes from this article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3339966/


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.....

Actually, that's a nice front they put up to appear like they're fair.

What really happens is that if they decide that someone is attracted to children, they take whatever is available and call it child pornography. The crime is not in the picture, but in the mind.

This account notes that legal porn has been used in prosecutions in Britain, despite the ease of establishing that the actresses were in fact over 18.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-1632439,00.html

In the next case, the man's only "crime" (other than being ped) was that he had held on to a sex education book from 1975. Incidentally, this book, "Show Me", was a best seller in the U.S. There are enough copies out there that an owner is unlikely to be prosecuted for owning it . . . unless the prosecutor has reason to believe that the owner is attracted to children.

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/pittsburgh/s_349212.html

Occasionally the courts make use of this ambiguity to silence political opponents, as in this case:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050110&s=nathan

A good general purpose article:

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~under006/Library/Antisexuality.html

I could go on, but I have a limited amount of time, and there is awful lot of stuff like this.


Baldur

I'll freely admit I'm no primatologist, but doesn't even the "no worries" interpretation seem to just be us humans anthropomorphising them?

That's my simplification of the answer.


Actually, what I'm saying is that unless these animals are able to handle the abstract concepts of "what's good for society is good for me", aren't they operating on the "this feels good so I do it" level?

There are the "feel good" contacts. Obviously, matings, but when individuals look for certain individuals. In the matters of conflict resolution, well, it's more about hey why not have some fun rather then fight? Rather then "I'm bored, I'm horny......"


Could be, but even if it is, that doesn't make it unnatural. Human beings are products of nature (unless you go in for the whole "God made us and we're special" point of view). Everything we do is "natural".

Yep. That "flaw" will be wiped out within a generation, since it's the only form of genetic tampering that no one will object to, even the christian right.


Well they really can't wipe it out as we would have to understand why genes mutate.

Even then, it won't be cheap so it will take time.


(Incidentally, it's the kind of tampering I find most objectionable, messing with mental and behavioral triggers.)

Of course. Master Race situtation can appear.....

Actually, I was just trying to point out how arbitrary the term "natual" is rather than say anything about the bonobo.
Ahh misunderstood.

Then why is it that you used the absence of penetration as one of many indicators that pedophelia doesn't occur?

If I did, it's a mistake. The Lack of penetration comments was supposed to be about homosexuality.

That is true, but then there's no satisfying some people.

Well. That does make things a bit clearer.

:)

Re: Mary's age at conception.


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.

It is common among Protestant scholars, even conservative ones, to estimate Mary's age at about 12, based on the customs of the time as compared to the Biblical account. I think the Catholic church has their own version of events, but it is even more improbable than a virgin birth.


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.

My understanding is that back in the late 1960's and early 1970's, when child pornography was briefly legal, it was mostly simple nudity, with a little bit of masturbation and fornication and such, mostly involving just kids (few adults in the pics).

Again relying on second-hand accounts, but even recently simple nude images were legal in a number of countries, and some websites were set up selling the images. Unfortunately, groups such as the NCMEC tried to raise money by making ludicrous claims that the child porn business was worth $20 billion annually (far more than regular porn!), which attracted the attention of organised crime. Artistic sites were closed down by the police - in one case at least the police attempted to extort money (which wasn't there) from the site owner - and the mob moved into the business. Although there was not a market in the truly abusive child pornography before, I have been given to understand that there is now.

Thank you John Walsh and the National Center for Missing and Exploiting Children! (I'm being sarcastic - I have to say that because some of the readers here aren't capable of figuring that out for themselves.)


Baldur

Don't or can't. I mean it's safe to say they don't understand because society is set up to hide the actual details from them. Seems to me that you'll know for sure what they can and can't understand if you actually give them the oportunity to try and understand.


To answer I would look to the past. Which would be the primates if you belive in evolution.

Society does have it's involvment but children show evidence as well. The fact their organs don't start working right away. Emotionally: the fact that most kids blame themselves for any serious problem even when they have nothing to do with it(for example nasty fight between parents).

Why do you love your parents? Can't speak for my old man but one quick answer about mom is for the sacrifices she made for me. Some of her dreams that she gave up or set aside for many years. Obvsiouly there is much more.

Do you include spouses in this "outsider" category? After all, they come from outside.
Yes. And how many cases of spouses that don't stay in touch and don't like each other.

Part of his statement was that it's inconsistent to say we can't sterilise them when we say that they can't deal with the responsibility of having children.
I know but he is also going for the dramatic emotion response. We did try sterilising them once.....

Are you reading the same post I am? He's still talking about the conseqences to the mentally retarded woman who can't conscent to sex, is deemed incapabe of dealing with having children, yet has to deal with it anyway.

yet this comment

"well then she's just shit out of luck and has to deal with the consequences. "

reads that she had sex, she got pregnant so she has to deal with it.

That is why we have laws in place and depending on how independent they can act, the system will take the child away.

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.

I am truly sorry that you had that experience. You were a victim of rape, made worse by the fact that the man who violated you should have been your protector. I understand about it being an experience that never leaves you, but sometimes it will fade away if you allow it to. I wish you the best of luck with this.

All the same, this is quite different from pedophilia, which is a sexual orientation. Based on numerous studies, there is a greater than 90% probability that your father was a teleiophile - that is, primarily attracted to adults.


Baldur

*snip*

Interesting reading so what is your point? There was many different things discussed. Especially, in the last article.

-edit-

I admit I had to look up teleiophile

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/psy/psylect09.htm

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.

Umm, I thought Rind mainly said that there was some evidence that adult-child sex was not always harmful, and was usually not very harmful unless it was nonconsensual, and that scientific studies ought to use value-neutral terms like "adult-child sex" rather than terms like "child sexual abuse" which presumes the conclusion before the study even begins.


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.

Certainly children are not as capable as adults in every way, but the question remains - are they capable enough? Numerous accounts exist of children as young as 3 or 4 surviving on their own. They obviously have some capabilities. The real question is, Why is Sex considered such an awful thing, that children can never consent to it, at all, in any way, shape or form?


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?

Did you say you're a teacher? Well, it's true that teachers are notorious for having the lowest test scores of all college graduates.

But seriously, you've been observing children, and presumable were a child once yourself, and you've never noticed that children make up their own rules and change the rules of games all the time?


I can see them growing into (God help us all) the future leaders of Japan.

D'oh! Of course. Nihonjin are socialised to conform above all else. Your observations may be valid regarding Nihon (though not as much now as it used to be), but it says little about children in other cultures.


Baldur-san

I read those articles you posted, and this statement really pissed me off:
"Many — if not most — customers are sexually interested in children, and some are pedophiles, according to law enforcement officials and children’s advocates."

It angers me nearly beyond my ability to contain when people USE THE WORD "PEDOPHILE" AS A SYNONYM FOR "CHILD MOLESTER"!!
That's my simplification of the answer.

Okay...

There are the "feel good" contacts. Obviously, matings, but when individuals look for certain individuals. In the matters of conflict resolution, well, it's more about hey why not have some fun rather then fight? Rather then "I'm bored, I'm horny......"

So you're making a distinction between sex used for the purpose of ofsping and sex used for the purpose of pleasure? I really don't get primatology.

Well they really can't wipe it out as we would have to understand why genes mutate.

Even then, it won't be cheap so it will take time.

Doesn't mean that it won't be the first target trait to erradicate.

Of course. Master Race situtation can appear.....

I really got no problem with "Master Race" style stuff so long as the oportunity for genetic improvement is not unevenly distributed by factors such as economic power. I think it might be a good thing if we could eliminate the genes for heart disease and catteracs among other things.

Ahh misunderstood.
[/uote]
No worries. (no I'm not touching you down there)
[quote]
If I did, it's a mistake. The Lack of penetration comments was supposed to be about homosexuality.

Okay. Consider it cleared up.
Re: Mary's age at conception.



It is common among Protestant scholars, even conservative ones, to estimate Mary's age at about 12, based on the customs of the time as compared to the Biblical account. I think the Catholic church has their own version of events, but it is even more improbable than a virgin birth.

I guess that kind of makes sense, but with you being the only source...

My understanding is that back in the late 1960's and early 1970's, when child pornography was briefly legal, it was mostly simple nudity, with a little bit of masturbation and fornication and such, mostly involving just kids (few adults in the pics).

Again relying on second-hand accounts, but even recently simple nude images were legal in a number of countries, and some websites were set up selling the images. Unfortunately, groups such as the NCMEC tried to raise money by making ludicrous claims that the child porn business was worth $20 billion annually (far more than regular porn!), which attracted the attention of organised crime. Artistic sites were closed down by the police - in one case at least the police attempted to extort money (which wasn't there) from the site owner - and the mob moved into the business. Although there was not a market in the truly abusive child pornography before, I have been given to understand that there is now.

Thank you John Walsh and the National Center for Missing and Exploiting Children! (I'm being sarcastic - I have to say that because some of the readers here aren't capable of figuring that out for themselves.)


Baldur
Sad. Very sad.
To answer I would look to the past. Which would be the primates if you belive in evolution.

Doesn't evolution state that primates are our cousins rather than our ancestors?

Society does have it's involvment but children show evidence as well. The fact their organs don't start working right away. Emotionally: the fact that most kids blame themselves for any serious problem even when they have nothing to do with it(for example nasty fight between parents).

Does that mean they can't understand what's involved, or does that suggest that feelings are as irrational in children as they are in adults?

Can't speak for my old man but one quick answer about mom is for the sacrifices she made for me. Some of her dreams that she gave up or set aside for many years. Obvsiouly there is much more.

And that's the problem right there. You can't define why you love her. You can give examples of things that potentially contribute to positive feelings for her, but you can no more define why you love your own mother than a child can. Why then are you using that ability as a point of contrast?

Yes. And how many cases of spouses that don't stay in touch and don't like each other.

How many parents or cibilings that don't stay in touch and don't like eachother do you get where they still claim love?

I know but he is also going for the dramatic emotion response. We did try sterilising them once.....

At least that approach would be consistent.

yet this comment

"well then she's just shit out of luck and has to deal with the consequences. "

reads that she had sex, she got pregnant so she has to deal with it.

Yep. That's how it reads. Now why did you say things about "the law getting in his way" in response to that? I don't see the connection.

That is why we have laws in place and depending on how independent they can act, the system will take the child away.
I'll take your word on that one unless someone offers evidence to contradict it.

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.

So if people both in and out of prison:

- Believe the earth is flat
- Believe in phlogistan and the aether
- Believe in abiogenesis
- Believe in Creationism
- Believe that homosexuality is an abomination before God
- Believe that people of African descent are subhuman beings bearing the mark of Ham
- Believe that pedophiles are future child molestors

then it MUST be true?

Somebody print this in "Nature" - we have a new means of scientific discovery!

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

Well, one good thing has come out of all of this.


Baldur

Interesting reading so what is your point? There was many different things discussed. Especially, in the last article.

If I were to hazard a guess, from what I read, the point was largely to deal with the legal issues surrounding "child pornography".

Each article touched on the legal and social issues surrounding the prosecution and criminalization of "child pornography" in some way. Of particular note is the ambiguous definition of "child pornography" as a legal term.

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.

Yeah, that's a common experience. People have even said that I have a natural way with boys. (ugh!)

Treat kids with respect, and surprise, surprise! they like you, because they don't get that anywhere else.


Baldur

So if people both in and out of prison:

- Believe the earth is flat
- Believe in phlogistan and the aether
- Believe in abiogenesis
- Believe in Creationism
- Believe that homosexuality is an abomination before God
- Believe that people of African descent are subhuman beings bearing the mark of Ham
- Believe that pedophiles are future child molestors

then it MUST be true?

Somebody print this in "Nature" - we have a new means of scientific discovery!

Well, one good thing has come out of all of this.



Wow that was a great non answer.

Well if SN is going to bottom feed this thread; I am going to bow out. We have moved away from many of his comments....

Later gents!

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".

He sounds like a real piece of work.

You turned out much better.


Baldur

Well if SN is going to bottom feed this thread; I am going to bow out. We have moved away from many of his comments....

Later gents!
I think I'm with you. Maybe once he gets to something current I'll come back, but this is pretty annoying.

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.

Er, have you studied any history or anthropology?

Counterexamples abound.

Not just in deepest, darkest Africa (mangu! mangu!), not just in colonial Salem or mediaeval Europe (witchcraft!), nor even in prehistory, but in the nation considered at the forefront of science and technology today.

The vast majority of Americans believe in God, and those who don't usually believe in gods, or the psychic powers of crystals, or angels. One sort of magic or another.

So . . . you were telling me how adults aren't likely to believe in magic?


Baldur

So, for those arguing in favor of pedophilia. You believe children can consent to sex. You don't believe there's anything wrong with children having sex with adults.

So I just want to know, how many children have "consented" to having sex with you? I'm just curious.

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

If only I had a nickel for every time I heard the old "people dont choose their sexual orientation" thing.

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 would be left for one.

So, for those arguing in favor of pedophilia. You believe children can consent to sex. You don't believe there's anything wrong with children having sex with adults.

So I just want to know, how many children have "consented" to having sex with you? I'm just curious.
For me? None.

You seem to think that by arguing that I shouldn't be stoned to death for having the sexual prefferences I do that I'm willing to ignore the kinds of harm that are virtually certain to happen to a child when one engages in sexual activity with them.

Point in fact, even if one could prove that there is no inherent physiological or psychological consequences to the child, the social consequences would add up to the full trauma of a rape in this culture.
If only I had a nickel for every time I heard the old "people dont choose their sexual orientation" thing.

Yeah. Those fags and their bullshit right? :rolleyes:

I would be left for one.
Me too. I'm usually in to the 0-10 age group. Pubescents aren't so interesting to me.

Saw things were peetering out, did you?

Naw. I have a life outside of NationStates, believe it or not. I was rather surprised to see that this thread was still going - and figured it was mostly one-sided.

I'm rather amazed to see where this discussion has gone. You are very well spoken.


Baldur

It is tough and it can be confusing as it's easy to read in human condition into their actions. For one thing, penetration does not always happen and there is question if there is a climax. Sometimes a male will stroke another as if to say "No worries"


Oddly enough, you remind me of a point made in Tom O'Carroll's book, "Pedophilia: the Radical Case" (Hope I remember the author and title correctly.) He was studying boylovers, but noted that virtually all sexual contact was non-penetrative (like 96% or something), and what contact WAS penetrative, almost all of it was the boy penetrating his adult partner.

Talking among other girllovers, there doesn't seem to be any great fascination with penetration. Just being around little girls is an amazing and wonderful thing - to see them smiling or with a look of wonder or surprise, to hear them laughing, talking, singing, whispering - it is just beyond words. It's been noted that our idea of sexuality is largely one of exploration, gentle touching and the like - in short, much on the order of what kids do among themselves.

Plus, there's the question of physical compatibility. In my case, traditional sex just ain't happening with a younger girl. In a perfect world, with a very mature and determined 10-year-old, maybe, but I'm not betting on it.

So what's left (in a perfect world) is gentle caresses and fondling. Sounds a lot like the Bonobos to me.

BTW, as for evidence of pedophilia in other species - we haven't really looked into it much, but apparently it's pretty common.

https://www.annabelleigh.net/messages/353838.htm


Baldur

Interesting reading so what is your point? There was many different things discussed. Especially, in the last article.

There were claims made earlier in the thread that no one is being prosecuted for legal pornography, that simple nude pictures are not grounds for prosecution, and so forth. I was replying to a number of criticisms in one post.

I threw in the article about Dr. Croft to show how even when the victim is clearly not a pedophile, and where the pictures are obviously not pornography, the current hysteria is such that a judge can make use of these laws to silence a political opponent (riding roughshod over the pleas of children for justice while doing so, no less). That should scare any American who cares about the future of their nation.

The last article I just threw in because it's good reading.


Baldur

So, for those arguing in favor of pedophilia. You believe children can consent to sex. You don't believe there's anything wrong with children having sex with adults.

So I just want to know, how many children have "consented" to having sex with you? I'm just curious.

Yes, I believe children can consent to sexual activity appropriate to their age. This means that for young children I am talking about touching and such, not penetration.

But, of course, I'm not about to take a child swimming in polluted waters - and that is what the Western world is right now.


Baldur

Yes, I believe children can consent to sexual activity appropriate to their age. This means that for young children I am talking about touching and such, not penetration.

Touching? You mean, fondling. Fondling children sexually would be appropriate to their age.


But, of course, I'm not about to take a child swimming in polluted waters - and that is what the Western world is right now.


Baldur

What you mean to say is you don't want to get caught and imprisoned.

I think both you and the other guy are cowards who argue vehemently for something, but won't act on it because you're afraid you'll get... well, you're afraid that in prison, you might "consent" to sexual activity "appropriate" to your crimes.

Touching? You mean, fondling. Fondling children sexually would be appropriate to their age.



What you mean to say is you don't want to get caught and imprisoned.

I think both you and the other guy are cowards who argue vehemently for something, but won't act on it because you're afraid you'll get... well, you're afraid that in prison, you might "consent" to sexual activity "appropriate" to your crimes.
If by 'the other guy', you mean Five Cates, then maybe you should actually start reading some of his posts. He has repeatedly said that his refusal to have sex with children is on a moral basis, but if you think you know his motives better than he does, then congratulations. This mind-reading act will get you a fortune in Vegas:rolleyes:

I'm actually starting to see why Black Forrest thought I was a puppet. I spend a lot of time defending Five Castes. But he's right, damnit!

e.

Yeah. Those fags and their bullshit right? :rolleyes:




Which fags? What bullshit?

Firstly Black Forrest did apologise, he has done about ten posts up: “Sorry as I mentioned I did not read your earlier post”. What I actually said that your characterisation of the incident was melodramatic. I certainly did not seek to play down or minimise such horrific abuse and Space Mormons has my total sympathy, yet I did not comment on this since it was not in any way relevant to the point I was making and since her reaction was not in relation to a post that I had made.
[QUOTE]Point taken about the apology. However now you are saying that what I said was melodramatic, when I was commenting on what appeared to be other posters appearing to ignore the distress of someone. Space Mormons has since said that she herself overreacted.

The Five Castes is indeed articulate and has responded to a number of my posts in considerable depth – likewise he can do now if he chooses to.

My writing style has nothing to do with my writing content.
Style has very much to do with content, it influences what you are trying to communicate.

I have a natural aversion to paedophiles even the ones that do not abuse – sure, I won’t deny that, nor do I attempt to. Whilst I think that people do not choose to be paedophiles, it certainly is not a particularly pleasant characteristic. Likewise I do not believe a person chooses to be arrogant, or conceited, or devious – are these not sufficient grounds to take a disliking to someone merely because they did not choose to possess these features. It’s not the same as homosexuality since being aroused by the thought of other men is very different to being aroused by the thought of children being abused.
You clearly show that you have irrational feelings towards those who call themselves paedophiles. You still insist that a paedophile sexuality is not the same as homosexuality (or presumably hetrosexuality). Being aroused is a heightened sexual experience, it's irrelevant what the object of arousal is. What is relevant is what happens as a result.

Certainly all types of people can commit abuse. But that’s not the same as saying that all types of people are equally likely to commit an act of abuse. A known paedophile is far more likely to abuse a child than a person who does not feel sexually attracted to the child. In the case of the paedophile it is a case of hoping that he can restrain his desire (if indeed he wants to) in the case of the other person it is the knowledge that they harbour no such desire in the first place. As a parent/elder brother/guardian/ whatever, the goal is not to eliminate all the chances of abuse, but to minimise it. And here’s the most obvious point of all – the best way to do that is to keep children away from paedophiles.
You are right in saying that not all types of people are equally likely to commit an act of abuse, yet you contradict yourself by going on to say; "A known paedophile is far more likely to abuse a child than a person who does not feel sexually attracted to the child" This is a spurious argument, you imply that the paedophile will more frequently abuse than a person of a different sexuality. The opposite of that argument is "A known heterosexual is far more likely to abuse a woman than a paedophile who does not feel sexually attracted to the woman" You see how foolish that premise is when put in those terms, that's why I consider your premise to be equally foolish.

Five castes: this is not meant personally. I have no doubt that you would not ever abuse a child. However, you are not typical of all paedophiles and it’s about playing the percentages. If I had to leave my child with two people: either person A or person B and all I knew about them was that person A was a paedophile and person B was not, I would leave my child with person B – it is not discrimination, it is merely common sense.I can see that you do not recognise a real distinction between abuser and paedophile. I think that's one of the main problems within society. While people have that sort of mindset, no child is really safe because overreaction by parents and other authority figures can be oppressive and potentially abusive to the child....as a previous poster wrote.

Society, has moved on from prejudiced notions about homosexuality, though ther'e still a long way to go. I believe society needs to find a way to accept paedophilism has always been part of the variety of human sexuality. Distinction needs to be made between abuse (of any sort) and the happenstance of whichever sexuality a person happens to have.

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 think you did a public service my friend.....good job...

As far as staring.. Sometimes people stare, whether it's perverts, confused people, other weirdos, or just people trying to ease their own boredom. I don't think they can really make any laws, much less inforce them, but thankfully most people are good in nature, so its the few like this perv that you have to intervene with..

I have long felt that the official policy on people with mental retardation is extremely cruel.

They are too much of a person to be legally sterilised, because they have reproductive rights that are inviolate . . . but they can never be allowed the joys of an intimate, sexual relationship because they're unable to understand the consequences, so they are kept away from one of the great joys in life, and if a mentally retarded girl manages to get pregnant anyway, well then she's just shit out of luck and has to deal with the consequences. What a mess y'all make! Such abominations in the name of morality - it is simply beyond my comprehension how anyone can be so callous and cruel.
BaldurJust want to make a quick point here. Calling someone who is a paedophile a "child abuser" is lazy thinking. Similarly, calling some who has learning difficulties "mentally retarded" does not offer that person sufficient respect. The rest of the points you make however, I agree, is sadly the case.

As I mentioned earlier, I work with such adults and even with the "person cenred approach" I work in, adult sexuality and sexual interest still remains a "no no"

And that is why she can't have children. She does not posses the maturity to deal with the responcibilities invovlved.

That is why we have laws. To protect people from preditors.



Awww the laws get in your way?
Actually the law does not necessarily protect people with learning disbilities from the attention of predators. Instead, it denies the opportunity for such people to explore a facet of their potential. None of the people I know, who have such disabilities, have relationships with other "normal" people, but they are still frequently denied the right to develop such relationships between themselves.

Naw. I have a life outside of NationStates, believe it or not.

Okay. The timing just seemed off is all.

I was rather surprised to see that this thread was still going - and figured it was mostly one-sided.

I'm rather amazed to see where this discussion has gone. You are very well spoken.


Baldur
Thanks. I try.
Touching? You mean, fondling. Fondling children sexually would be appropriate to their age.



What you mean to say is you don't want to get caught and imprisoned.

I think both you and the other guy are cowards who argue vehemently for something, but won't act on it because you're afraid you'll get... well, you're afraid that in prison, you might "consent" to sexual activity "appropriate" to your crimes.
I guess I'm the other guy, right?

You think that my fear of the law is the only thing that keeps me from doing sexual things with children? You think that selfish fear is the only thing that could possibly modivate me?
You're wrong.

If I were to take your advice and stop being a "coward" I wouldn't be the only one society would punish. The social stygma would rub off on the girl, and society would continue to punish her, one way or another, for the rest of her life.

Sure, I'd rather not go to prison, but how can you even suggest that it's the only modivator? Do you not think that the abuse the girl would suffer should be enough of a reason for me to abstain?

I think you decided already that I'm some kind of monster who only cares about children in so far as they can gratify me sexually. Because I'm such a monster, I could never think about how they would be negatively impacted by the experience. That only leaves legal punishments to me, since of course I'm always just looking out for number one. And because I don't expose children to the social stygma that I deal with every day from people like you, I must be a coward.

You make me sick.
If by 'the other guy', you mean Five Cates, then maybe you should actually start reading some of his posts. He has repeatedly said that his refusal to have sex with children is on a moral basis, but if you think you know his motives better than he does, then congratulations. This mind-reading act will get you a fortune in Vegas:rolleyes:

I'm actually starting to see why Black Forrest thought I was a puppet. I spend a lot of time defending Five Castes. But he's right, damnit!
I really do appreciate the support.

Believe it or not, it's helped keep me going. Sometimes it feels like the world is already set against me, and like everyone has already made up their minds to hate me.

You are a person who has every reason in the world to assume the worst about me. The fact that you've seen the truth, gives me hope that I can turn others around one day too.
Which fags? What bullshit?
You said something like you kept hearing the "excuse" that people don't chose their sexuality.

If you don't accept that arguement, then I can only assume that you assume homosexuality is a choice too, and are equally annoyed whenever gay people mention that they didn't chose their sexuality.

Meh. I was kinda lazy and only got to page 8. Anyway I think that it is freaking creepy when old men stare. I am 17, and the other day I was playing tennis with my friend and an old guy (about 60-70) pulled up and he had a dog. He let the dog out and took out a tennis racket and put it near the entrance to the courts. He went back to his car and sat in it. The dog was running all around in the courts, sniffing our stuff, and coming up to us. We were kinda thinking what is this guy doing? but we stayed anyway. He got out of his car and picked up some tennis balls for my friend and handed them to her. She said thanks and he didn't even reply. He went back to his car and stared at us for about 40 minutes. By that time I was so creeped out I was shaking. So we picked up the balls and we went to my car. He came out of his car, picked up his racket, and got his dog into his car. He pulled out right behind us. We drove around for about 30 minutes before going home because we were afraid he was following us.

Needless to say, I am dead afraid to play tennis now.

If I was in that situation on the bus I would have just stared the guy down.

Well it's not necessarily pedophilia...but I guess better safe than sorry right?

Why charge him with a thought crime of course!

You cannot charge someone for looking. And the child's rights were not violated in any way. If she felt uncomfortable then she could have freely chosen to remove herself from the situation. Remember, it is a free country (assuming that you live in one) so there is such thing as freedom and rights. Of course, if the man invaded into her personal space then there's always other options, such as moving away.

You realize that was sarcasm, I hope. Doesn't seem like it, though.

You realize that was sarcasm, I hope. Doesn't seem like it, though.
Well, it pretty much is thought-crime when someone gets charged for such things. It's surprising how many people support the idea of thought-crime when it comes to us pedophiles.

I really do appreciate the support.

Believe it or not, it's helped keep me going. Sometimes it feels like the world is already set against me, and like everyone has already made up their minds to hate me.

You are a person who has every reason in the world to assume the worst about me. The fact that you've seen the truth, gives me hope that I can turn others around one day too.
Well, it's probably because ever since a certain traumatic childhood, I've pretty much screened out my emotions (except for when they occasionally erupt, like they did at Black Forrest). I view everything logically and without prejudice or opinion. I know it sounds like I've got it made, but it's a shitty way to live.

Touching? You mean, fondling. Fondling children sexually would be appropriate to their age.

I'm glad you agree. Did you know that fondling children, especially to quiet them or put them to sleep, was common in the U.S. well into the 1800's, and still common in some rural areas into the 1900's? And that it's still common in many parts of the world today?


What you mean to say is you don't want to get caught and imprisoned.


While that is a concern, I was actually referring to the fact that in the U.S. today fondling children would put them at risk. Have you ever read about what "therapists" do to their victims? It's no coincidence that "therapists" is just "the rapists" run together.


Baldur

Well, it's probably because ever since a certain traumatic childhood, I've pretty much screened out my emotions (except for when they occasionally erupt, like they did at Black Forrest). I view everything logically and without prejudice or opinion. I know it sounds like I've got it made, but it's a shitty way to live.

I never suffered abuse to the extent that you did, but I think I know what you mean.

(I did have an older sibling who insisted on tickling me, every day, for long periods. I could write a long post about how tickling causes involuntary laughter that restricts breathing and is therefore essentially a form of torture, but it would still pale in comparison to your experience.)

Wish you the best.


Baldur

I never suffered abuse to the extent that you did, but I think I know what you mean.

(I did have an older sibling who insisted on tickling me, every day, for long periods. I could write a long post about how tickling causes involuntary laughter that restricts breathing and is therefore essentially a form of torture, but it would still pale in comparison to your experience.)

Wish you the best.


Baldur
Tickling, eh? Sounds funny at first, but the more you think about it, the less funny and more horrible it sounds.

Thanks for your sympathy.

Well, it's probably because ever since a certain traumatic childhood, I've pretty much screened out my emotions (except for when they occasionally erupt, like they did at Black Forrest). I view everything logically and without prejudice or opinion. I know it sounds like I've got it made, but it's a shitty way to live.
I don't envy anyone who is berift of their passion.

I mean it's nice that you're able to look at things reasonably, but that's quite a high price to pay for that ability.

You have my sympathies.

I'm glad you agree. Did you know that fondling children, especially to quiet them or put them to sleep, was common in the U.S. well into the 1800's,


And how does the actions of 200 years ago make it acceptable today?

Did you know it was ok to duel, own slaves, have indentured servants....

and still common in some rural areas into the 1900's?


Hmmm I know there is a Kentucky joke in there somewhere.....

Have you ever read about what "therapists" do to their victims? It's no coincidence that "therapists" is just "the rapists" run together.


Hypocrisy.

I'm glad you agree. Did you know that fondling children, especially to quiet them or put them to sleep, was common in the U.S. well into the 1800's, and still common in some rural areas into the 1900's? And that it's still common in many parts of the world today?

No, I do NOT agree that fondling children sexually is appropriate to their age. You know that, you're just trying to piss me off by flaunting your fucking pedophiliac smarm.


While that is a concern, I was actually referring to the fact that in the U.S. today fondling children would put them at risk. Have you ever read about what "therapists" do to their victims? It's no coincidence that "therapists" is just "the rapists" run together.

Ha. "That is a concern." I'd say that's the only concern for a sick fuck such as yourself. You've shown you don't give a fuck about children. You just want TO fuck children. Frankly, you have no place worrying that rapists will do the same thing.

No, I do NOT agree that fondling children sexually is appropriate to their age. You know that, you're just trying to piss me off by flaunting your fucking pedophiliac smarm.




Ha. "That is a concern." I'd say that's the only concern for a sick fuck such as yourself. You've shown you don't give a fuck about children. You just want TO fuck children. Frankly, you have no place worrying that rapists will do the same thing.


you have to know that you should never argue with a psychopath.

Its a total waste of time. And I have a feeling he's getting some pleasure out of your sheer frustration and disgust.

you have to know that you should never argue with a psychopath.

Its a total waste of time. And I have a feeling he's getting some pleasure out of your sheer frustration and disgust.

A psychopath? Now now, you're just persecuting him based on his sexual preferences. Don't be such a fascist! ;)

Yeah, I shouldn't bother. But I shouldn't just let it slide either.

A psychopath? Now now, you're just persecuting him based on his sexual preferences. Don't be such a fascist! ;)

Yeah, I shouldn't bother. But I shouldn't just let it slide either.


I dont say to let it slide, just dont show your anger and outrage. I have pretty strong feelings about the subject too, but describing them might give an anonymous perverted coward the cheap thrill they crave.

Sexual attraction isnt something you can control. If you are attracted to 12 year old girls, well nothing you can do.

The thing is, I can guarantee you that alot more people fantasize about underage sex partners than you think. Many, many people consider being in a position of authority, being in a position of power, or even the taking of innocence to be arousing. Im sure you know someone who likes to be called "daddy", even if you dont know they do. Role playing is quite popular regarding sex. However, its acting on these fantasies with an actual child that cannot consent which is wrong.

Sexual attraction isnt something you can control. If you are attracted to 12 year old girls, well nothing you can do.

The thing is, I can guarantee you that alot more people fantasize about underage sex partners than you think. Many, many people consider being in a position of authority, being in a position of power, or even the taking of innocence to be arousing. Im sure you know someone who likes to be called "daddy", even if you dont know they do. Role playing is quite popular regarding sex. However, its acting on these fantasies with an actual child that cannot consent which is wrong.
The actual problem is the age of consent. It has nothing to do with biology or anything. It is just something pulled out of someone's ass.
A natural age of consent would be about 13 or 14. Somewhere around there. Then again there is always my idea, make it 35.

To the guy that said something to the effect of south niflheim was a psychopath:
Everyone on NS is a psychopath. Deal with it.

To the guy that said something to the effect of south niflheim was a psychopath:
Everyone on NS is a psychopath. Deal with it.

Oh, what a good retort. Did "Baldur" call you in here to defend him, or are you a freelance, pro bono cheerleader?

Actually, it was the only way I could think of of reviving the topic.

Let it go.

And how does the actions of 200 years ago make it acceptable today?

Did you know it was ok to duel, own slaves, have indentured servants....

As for dueling, I think it was a perfectly acceptable means of settling disputes. Far more gentlemanly than waiting outside his car with a baseball bat and three friends, and infinitely preferable to the passive agressive bullshit we tollerate these days.

As for slavery, while I think it's an abhorent practice, you have to wonder what exactly the American worker is classified as these days. People work themselves practically to death in jobs that don't pay enough for them to support their families, so they get another job on the side. They are in this problem because they have these "debts" acrued through trying to provide for their family, which only grow as they work harder and harder.

You were saying something about how far we've come?

Hmmm I know there is a Kentucky joke in there somewhere.....
There probably is.
No, I do NOT agree that fondling children sexually is appropriate to their age. You know that, you're just trying to piss me off by flaunting your fucking pedophiliac smarm.

It really would have been clearer if you had used a question mark instead of a period. Or at least prefaced your statement with a "you think".

Ha. "That is a concern." I'd say that's the only concern for a sick fuck such as yourself. You've shown you don't give a fuck about children. You just want TO fuck children. Frankly, you have no place worrying that rapists will do the same thing.
I take it you're targeting South Niflheim because he looks like a softer target? I'll be happy to address any concerns you have regarding the dangers to the children we percieve.

I happen to agree with him that the psychological trauma caused by the theropy is a factor in why this is so traumatic. I may not be convinced that it is the sole source of said psychological trauma, but I do agree that it i a major contributor. I'll address this in more detail if you like.
you have to know that you should never argue with a psychopath.

Its a total waste of time. And I have a feeling he's getting some pleasure out of your sheer frustration and disgust.
I know I shouldn't, but it's just so much fun. ;)

Seriusly though, you should really watch throwing around words like psychopath. Someone could get the idea that anyone who happens to find kids attractive is berift of consience, and will molest at the first safe oportunity. That would be something I'd have to take offense to.
Actually, it was the only way I could think of of reviving the topic.
This topic was dying before South Niflheim came back. Odds are this resurection is only a temporary measure. I don't think anyone's willing to seriusly discuss this anymore. (After all, their side's losing. :P )

The charges may have been dropped - but they were made. Meanwhile Playboy still does not accept 17yr old models AFIK.

As far as the photography books - I don't have a clue why it would be acceptable. Do you?

That was actually the less relevant point. The bigger point was the free and open trade in mainstream retail outlets of the work of child photographers like David Hamilton and Jock Sturges. If images of naked children were illegal, there's no way you could order such things from Amazon.com. And yet...

That was actually the less relevant point. The bigger point was the free and open trade in mainstream retail outlets of the work of child photographers like David Hamilton and Jock Sturges. If images of naked children were illegal, there's no way you could order such things from Amazon.com. And yet...
I'll need to look those up to see what you're talking about, but I contend that the decision of what is and is not "child pornography" is a completely arbitrary one made by prosecutors. There is no universal standard, so they just go with the "I know it when I see it" test that essentially means "anything I disagree with is criminal".

Okay. Here's what I found:

As much of Hamilton's work depicts early-teen girls, often nude, he has been the subject of some controversy and even child pornography allegations, mostly from North America and Britain



Many of Sturges' works feature young girls and boys in the nude. As such, some critics have claimed that his work is disguised child pornography, pretending to be fine art.

As such, in April 1990, FBI agents raided his studio, confiscating his equipment and his work, and alleged he was creating child pornography.

Again, the presence of such allegations against their work suggests that it is not universally agreed that this material is legal.

The presence of an Amazon.com entry is not a method of determining legallity.

thats freaky. we should enforce tougher laws to protect our children.

Pedophiles make me so mad I could punch a baby.

Again, the presence of such allegations against their work suggests that it is not universally agreed that this material is legal.

Yes, but something that was clearly illegal wouldn't be available for sale at a local bookstore (and I'm pretty sure you could find them on the shelf at Barnes & Noble).

It bothers me that grey areas like this exist. you should always be able to tell whether your behaviour is legal, before you do it. Otherwise, it's just ex post facto law, and that defeats the whole point of having laws in the first place.

thats freaky. we should enforce tougher laws to protect our children.
Tougher? How about sane laws based on things that'll actually help protect kids.
Pedophiles make me so mad I could punch a baby.
And I'm supposed to be the abuser?
Yes, but something that was clearly illegal wouldn't be available for sale at a local bookstore (and I'm pretty sure you could find them on the shelf at Barnes & Noble).

It isn't clearly legal or illegal. I maintain that the only standard is what the prosecuter decides looks like child porn.

It bothers me that grey areas like this exist. you should always be able to tell whether your behaviour is legal, before you do it. Otherwise, it's just ex post facto law, and that defeats the whole point of having laws in the first place.
People are so afraid of pedophiles, they've accepted the creation of legal grey areas like this. Out of fear of something they don't understand, people have given the government the power to determine what is and isn't a crime arbitrarily.