NationStates Jolt Archive

i just want to state a big WTF to these people.....

These guys want to do everything from droping the age of consent to 12 to making kiddie porn legal...

the world just gets stranger by the day...only the dutch huh?


--------------------
(From Yahoo News)

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its Web site it would be officially registered Wednesday, proclaiming: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"

The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.

"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper.

"We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion," he said, adding that the subject had been a taboo since the 1996 Marc Dutroux child abuse scandal in neighboring Belgium. "We have been hushed up. The only way is through parliament."

The Netherlands already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage, but the NVD is unlikely to win much support, the AD quoted experts as saying.

"They make out as if they want more rights for children. But their position that children should be allowed sexual contact from age 12 is of course just in their own interest," anti-pedophile campaigner Ireen van Engelen told the daily.

The party said private possession of child pornography should be allowed although it favors banning the trade of such materials. The broadcast of pornography should be allowed on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening, according to the party.

Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said.

The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public.

The party's program also includes ideas for other areas of public policy including legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.

forgot the link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060530/od_nm/dutch_pedophiles_dc;_ylt=ArNt9.U2wNz7KHtWCeKKMxus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-

Oh...My...God!!!!! What the fuck?! This is unbelieveable.

these are just downright comical


The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public.

The party's program also includes ideas for other areas of public policy including legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.

How.....interesting.

I think all countries should have a party like this. Then when all the paedophiles have joined we'll know exactly who to watch.

I think all countries should have a party like this. Then when all the paedophiles have joined we'll know exactly who to watch.


then you can line em all up and shoot them one by one.

Well ain't that a deal.

Though we should globalise the definition of "pedophile".

Isn't the age of consent 16 in the UK? That would be pedophilia in the U.S.

Sex between two consenting adults is fine, but with children, no way. They're just kids for crine out loud, they still have to develop and grow and whatever.

Sex with animals? Well.... if you like horses THAT much... thats really none of my business.... :p

See now, I can see some Conservative pundit like O'Lie-ly or Douche Limaugh grabbing on to this story and making acres of hay with it:

"The LIBERALS want you to believe that gay marriage will NOT lead to PEDOPHILIA and PET marriages! But look at this story from Amsterdam..."

Oy gevalt. Admit it, you know it's coming....

Well ain't that a deal.

Though we should globalise the definition of "pedophile".

Isn't the age of consent 16 in the UK? That would be pedophilia in the U.S.

You obviously don't know what the word means

Fut the wuck?

Well ain't that a deal.

Though we should globalise the definition of "pedophile".

Isn't the age of consent 16 in the UK? That would be pedophilia in the U.S.


i thought the age was 17 in UK and US, but it could have been lowered.

i just want to state a big WTF to these people.....

These guys want to do everything from droping the age of consent to 12 to making kiddie porn legal...

the world just gets stranger by the day...only the dutch huh?


--------------------
(From Yahoo News)

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Dutch pedophiles are launching a political party to push for a cut in the legal age for sexual relations to 12 from 16 and the legalization of child pornography and sex with animals.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Charity, Freedom and Diversity (NVD) party said on its Web site it would be officially registered Wednesday, proclaiming: "We are going to shake The Hague awake!"

The party said it wanted to cut the legal age for sexual relations to 12 and eventually scrap the limit altogether.

"A ban just makes children curious," Ad van den Berg, one of the party's founders, told the Algemeen Dagblad (AD) newspaper.

"We want to make pedophilia the subject of discussion," he said, adding that the subject had been a taboo since the 1996 Marc Dutroux child abuse scandal in neighboring Belgium. "We have been hushed up. The only way is through parliament."

The Netherlands already has liberal policies on soft drugs, prostitution, and gay marriage, but the NVD is unlikely to win much support, the AD quoted experts as saying.

"They make out as if they want more rights for children. But their position that children should be allowed sexual contact from age 12 is of course just in their own interest," anti-pedophile campaigner Ireen van Engelen told the daily.

The party said private possession of child pornography should be allowed although it favors banning the trade of such materials. The broadcast of pornography should be allowed on daytime television, with only violent pornography limited to the late evening, according to the party.

Toddlers should be given sex education and youths aged 16 and up should be allowed to appear in pornographic films and prostitute themselves. Sex with animals should be allowed although abuse of animals should remain illegal, the NVD said.

The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public.

The party's program also includes ideas for other areas of public policy including legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.

You being an american and having just 1 more political party then china's number of political parties (1), I know it's hard for u to understand the multiple party system in Europe. There are hundreds of political parties in a country, from bird rights to chavez immitiators to people who crack egg from bottom. Most of them doesnt get elected usually, receiving votes less than 1%, they might not even register in the ballot...

See now, I can see some Conservative pundit like O'Lie-ly or Douche Limaugh grabbing on to this story and making acres of hay with it:

"The LIBERALS want you to believe that gay marriage will NOT lead to PEDOPHILIA and PET marriages! But look at this story from Amsterdam..."

Oy gevalt. Admit it, you know it's coming....

it's totally coming...

change the name of that show to the O'philely factor.

cant stand that guy.

Each of the party members should be investigated for their criminal records. There should be lots of "dirty old men" in that party.

Meh, even the neo-nazis will get more votes. I couldn't care less. They won't have any influence.

ow, well. just another political party in our little country, they won't even get 1000 votes.

all parties in Holland: http://www.overheidslinks.nl/politiekepartijen.htm

including: Republican Socialists, Party for the Animals (no, not that kind of party:p ), Party Agianst Overpopulation, Don't Vote, Hup Holland and XyZyX 4U2.

ow, well. just another political party in our little country, they won't even get 1000 votes.

all parties in Holland: http://www.overheidslinks.nl/politiekepartijen.htm

including: Republican Socialists, Party for the Animals (no, not that kind of party:p ), Party Agianst Overpopulation, Don't Vote, Hup Holland and XyZyX 4U2.


don't vote? LOL that's a good one.

then you can line em all up and shoot them one by one.

Or, you could line them all up single-file and see how many skulls a .50 cal sniper rifle can go through.

Think about it. It'd serve a very positive purpose for greater society, and would give us valuable insight into the behavior of the .50 sniper round.

Seriously tho, I have a three-year-old boy, it really shocks me to see that people with ideas this warped would band together to try to legitimize them. Nuckin' futz, say I.

Good thing I live in the good ol' U S of A, where our diligent censors work hard to protect us from wardrobe malfunctions on TV...

I think all countries should have a party like this. Then when all the paedophiles have joined we'll know exactly who to watch.
Of course it would be foolish to publish a list of members considering this mentality:
then you can line em all up and shoot them one by one.


I honestly think that an open discussion of this subject is in the best interests of all parties involved. The taboo really is dangerous.

Or, you could line them all up single-file and see how many skulls a .50 cal sniper rifle can go through.

Think about it. It'd serve a very positive purpose for greater society, and would give us valuable insight into the behavior of the .50 sniper round.

Seriously tho, I have a three-year-old boy, it really shocks me to see that people with ideas this warped would band together to try to legitimize them. Good thing I live in the good ol' U S of A, where our diligent censors work hard to protect us from wardrobe malfunctions on TV...

I can't tell how serious you're being here about any of that.

Or, you could line them all up single-file and see how many skulls a .50 cal sniper rifle can go through.

Think about it. It'd serve a very positive purpose for greater society, and would give us valuable insight into the behavior of the .50 sniper round.

Seriously tho, I have a three-year-old boy, it really shocks me to see that people with ideas this warped would band together to try to legitimize them. Good thing I live in the good ol' U S of A, where our diligent censors work hard to protect us from wardrobe malfunctions on TV...



basically turning the dutch pedophiles into lab rats, i like it.

hey i got it, we can stop testing on animals now and use crazy people as guinea pigs....

(sounds like an NS nation issue)

You obviously don't know what the word means

Neither do you.

There's no global definition.

If 16 is age of consent in the UK and it is 18 in the US, then people in the US must think having sex with a 16 year old to be pedophilia.

Pedophilia is sex with a child. In the US, 16 is a child. In the UK, 16 is not.

So who is correct?

We must globalise the definition of "child" before we can deal with who is and is not a pedophile.

ow, well. just another political party in our little country, they won't even get 1000 votes.

all parties in Holland: http://www.overheidslinks.nl/politiekepartijen.htm

including: Republican Socialists, Party for the Animals (no, not that kind of party:p ), Party Agianst Overpopulation, Don't Vote, Hup Holland and XyZyX 4U2.

OMG!! XyZyX 4U2? Isnt that the party that'll begin initiating alien invasion of Earth via Netherlands. We should face it, once we loose Holland Earth is defeneseless!

Neither do you.

There's no global definition.

If 16 is age of consent in the UK and it is 18 in the US, then people in the US must think having sex with a 16 year old to be pedophilia.

Pedophilia is sex with a child. In the US, 16 is a child. In the UK, 16 is not.

So who is correct?

We must globalise the definition of "child" before we can deal with who is and is not a pedophile.


its up to 18 now? good, because knew a lot of people in HS who were sophmores or juniors going out with college grads. i think when someone is young enough to be your kid brother/sister, you should just stay away.

its up to 18 now? good, because knew a lot of people in HS who were sophmores or juniors going out with college grads. i think when someone is young enough to be your kid brother/sister, you should just stay away.

I am 33 and I'm someone's "kid brother". So should my brother stay away from 30+ year olds?

Anyway, "legal" isn't necessarily an issue. We all know people in high school have sex. I smoke pot. It isn't legal, but I do it anyway.

We're talking about age of consent here, not age of ability.

I can't tell how serious you're being here about any of that.

A bit tongue in cheek perhaps, but the sentiment behind it is real Panchavarna....

I am 33 and I'm someone's "kid brother". So should my brother stay away from 30+ year olds?

Anyway, "legal" isn't necessarily an issue. We all know people in high school have sex. I smoke pot. It isn't legal, but I do it anyway.

We're talking about age of consent here, not age of ability.


thats what im talking about (age of consent), maybe i worded it wrong, thats been happening to me a lot today.


i believe the age of consent should be 18. teens having sex i know me nor anyone else can do anything about it, but i hope 16 yr olds sleeping with 30 year olds would stop.


hopefully that made sense. i'm agreeing with what you say, hopefully im just wording it right (still a little hungover from the night before)

(still a little hungover from the night before)

AHA! Then we have common ground.

(goes to get more water)

While I could care less about the age of consent or kiddie porn, I dont think this is a proper platform.

AHA! Then we have common ground.

(goes to get more water)


grab me a glass, or a 5 gallon jug, whichever you see first.

grab me a glass, or a 5 gallon jug, whichever you see first.

I have aspirins, too ... need some aspirins?

I have aspirins, too ... need some aspirins?


that i have. id like a yuengling though if not the water.

that i have. id like a yuengling though if not the water.

Ah ... hair of the dog, eh? All I have is Guinness.

Free train travel! Now thats a vote winner!

All I have is Guinness.


no thanks im not hungry ;)

only brew you dont need food with, meal in a glass.

Free train travel! Now thats a vote winner!
Meh, already have that for being a college student.

Sounds almost like a typical nationstates-issue to me ...

Free train travel! Now thats a vote winner!

Sounds almost like a typical nationstates-issue to me ...

always better than those "why do you hate my god so much?" threads...

i thought the age was 17 in UK and US, but it could have been lowered.

16 in the UK. It might be higher in Northern Ireland though.

16 in the UK. It might be higher in Northern Ireland though.


why 16 in the UK?

just curious...

i just want to state a big WTF to these people.....

These guys want to do everything from droping the age of consent to 12 to making kiddie porn legal...

Isn't the age of consent already 12 in Holland?

it's totally coming...

change the name of that show to the O'philely factor.

cant stand that guy.

I'm cumming to. Now I just need o-phileys adress so I know where to send the dirty napkin.

And hey...as long as you can stretch 'em to the needed size and any age and gender is a-ok.

Isn't the age of consent already 12 in Holland?


i dunno that just what the article said.

Isn't the age of consent already 12 in Holland?
Not that I know of. I think it's 16 here. (not sure though)

why 16 in the UK?

just curious...

You can do most things at the age of sixteen here, including get married (as long as you get parental consent). As to why, I just don't know.

Not that I know of. I think it's 16 here. (not sure though)

I'll add that to the 'urban legend' file then

Meh, already have that for being a college student.

Congratulations...now what about those who don't?

Why should you be the only one to have free train travel? Sounds a bit elitist to me....

You can do most things at the age of sixteen here, including get married (as long as you get parental consent). As to why, I just don't know.


interesting....is the UK getting a boom in teen pregnancy and marriage as well?

(well actually i believe the pregnancy rate gone down in the US since birth control has become so popular)

Congratulations...now what about those who don't?

Why should you be the only one to have free train travel? Sounds a bit elitist to me....


so you would allow 16 year olds to be hookers and 12 be the age of consent just so you can get a free 2 dollar train ride?? (or however much it is)

so you would allow 16 year olds to be hookers and 12 be the age of consent just so you can get a free 2 dollar train ride?? (or however much it is)

What a daft question...!

interesting....is the UK getting a boom in teen pregnancy and marriage as well?
Teen pregnancy, but not marriage. But I doubt the AOC laws have anything to do with it.

interesting....is the UK getting a boom in teen pregnancy and marriage as well?

(well actually i believe the pregnancy rate gone down in the US since birth control has become so popular)

There has been a panic about teen pregnancy and our rate is one of the highest in Europe (though I suspect this is more due to an aversion to discussing sex than the age of consent).

Generally speaking people are now marrying later and are less likely to be married.

There has been a panic about teen pregnancy and our rate is one of the highest in Europe (though I suspect this is more due to an aversion to discussing sex than the age of consent).

Generally speaking people are now marrying later and are less likely to be married.


well at least the youth marriage isnt an issue....

england has highest pregnancy rate in europe huh? i learn something new every day here.

again NS is great.

Congratulations...now what about those who don't?

Why should you be the only one to have free train travel? Sounds a bit elitist to me....
It's for all students.

It's for all students.


never that knew students were elitist :p

never that knew students were elitist :p
They are here:p

these are just downright comical


The party also said everybody should be allowed to go naked in public.

The party's program also includes ideas for other areas of public policy including legalizing all soft and hard drugs and free train travel for all.

Yeah, it sounds almost like an NS issue :D

Yeah, it sounds almost like an NS issue :D


and i think it has been on several occasions

I don't think 12 is an appropriate age for consent, but otherwise I think it all sounds fine. Prostitution and drug use should be 100% legal, mass transit for all would be super, and anything that discourages adherance to the "traditional" form of marriage is a glorious bonus. :)

I don't think 12 is an appropriate age for consent, but otherwise I think it all sounds fine. Prostitution and drug use should be 100% legal, mass transit for all would be super, and anything that discourages adherance to the "traditional" form of marriage is a glorious bonus. :)


mass transit for all will come out of your pockets in tax money though, so it wont really be free.

Wow, I never would want to go near the Netheralnds if that happened. They're already Liberal as can be. Soon, Dutch will simply mean "an extremely liberal person" in the dictionary if they keep this up.

Wow, I never would want to go near the Netheralnds if that happened. They're already Liberal as can be. Soon, Dutch will simply mean "an extremely liberal person" in the dictionary if they keep this up.

So if we're so liberal then why do I remember some threads about our immigration policy and us closing our borders more and more for non-western citizens? The idea that the dutch are very liberal is highly outdated.

It's only a party, we've got hundreds of them. And only about 10 of them are somewhat relevant.

I don't think 12 is an appropriate age for consent, but otherwise I think it all sounds fine. Prostitution and drug use should be 100% legal, mass transit for all would be super, and anything that discourages adherance to the "traditional" form of marriage is a glorious bonus. :)
Well, if it helps, they aren't really attempting to make 12 the Age of Conscent anyway. Ultimately, their goal is to simply do away with the idea of Age of Conscent entirely.

Personally, I think the party has a great platform. I'd vote for that party over any of the do nothing parties over here in the states. (It helps that they represent my interests as a pedophile.)

Eliminating the age of consent would be absurd. Reducing it to twelve is probably a bit overmuch, but I wouldn't object to, say, fourteen - if there is a restriction on age difference and on relationships with severe differences in power.

I would maintain the ban on child pornography, too.

Other than that, I don't really have a problem with their platform.

Neither do you.

There's no global definition.

If 16 is age of consent in the UK and it is 18 in the US, then people in the US must think having sex with a 16 year old to be pedophilia.

Pedophilia is sex with a child. In the US, 16 is a child. In the UK, 16 is not.

So who is correct?

We must globalise the definition of "child" before we can deal with who is and is not a pedophile.


You can't. I was partying and boning like mad at 13(yes I was a messed up adolescent).. but I knew 16 and 17 year olds who still had the "innocent" mentality and were still playing games and doing stuff that I stopped doing at 11. It depends on the person and circumstances.

Come to think of it, this party sounds similar to The Republican Party (http://www.armchairsubversive.com/).

But you know whats funny? When the liberal talks of homosexuality being ok...gay marriage being ok...and life partners being ok, first started, it was looked upon in the same way that the first bunch of posters replied to this news article.

Things are just interesting if you look at them in perspective.


On a personal note I think its all nasty, but what do I know...I tend to be more socially Conservative. *glances down at political compass*

But you know whats funny? When the liberal talks of homosexuality being ok...gay marriage being ok...and life partners being ok, first started, it was looked upon in the same way that the first bunch of posters replied to this news article.

Things are just interesting if you look at them in perspective.


On a personal note I think its all nasty, but what do I know...I tend to be more socially Conservative. *glances down at political compass*

It has absolutely nothing to do with it being "nasty." The question is whether it should be prohibited, and it should only be prohibited if it violates someone's freedom unnecessarily. The issue for me is at what age it makes sense to deem a child capable of consent without leaving him vulnerable to pressure by adults that makes such consent meaningless.

Homosexuality is a totally different issue; it does not involve the power differences that make pedophilia dangerous.

Of course, it isn't nasty, either.

Eliminating the age of consent would be absurd.

Why? Why is an arbitrary limit inherently desirably? Why should the question of maturity be determined based on a clock rather than based on physiological and psychological qualifications?

Reducing it to twelve is probably a bit overmuch, but I wouldn't object to, say, fourteen - if there is a restriction on age difference and on relationships with severe differences in power.

Are you really saying that these kids can't have sex with mature, responsible adults, but sex with immature, irresponsible teenagers is just fine? I don't get it. Either accept that a person has the capacity to make responsible decisions about sex letting them fuck anyone who'll agree to it, or determine that they're not ready for sex with anyone. Restricting minors to sex with other minors only serves to increase sexual exploitation.

I would maintain the ban on child pornography, too.

Why?

Other than that, I don't really have a problem with their platform.
So...

...

...

...

You're for the free train fare?

No, Homosexuality is almost the same thing. They are sexual urges that deviate from what most would call normal. If you have the urge to have sex with a 12 year old theres nothing you can do to reverse that. I think it has more to do with the positions rather than the age. Some people find a position of authority or taking innocence to be arousing. Its not the child that arouses them, its the situation. I know some people who roleplay rape and like to call/be called "daddy". If you think about it, its pretty normal. However they practice it in a healthy manner between 2 consenting adults.

It has absolutely nothing to do with it being "nasty." The question is whether it should be prohibited, and it should only be prohibited if it violates someone's freedom unnecessarily. The issue for me is at what age it makes sense to deem a child capable of consent without leaving him vulnerable to pressure by adults that makes such consent meaningless.

Homosexuality is a totally different issue; it does not involve the power differences that make pedophilia dangerous.

Of course, it isn't nasty, either.

Hey...I'm not arguing this...all I'm saying as that the first bunch of posters displayed the exact same response as the general public did when people wanted to 'understand homosexuality'...'make it ok'...all that.

Why? Why is an arbitrary limit inherently desirably? Why should the question of maturity be determined based on a clock rather than based on physiological and psychological qualifications?

For the same reason we do it for voting - convenience. There really is no other way to do it effectively.

Are you really saying that these kids can't have sex with mature, responsible adults, but sex with immature, irresponsible teenagers is just fine?

I don't care about maturity or responsibility, that's their business. My issue is solely consent.

Why?

For the same reason I support retaining the age of consent, more or less; it's too easy to turn it into a system of exploitation.

So...

...

...

...

You're for the free train fare?

I'm ardently in favor of free public transportation, yes, and I have no problem with the legalization of victimless crimes.

I think New Zealand recently lowered the age of consent to 14.

No, Homosexuality is almost the same thing. They are sexual urges that deviate from what most would call normal.

Except one tends to involve exploitation and coercion, and the other does not.

It has absolutely nothing to do with it being "nasty."

It has a hell of a lot to do with it being "nasty". That ick factor is what prevents people from even looking rationally at the question. So instead, people make blanket, arbitrary statements that have no basis in biology or psychology, and are based soely in what they grew up learning, and the massive ammount of anti-pedophile propoganda out there.

The question is whether it should be prohibited, and it should only be prohibited if it violates someone's freedom unnecessarily.

Let's talk then about what constitutes a "neccisary" limitation on freedom. Why is it neccisary to restrict someone under 14 from engaging in sexual activity? Why is it neccisary to restrict the choice of partners for people over that age, but under whatever arbitrary limit you decide to take the sexual training wheels off.

I agree that we should not be violating people's freedom unnessisarily, so prove to me how this particular ban is neccisary, or even internally consistent.

The issue for me is at what age it makes sense to deem a child capable of consent without leaving him vulnerable to pressure by adults that makes such consent meaningless.

So you're of the opinion that the power difference is what makes it so dangerous?

Do you know that there are people in prison right now who are there because a child falsely accused them of molesting them. How do I know this? Because the children admited to it, but the legal system still considers the adults in question to be predators. Even if they do get out, even the accusation is enough to ruin the lives of those men, making living a normal life impossible.

I do see a radical power difference, but I've got to tell you, I don't feel like I'd be the one in control.

Homosexuality is a totally different issue; it does not involve the power differences that make pedophilia dangerous.

That's what the gays love to tell us. They have to, because everytime someone makes a push for gay rights, some jackass comes along with snide remarks about "next thing you know people'll be marrying kids or their pets". So of course, the homosexual community has had to distance themselves from this if they wanted to be taken seriously.

For the same reason we do it for voting - convenience. There really is no other way to do it effectively.

And you think I agree with arbitrary limits for voting?

I don't care about maturity or responsibility, that's their business. My issue is solely consent.

Then why do you support the criminalization of conscentual sex between adults and minors?

For the same reason I support retaining the age of consent, more or less; it's too easy to turn it into a system of exploitation.

I'd like you to tell me who's being exploited when I look at a drawing, read a story, or any number of other activities that happen to have a certain subject matter?

I'm ardently in favor of free public transportation, yes, and I have no problem with the legalization of victimless crimes.
Then let's get together and decriminalize virtual child porn. That would be consistent with your stance, no?
Except one tends to involve exploitation and coercion, and the other does not.
You think gays are never involved in exploitation or coersion? You think kids always are? You paint with a rather broad brush.

It has a hell of a lot to do with it being "nasty". That ick factor is what prevents people from even looking rationally at the question.

I do think beastiality (at least some forms of it) is nasty, yet I support its legalization. And if I could be assured that the children would be free to make their own choices, and not be pressured unduly by adults, I would have absolutely no problem with pedophilia.

Let's talk then about what constitutes a "neccisary" limitation on freedom. Why is it neccisary to restrict someone under 14 from engaging in sexual activity? Why is it neccisary to restrict the choice of partners for people over that age, but under whatever arbitrary limit you decide to take the sexual training wheels off.

Because the risk of exploitation is too high. A six year old cannot be said to meaningfully consent, especially if the relevant person is an authority figure, as adults always are to children that age.

I agree that we should not be violating people's freedom unnessisarily, so prove to me how this particular ban is neccisary, or even internally consistent.

It protects the freedom of children. It is indeed arbitrary, people are different, but any other standard would either be equally or even more arbitrary, or too vague to be useful.

So you're of the opinion that the power difference is what makes it so dangerous?

Do you know that there are people in prison right now who are there because a child falsely accused them of molesting them. How do I know this? Because the children admited to it, but the legal system still considers the adults in question to be predators. Even if they do get out, even the accusation is enough to ruin the lives of those men, making living a normal life impossible.

I can believe that. It does seem to me as if our culture has a certain irrationality regarding pedophilia, and there undoubtedly have been innocents - both people who committed no crime and people who illegally engaged in a relationship with children that was nevertheless truly consensual - unjustly punished by the system.

I do see a radical power difference, but I've got to tell you, I don't feel like I'd be the one in control.

The fact that children, legally, are protected does not mean that in actual reality they are. Our society tends to disempower children, especially younger ones, and plenty of them are not aware of or not capable of utilizing such laws.

That's what the gays love to tell us. They have to, because everytime someone makes a push for gay rights, some jackass comes along with snide remarks about "next thing you know people'll be marrying kids or their pets". So of course, the homosexual community has had to distance themselves from this if they wanted to be taken seriously.

And who is making broad generalizations now?

And you think I agree with arbitrary limits for voting?

Did I say you did?

Then why do you support the criminalization of conscentual sex between adults and minors?

Because there are too many cases where nominal consent has nothing to do with actual consent for me to accept its legalization.

I'd like you to tell me who's being exploited when I look at a drawing, read a story, or any number of other activities that happen to have a certain subject matter?

No one. Virtual child pornography should be legal.

You think gays are never involved in exploitation or coersion?

No.

You think kids always are?

No.

You paint with a rather broad brush.

In this case, the law has to, unfortunately.

I do think beastiality (at least some forms of it) is nasty, yet I support its legalization. And if I could be assured that the children would be free to make their own choices, and not be pressured unduly by adults, I would have absolutely no problem with pedophilia.

I see. Well, that does make a difference.

In that case, I reccomend the following:
Treat rape like rape, regardless of who the victum is.

Laws against rape exist already, and easily apply to children without adding on something arbitrary like AoC. I mean it's already illegal to coherse someone into sex, so why do you think that such protections would be insufficient to protect children?

Because the risk of exploitation is too high. A six year old cannot be said to meaningfully consent, especially if the relevant person is an authority figure, as adults always are to children that age.

They can say "no", can't they? Even at six, how many of them are going to eat their vegtables just because an adult tells them to? If they can say no in that situation, why do they sudenly lose this capability when sex is involved?

It protects the freedom of children. It is indeed arbitrary, people are different, but any other standard would either be equally or even more arbitrary, or too vague to be useful.

Actually, it does nothing positive for the freedom of children. It deliberately limits the freedom of children. Every law specifically aimed at the "freedom of children" I've seen is actually a limitation on their freedom in disguise. Child labor laws are sold as protecting the freedom of children, but isn't the freedom to work something we value? Comulsary education laws are sold as protecting the freedom to an education, but they're really a state sactioned method of locking kids away with no means of escape or redress of greavences.

I can believe that. It does seem to me as if our culture has a certain irrationality regarding pedophilia, and there undoubtedly have been innocents - both people who committed no crime and people who illegally engaged in a relationship with children that was nevertheless truly consensual - unjustly punished by the system.

There is indeed a strong sense of irrationality, and I think that we need to fight to cut through that irrational mindset and ask honest questions about our behaviors regarding our kids.

The fact that children, legally, are protected does not mean that in actual reality they are. Our society tends to disempower children, especially younger ones, and plenty of them are not aware of or not capable of utilizing such laws.

You're right about that. Our society does do a lot to disempower kids. We groom them to accept adults as the ultimate authority, and don't stop to think about what this brainwashing is doing to them. We should be offering empowerment, rather than putting more restrictions on their activities "for their own good".

And who is making broad generalizations now?

What? I see it all the time. The gay community is often attacked with the slippery slope falacy.

Did I say you did?

You used voting as an example, presumably of an arbitrary limit you believed I would agree was neccisary. If that wasn't your intention, then I have no idea why you brought up the voting age.

Because there are too many cases where nominal consent has nothing to do with actual consent for me to accept its legalization.

There are cases like that among adults too. Why aren't you outraged about them? I'll tell you what, how about a test, like we do for driving. If you pass the test, you're deemed capable of giving conscent to sex. If you don't, then sex with you is statutory rape. That would at least clear away that painful stench of arbitrariness. It gets rid of AoC without actually demolishing the protections of statutory rape laws.

No one. Virtual child pornography should be legal.

Thank you. At least we're on the same page on this one.

No.



No.

Then why are you saying things like: Gays are (A) and Pedophiles are (not A)?

In this case, the law has to, unfortunately.
I don't think it does. There are viable alternatives, and I think there are saner measures by which to judge these questions.

I see. Well, that does make a difference.

In that case, I reccomend the following:
Treat rape like rape, regardless of who the victum is.

Laws against rape exist already, and easily apply to children without adding on something arbitrary like AoC. I mean it's already illegal to coherse someone into sex, so why do you think that such protections would be insufficient to protect children?

Because I think the issues are different enough to warrant a different standard. Adults, on the whole, tend to be better capable of dealing with this sort of pressure than children are, and have access to more means of redress.

They can say "no", can't they?

To a parent, or a teacher, or a priest? Someone they have been taught all their lives to trust and obey unquestionably?

Even at six, how many of them are going to eat their vegtables just because an adult tells them to?

But that's dealing with a comparably insigificant matter, and one that probably does not embarass the child.

Actually, it does nothing positive for the freedom of children. It deliberately limits the freedom of children. Every law specifically aimed at the "freedom of children" I've seen is actually a limitation on their freedom in disguise.

That's often true, and in some cases, it's necessary.

Child labor laws are sold as protecting the freedom of children, but isn't the freedom to work something we value?

The freedom to be brutally exploited is not something that should be valued, and that is what child labor often amounted to when the laws were enacted. Today, the case could be reasonably made to liberalize them, as long as the freedom of the child to use his own money as he sees fit is emphasized.

Comulsary education laws are sold as protecting the freedom to an education, but they're really a state sactioned method of locking kids away with no means of escape or redress of greavences.

I support compulsory education, because I don't think some children can be trusted with making such monumental decisions at that age, but I definitely agree that the disempowerment of students is a problem, and one that should be remedied.

You're right about that. Our society does do a lot to disempower kids. We groom them to accept adults as the ultimate authority, and don't stop to think about what this brainwashing is doing to them. We should be offering empowerment, rather than putting more restrictions on their activities "for their own good".

I can agree with that in most applications.

What? I see it all the time. The gay community is often attacked with the slippery slope falacy.

No, that wasn't the generalization. This was: That's what the gays love to tell us.

You used voting as an example, presumably of an arbitrary limit you believed I would agree was neccisary. If that wasn't your intention, then I have no idea why you brought up the voting age.

It was to clarify my own position by using a familiar example.

There are cases like that among adults too. Why aren't you outraged about them?

I think those are problems, too.

I'll tell you what, how about a test, like we do for driving. If you pass the test, you're deemed capable of giving conscent to sex. If you don't, then sex with you is statutory rape. That would at least clear away that painful stench of arbitrariness. It gets rid of AoC without actually demolishing the protections of statutory rape laws.

What kind of test do you envision? Driving is easier, because you are directly testing someone's capability to drive. You can't directly test someone's capability to vote, though, or someone's capability to consent to sex.

Then why are you saying things like: Gays are (A) and Pedophiles are (not A)?

I have tried to do neither, actually, and I have pointed out at least once that I do not think all pedophilia involves undue coercion.

See, this is exactly why we need to find freaks like this and kill them. They can't be rehabilitated and they are always out to victimize children. If they believe that they are safe while being so open about their depravity they will just get worse and worse. We ought to hunt out these sick individuals and kill them all. Their desires are immoral and intolerable. If a society lets the depraved few in its population take control it will be doomed to fall. We saw this with Rome. I'm not opposed to sexual freedom, but children are not ready for such relationships.

Because I think the issues are different enough to warrant a different standard. Adults, on the whole, tend to be better capable of dealing with this sort of pressure than children are, and have access to more means of redress.

And you don't think that judges would find this compelling enough? You think that the only way to protect children is to straight jacket the legal system into automatically assuming abuse with no need to prove it?

To a parent, or a teacher, or a priest? Someone they have been taught all their lives to trust and obey unquestionably?

And that right there is the problem. Where do people get off teaching their kids to obey unquestioningly? We should be teaching them to think for themselves and become responsible, free thinking individuals, rather than mindless slaves to whatever authority figure tells them to do something.

You want to know what causes child abuse? The fact that people are training their kids to be slaves rather than to be people.

And again, you don't think that the courts would be able to prove that the conscent was cohersed? You don't think a jury could be convinced of that without some blanket legal standard?

But that's dealing with a comparably insigificant matter, and one that probably does not embarass the child.

And why should sex embarass the child? That's another social construct we could do without. The vilification of sex inour culture is out of control. The only reason kids would be embarassed about sex more than any other example you bring up is because the western world is so tightly in the grip of extremist christian ideologies that they've made us all ashamed of our bodies. That's just more brainwashing that we need to put a stop to here and now.

That's often true, and in some cases, it's necessary.

I just think we shouldn't use these Orwellian terms. It isn't about protecting a child's freedom, so we shouldn't call it that. It may be about protecting the child in other ways, but the child's freedom is most certainly not what is being protected.

The freedom to be brutally exploited is not something that should be valued, and that is what child labor often amounted to when the laws were enacted. Today, the case could be reasonably made to liberalize them, as long as the freedom of the child to use his own money as he sees fit is emphasized.

Yet we do value a right to acheave financial independence. Child labor laws limit that right. Even if they do serve a purpose, freedom it most certainly is not, since such laws force the child to remain dependent on their caregivers.

I support compulsory education, because I don't think some children can be trusted with making such monumental decisions at that age, but I definitely agree that the disempowerment of students is a problem, and one that should be remedied.

I rather think you'd find more in common with the pedophile platform that you think. The disempowerment of children of all ages is one of the big issues they're actually likely to make real progess on. I mean we both know that they aren't going to have enough influence to change AoC significantly, but a big part of their platform is certain to be empowering children in other ways. This is because, for whatever reason, pedophiles have a good deal more respect fo the compotence of children to make responsible decisions than the average person. They're going to be the ones, I think, who push for children's actual rights, rather than the Orwellian definition of rights that the "children's rights" movements have historically used.

I can agree with that in most applications.

I'll take that as a good sign. Take care that you don't fall into the trap of trading rights for security on their behalf. We all know what a good idea that is.

No, that wasn't the generalization. This was:

Oh, that. I retract it. It was probably in poor taste anyway. I just get so frustrated with the GLBT community making such an effort to distance themselves from this issue. I'm none too happy with the feminists either, but that's another story.

It was to clarify my own position by using a familiar example.

Fair enough. I just don't agree with arbitrary limits in any form. Compotence is not measured on a clock.

I think those are problems, too.

Why not address the two problems in the same way, rather than separate them like this?

What kind of test do you envision?

I would reccomend something along the lines of a test of comprehension and abstract reasoning. Basicly show that they have the capability of acurately visualising long term consequences and adjust their choices accordingly. We have tests that can measure this.

Driving is easier, because you are directly testing someone's capability to drive.

And I still wonder why we have an age limit for that. I mean if someone can pass the test at twelve, why not issue a drivers lisence then?

You can't directly test someone's capability to vote, though, or someone's capability to consent to sex.

Well, you can't test those questions directly, unless you're testing someone's political or sexual views in regard to some arbitrary standard, but I think all you really need to test for either is the capacity to make informed, reasonable decisions. As I said before, there are methods of testing that.

I have tried to do neither, actually, and I have pointed out at least once that I do not think all pedophilia involves undue coercion.
I believe you said something to the effect of "one involves exploitation and the other doesn't". That to me suggests sweeping generalizations.
See, this is exactly why we need to find freaks like this and kill them. They can't be rehabilitated and they are always out to victimize children. If they believe that they are safe while being so open about their depravity they will just get worse and worse. We ought to hunt out these sick individuals and kill them all. Their desires are immoral and intolerable. If a society lets the depraved few in its population take control it will be doomed to fall. We saw this with Rome. I'm not opposed to sexual freedom, but children are not ready for such relationships.
I am so disapointed in humanity that your hateful voice is the kind that seems to hold sway in the halls of power.

You can't get kids to make an informed decision about something that they don't fully understand. It is too important.

You can't get kids to make an informed decision about something that they don't fully understand. It is too important.
The only reason they don't understand is because western society keeps them ignorant as a byproduct of the general sexual repression going on in this society.

The only reason they don't understand is because western society keeps them ignorant as a byproduct of the general sexual repression going on in this society.

Ignorant of what exactly ? Finding a 12 year old dutch child that doesn't at least have the basic knowledge of the mechanics involved in sex and pregnancy will not be trivial. That does not mean they are already mature enough to adequately judge all the other aspects.

Ignorant of what exactly ? Finding a 12 year old dutch child that doesn't at least have the basic knowledge of the mechanics involved in sex and pregnancy will not be trivial. That does not mean they are already mature enough to adequately judge all the other aspects.
In every sexually repressed western nation, there is a common idea which states keeping kids ignorant about sex will keep them from having sex. I don't know a hell of a lot about Holand, so I was speaking of the western world with which I am more familiar.

If they are not ignorant, then what's the problem exactly? What exactly do you think they need beyond information to turn their nominal conscent into informed conscent?

What "other aspects" are you reffering to that people over 16 magically know about?

I see The Five Castes is arguing his favorite subject: make child-fucking legal.

Kinda makes you wonder about a guy who is so singly focused. On fucking children.

If they are not ignorant, then what's the problem exactly? What exactly do you think they need beyond information to turn their nominal conscent into informed conscent?

What "other aspects" are you reffering to that people over 16 magically know about?

Life experience, the ability to say "no" to an adult, a rough idea as to where they are heading in life etc. etc.

Is 16 the magical age for everyone ? Hell, no. Some people are not even there at 30. But we keep it that low nevertheless.

I see The Five Castes is arguing his favorite subject: make child-fucking legal.

Kinda makes you wonder about a guy who is so singly focused. On fucking children.


because the children are our future

I see The Five Castes is arguing his favorite subject: make child-fucking legal.

I see that while you've apparently been following the threads where I post, you clearly have missed most of the content of them. Not surprising really. You didn't want to be infected by my subversive ideals, so you just saw my handle and scrolled past everything I wrote.

On the off chance you're still reading this, let explain something I've done in every thread on this subject before:
I don't support sex with kids in our current society because the social stygma that would follow the child around would be as traumatic as an actual rape even if the sex itself wasn't traumatic at all.

I'm not completely sure what psychological or physiological consequences exist for early sexual activity, and would like to see a lot more research done to determine how much of what we believe about kids and sex is based on fact and how much based on victorian myths of sexuality which we've all worked so hard to overcome for everyone except kids.

The taboo around this subject is at least partially to blame for the psychological trauma, and it also prevents us from determining any inate consequences. The taboo must therefore be diminished for the good of everyone, especially children.

Kinda makes you wonder about a guy who is so singly focused. On fucking children.
You know, the fact that you've apparently been following this subject enought to recognise me says basicly the same thing about you.

Feel ready to come out of the toybox?
Life experience,

Can you define exactly what that means and why it's valuable to sexual decision making, please.

the ability to say "no" to an adult,

An ability I think we should be giving them in every other aspect of their lives as well. Let's face it. You can't brainwash your kids into accepting whatevery any authority figure tells them and then expect them to turn out right. That's why kids rebel so much during their teen years, because they've had their lives controled, and they are just starting to overcome the programing that shouldn't have been put there in the first place.

a rough idea as to where they are heading in life

Can you explain how this is relavent?

etc. etc.

NO! If you've got something else, say it! I'm not letting you appeal to vague "other things"!

Is 16 the magical age for everyone ? Hell, no. Some people are not even there at 30. But we keep it that low nevertheless.
Why? Why do we keep it there if it isn't a reliable standard? Why are we so arbitrary about it? Why not simply determine when these vacuous qualifications you're suggesting need to be aquired have been, and then grant sexual liberation regardless of arbitrary limits like age?

Well ain't that a deal.

Though we should globalise the definition of "pedophile".

Isn't the age of consent 16 in the UK? That would be pedophilia in the U.S.

Age of consent in the U.S. is 16 (in almost all states, in some cases its 17-18, and in some its 15).

Age of consent in the U.S. is 16 (in almost all states, in some cases its 17-18, and in some its 15).
The US AoC is about as screwed up and inconsistent as anywhere. Why the federal government didn't do to AoC what it did to the drinking age, I'll never know.

no thanks im not hungry ;)

only brew you dont need food with, meal in a glass.


the liquid lambchop

Nevermind. It as too far back in the thread for me to remember.

the liquid lambchop


that just sounds disgusting....

then you can line em all up and shoot them one by one.

A pedophile-- by definition-- is an adult who is sexually attracted to children, not someone who has committed the act of child-abuse. Pedophiles, like anyone else, always have the option of not pursuing the satisfaction of their sexual desires-- something you might want to consider before you start talking in blanket-terms about exterminating people based on who they're attracted to. While not a pedophile, there are plenty of nutjobs who'd say that as a gay person I should be put to death for who I'm attracted to, too. Hence my concern when people start advocating murder. I may not endorse pedophilia but I'm even less disposed towards polgroms and executions based on what people are, before even giving consideration to what those people may or may not actually have done.

In general, most people should take a moment and consider their own position in the heirarchy of wrongs done (or about to be done) before they condemn other people.

Age of Consent is a complicated issue.

The morality of the situation is directly dependent upon a likelihood of manipulation/abuse.


For quite some time the age of adulthood was 14 or less. But it is obvious to most people that a mature 30+ year old can take advantage of a very immature 14 year old in ways that the 14 year old will barely comprehend.

Though I think it imprudent to impair the sexual understanding of high schoolers since most engage in sexual behavior regardless. Coming to understand one's sexuality is an important part of becoming a mature and psychologically well-balanced individual.

So one must weigh the threat of manipulative/abusive behavior against the common good of producing sexually well-adjusted adults by allowing them to experiment in relatively safe atmosphere.

NT

You can do most things at the age of sixteen here, including get married (as long as you get parental consent). As to why, I just don't know.

except you can't watch porn at age 16.....

Sounds like these dutch pedos watched the "Cartman joins NAMBLA" episode of south park and thought it a good idea!!! :D

The Five Castes... you sir... are a god amoung men.

I come to this post to make a reasoned and thought provoking statement about this complicated issue only to find you've not only covered every point I wished to make, but that you did so with an eloquence that I could never hope to muster.

Kudos.

I only wish I had something productive to add. So I'll comment on Mooter's post:

At 16 you can have sex in the UK... but you can't watch it.
You can film yourself having sex... but you can't show anyone (including yourself).
At 16 you can buy erotic literature (that or my local bookstore should be in a lot of trouble)... but you can't read it on the internet.

"Toddlers should be given sex education"

Y halo thar Brave New World.

"Isn't the age of consent 16 in the UK?"

It's 16 in New Zealand as well. Goddamn Yanks. :headbang:

On the off chance you're still reading this, let explain something I've done in every thread on this subject before:
I don't support sex with kids in our current society because the social stygma that would follow the child around would be as traumatic as an actual rape even if the sex itself wasn't traumatic at all.


Maybe another good reason is that a 40 year old's cock doesn't fit very easily into a child's ass.

You know 5 Castes, in another thread on the same issue you stated that child rapists sickened you and tht they should be put to death. Now you seem a little more accomodating of people that have the urge to fuck children. Why the shift in your position?

You see it was my opinion that child cannot possibly give any meaningful consent to a sexual act (since they have absolutely no understanding of what it means) any adult participating in such relations would essentially a rapist. Evidently this is something we don't agree on.

Maybe another good reason is that a 40 year old's cock doesn't fit very easily into a child's ass.You are a disgrace to yourself and those who know you. Of course you have a right to your opinions but not to be so coarse and verbally abusive. Try to take some time to formulate your thoughts and couch them in terms which others may be willing to read. There is enough emotion involved with the issue of paedophilism without the sort of course vulgar comments you choose to write. Ask yourself this; would you like a child to read what you have just written?

Goddamn Yanks. :headbang:

You aussies are ok!

You are a disgrace to yourself and those who know you.

What was that you said about judging?

The Five Castes... you sir... are a god amoung men.

Well. I expected extreme reactions to my posts, but that isn't exactly the extreme I foresaw.

I come to this post to make a reasoned and thought provoking statement about this complicated issue only to find you've not only covered every point I wished to make, but that you did so with an eloquence that I could never hope to muster.

Kudos.

Thanks. A lot.
Maybe another good reason is that a 40 year old's cock doesn't fit very easily into a child's ass.
You know, I've worked very hard not to bring actual sex acts and their physiological viability into this. Correcting your ignorance of biology is not why I'm here.
You know 5 Castes, in another thread on the same issue you stated that child rapists sickened you and tht they should be put to death. Now you seem a little more accomodating of people that have the urge to fuck children. Why the shift in your position?

The only shift is in your mind as it's determined to see some sick ulterior modive in everything I do. I do think child rapists are scum and should be dealt with harshly.

I have no problem with people who have said urge, since, as I've repeatedly admited, I have it too.

My reasons for celabacy are moral in nature, as I don't want kids to suffer the social trauma that this world would inflict upon them. That doesn't mean I don't wish the social trauma didn't exist, or that I don't want to do my part to create a world where sex with minors wouldn't be harmful (or at least a world where we could know for sure if conscentual sex with informed minors was inately harmful).

You see it was my opinion that child cannot possibly give any meaningful consent to a sexual act (since they have absolutely no understanding of what it means) any adult participating in such relations would essentially a rapist. Evidently this is something we don't agree on.
We do disagree in that you assert that a child is incompotent just because it is a child, while I maintain that lack of information is what leads to that incompotence. To you, the incompotence is not correctable, but to me it is. We are unlikely to reach an agreement on this.

What was that you said about judging?The difference is, I qualified what I said and did not verbally abuse in the process. What I'd like to know is what are your thoughts about what genaia said. Do you think comments like his are appropriate?

Do you think it's acceptable for children and young people to read that sort of vulgar post?

I applaud their efforts, although 12 is a bit low. 13 sounds better.

Do you think it's acceptable for children and young people to read that sort of vulgar post?

Your "think of the children" approach is pretty amusing since on another thread you tried to tar me as a moral bigot of the Christian Right. Yet what I find more ironic is that you seem to find "coarse" language more objectionable than an intellectual rationalisation of child abuse.

What I don't want children to be exposed to is the phyiscal outcome of some of the ideas being flaunted on this forum.

The difference is, I qualified what I said and did not verbally abuse in the process. What I'd like to know is what are your thoughts about what genaia said. Do you think comments like his are appropriate?

Do you think it's acceptable for children and young people to read that sort of vulgar post?

You didn't verbally abuse? So the fact he is a disgrace to the people who know him is what tough love?

How does a heated comment define a person?

You have never regretted saying anything?

What I think does not matter for the running of this board. I am not a mod. If you have issues with his comment, then why not mention it to one?

Uhhh...

Lowering the age of consent - sounds fine to me, so long as it's made clear that you are still not allowed to manipulate or coerce or exploit immaturity. Though 12 seems a tad young. I'm always touchy about age of consent proclamations because they create the statutory rape phenomenon, but they're there for a reason. I kind of like tiered systems, where there is an full freedom age and a no sex age, but a middleground where you have a limited age range. For example, below age 12 all sex is statutory rape, and at sixteen you can give full consent. But 12-15 year old sex is only statutory rape if the partner is more than a certain amount older than them, or above a given age, or something.


Child pornography? It all depends on how you define child... I'd say the age of full consent should be the age allowed for porn, and the rest should be punished. As for daytime TV... not ordinary daytime TV! Perhaps pay-per-view or fancy cable channels that clearly outline that risk, but I don't think kids should randomly stumble across porn on TV.

Toddlers and sex education? Now that's just crazy. Toddlers may not even know what their genitals are called, they certainly don't give a shit about, nor can they understand, the concepts of sex, fertilization, condoms, or pretty much anything else in sex ed. As far as 16 year old prostitution/pornography, it should be in line with whatever the age of full consent is. And animal sex - no. Animals can't consent. No consent, no sex.

Drug legalization sounds good, though not particularly likely yet; public nudity and free train travel both sound like good ideas, but are so extremely impractical/unlikely that they are not worth debating.

Kill them all.

Your "think of the children" approach is pretty amusing since on another thread you tried to tar me as a moral bigot of the Christian Right. Yet what I find more ironic is that you seem to find "coarse" language more objectionable than an intellectual rationalisation of child abuse.

What I don't want children to be exposed to is the phyiscal outcome of some of the ideas being flaunted on this forum.I don't think I said what you claim I did, if I'm wrong then please quote me on it. I notice that you just find what I said about children "amusing". You need to think on this. Here was an example of you being the sort of person I wouldn't want to be around children, using the sort of language you do. Yet you choose to question the motives of others "intellectual rationalisation of child abuse". Before you begin that process question your own motives. How can you criticise the (perceived) hidden agenda of paedophiles, when you haven't dealt with your own abusive and offensive responses. I was swayed by the content and arguments within 5 castes posts. The only response I can offer you when you are being abusive is to distance myself from you.

You may be right about 5castes "intellectual rationalisation of child abuse", if so, I'd like to understand your insight, as I'm sure others would. As it is you just offer 5castes the moral highground.

I abhor child abuse, there is no justification for it, or any sort of abuse. What I do not do, is automatically hate someone just because of their sexuality.

You didn't verbally abuse? So the fact he is a disgrace to the people who know him is what tough love?

How does a heated comment define a person?

You have never regretted saying anything?

What I think does not matter for the running of this board. I am not a mod. If you have issues with his comment, then why not mention it to one?
I wasn't asking you as an issue for mod intervention, like you say what I think does not matter for the running of this board.

What does matter however, is what you think about what he said. You were very quick to tell me what you think about what I said. Is this just double standards on your part? Or do you legitimise the use of offensive verbal comments involving children....while ostensibly posting comments about your dislike of child abuse?

Where does one sort of abuse directed at children be acceptable when another sort is not?

You know, I've worked very hard not to bring actual sex acts and their physiological viability into this. Correcting your ignorance of biology is not why I'm here.

The only shift is in your mind as it's determined to see some sick ulterior modive in everything I do. I do think child rapists are scum and should be dealt with harshly.

My reasons for celabacy are moral in nature, as I don't want kids to suffer the social trauma that this world would inflict upon them. That doesn't mean I don't wish the social trauma didn't exist, or that I don't want to do my part to create a world where sex with minors wouldn't be harmful (or at least a world where we could know for sure if conscentual sex with informed minors was inately harmful).

We do disagree in that you assert that a child is incompotent just because it is a child, while I maintain that lack of information is what leads to that incompotence. To you, the incompotence is not correctable, but to me it is. We are unlikely to reach an agreement on this.

I'm not determined to see some sick alternative motive, and I'll repeat what I said before I do not doubt that you would never abuse a child. It is rather irritating though how you denounce child rapists in such stark terms without deeming it worth mentioning that you feel that you feel child sex and child rape are not the same thing.

I believe that a child cannot legitimately consent to the act of sex because they have not reached a stage of sexual awakening where they can actually understand what the act means or offer any real consent to it. That's what the whole "puberty" transition is about. Do you really think that a 6-year old participating in a sexual activity really has any idea what they are doing?

I do believe that society can often have a negative impact upon the abused, but that does not take away from the wrongness of the act in the first place.

I wasn't asking you as an issue for mod intervention, like you say what I think does not matter for the running of this board.

What does matter however, is what you think about what he said. You were very quick to tell me what you think about what I said. Is this just double standards on your part? Or do you legitimise the use of offensive verbal comments involving children....while ostensibly posting comments about your dislike of child abuse?

Where does one sort of abuse directed at children be acceptable when another sort is not?

:D
I give you credit at your attempt to dodge the fact you passed judgment and change the topic to me.

:D
I give you credit at your attempt dodge the fact you passed judgment and change the topic to me.I answered the question. I was not being verbally abusive. Now I (again) ask you; do you legitimise the statement used by genaia. I ask as one person to another.

I won't ask you again but please beatr in mind, I'm asking a reasonable question hoping for a reasoned response. If you don't want to answer, then I must draw my own conclusions, as must others.

I don't think I said what you claim I did, if I'm wrong then please quote me on it. I notice that you just find what I said about children "amusing". You need to think on this. Here was an example of you being the sort of person I wouldn't want to be around children, using the sort of language you do. Yet you choose to question the motives of others "intellectual rationalisation of child abuse". Before you begin that process question your own motives. How can you criticise the (perceived) hidden agenda of paedophiles, when you haven't dealt with your own abusive and offensive responses. I was swayed by the content and arguments within 5 castes posts. The only response I can offer you when you are being abusive is to distance myself from you.

You may be right about 5castes "intellectual rationalisation of child abuse", if so, I'd like to understand your insight, as I'm sure others would. As it is you just offer 5castes the moral highground.

I abhor child abuse, there is no justification for it, or any sort of abuse. What I do not do, is automatically hate someone just because of their sexuality.

You can't recall threads that have passed out of existence as far as I know. Your actual quote (from memory was something along the lines of) "you sir, are a right wing bigot...with aims similar to Al-Qaeda". You know you actually have a very preachy streak to you. Also your quote that you "do not automatically hate someone just because of their sexuality" leads me to believe that you might be conflating the issues of homosexuality and paedophilia again.

I have argued on this issue in numerous threads, including ones that you have participated in, your characterisation of me as being purely abusive is intentionally misleading.

My "abusive and offensive responses" are mere semantics on an issue I feel strongly about. I find detailed and thought out ideological justifications of the right of grown men to participate in sexual activity with minors far more repulsive.

You know absolutely nothing about me so you are in no position whatsoever to comment on my "suitability to be around children". I'm a pretty laid back guy generally, but I'm done with the moral malaise of accomodation and apologism that's all too evident on this thread.

If you took a survey of parents, teachers and say paediatricians and asked them what their views on paedophilia and paedophiles were would you expect some mild-mannered apology for them? Or do you think that most of them would display similar hostility? Perhaps you feel that all those who demonstrate too strong a dislike of paedophilia or who actually (God forbid) use foul language in expresisng their opinion should be purged from their jobs and have their children taken away from them?

Or do such judgements only apply to me.

I answered the question. I was not being verbally abusive. Now I (again) ask you; do you legitimise the statement used by genaia. I ask as one person to another.

I won't ask you again but please beatr in mind, I'm asking a reasonable question hoping for a reasoned response. If you don't want to answer, then I must draw my own conclusions, as must others.

True, if I'm not careful I might get myself the all too distinctive rep as "that guy who doesn't approve of paedophilia" - that'll really stand me apart from the crowd.

I answered the question. I was not being verbally abusive. Now I (again) ask you; do you legitimize the statement used by genaia. I ask as one person to another.

I won't ask you again but please beatr in mind, I'm asking a reasonable question hoping for a reasoned response. If you don't want to answer, then I must draw my own conclusions, as must others.

It's a matter of opinion.

It's one thing to say it's disgraceful to say what he said and it's another to say you are a disgrace to yourself and the people who know you.

What he said is rather boorish and probably violates the rules of the board. However, you can't declare Freedom of Speech and Expression without the ability to say stupid and or hateful things.

Yes, children might read this. Though I truly wonder how many are below 13 here?

This board did not declare an age limit and it didn't create a list of acceptable topics. There is only the word "obscene" That is left to interpretation. The topic at hand is considered obscene by many. You find his comments obscene. Probably the best solution would be to delete the treads and disallow such talk for awhile as it begs for flaming and trolling.

What I find interesting is that your use of the "think of the children" argument. The very people that abused you for your sexuality use it all the time.

Finally, was his comments abusive to children? Can you prove any are present? We would have no argument if he spouted off like that all the time in front of children. I really doubt he does.

Interesting. Are you Religious?

It just occurred to me - it didn't at the time, but why was what I said so utterly unpleasant? Even as I typed it I had a feeling of unease, that was temporarily outweighed by my anger, but why? Certainly not because of the language itself - "cock" is pretty tame as profanity goes. Not because it was a description of sex, you certainly would not have reacted so strongly if we were talking about adults. So why then?

It was because even the very idea of an adult having sex with a child is so utterly repulsive that even refer to it in anything other than the most general sense concocts feelings of nausea. But then if the very idea, or written description of child abuse is so unpleasant and enough to make me "a disgrace to all who know me" then why in hell don't you demonstrate a similar hostility to those who would seek to pass laws to make it legal in real life...a profanity in a far more real and offensive form - the kind that really ruins lives and scars children forever.

Whereas, however offensive you might deem them, these are just words on a page. You really have missed the point massively.

Your "think of the children" approach is pretty amusing since on another thread you tried to tar me as a moral bigot of the Christian Right. Yet what I find more ironic is that you seem to find "coarse" language more objectionable than an intellectual rationalisation of child abuse.

I object to that characterization. If it's just rationalization, you should be able to tear it down easily because it would just be some kind of flimzy excuse. The fact that you have not yet proven able to do so does not bear out your suggestion that this is a rationalization.

What I don't want children to be exposed to is the phyiscal outcome of some of the ideas being flaunted on this forum.
Flaunted?
Uhhh...

Lowering the age of consent - sounds fine to me, so long as it's made clear that you are still not allowed to manipulate or coerce or exploit immaturity.

I rather imagine that any lowering of the Age of Conscent would have to include such assurances.

Though 12 seems a tad young. I'm always touchy about age of consent proclamations because they create the statutory rape phenomenon, but they're there for a reason. I kind of like tiered systems, where there is an full freedom age and a no sex age, but a middleground where you have a limited age range. For example, below age 12 all sex is statutory rape, and at sixteen you can give full consent. But 12-15 year old sex is only statutory rape if the partner is more than a certain amount older than them, or above a given age, or something.

Personally, I think that just leads more readily to situations of abuse. If you have an early bloomer, interested in sexual exploration, and you force that person to focus his entire sexual attention on his (under age I might add) peers, then you're just encouraging manipulation and abuse. Sure, it's not perpetrated by an adult, but that doesn't mean it still isn't encouraging cohersive rape.

Child pornography? It all depends on how you define child... I'd say the age of full consent should be the age allowed for porn, and the rest should be punished.

I would suggest to you that it is the manufacturers who are commiting real abuses, and the actions of viewers (who aren't materially supporting the manufacturers) are morally neutral.

As for daytime TV... not ordinary daytime TV! Perhaps pay-per-view or fancy cable channels that clearly outline that risk, but I don't think kids should randomly stumble across porn on TV.

Personally, I think parents should do more parenting anyway. By keeping daytime TV "kid friendly", we're just encouraging them to use the TV as a virtual babysitter.

Toddlers and sex education? Now that's just crazy.

Why?

Toddlers may not even know what their genitals are called,

That's part of what sex education is for.

they certainly don't give a shit about, nor can they understand, the concepts of sex, fertilization, condoms, or pretty much anything else in sex ed.

I think they're more capable of understanding things than you give them credit for. If they don't care, they don't care, but I think it's a good idea to give them access to information from day one so that sex stops becoming a big, enticing, forbidden secret.

As far as 16 year old prostitution/pornography, it should be in line with whatever the age of full consent is.

In Holand, the age of conscent is currently 16.

And animal sex - no. Animals can't consent. No consent, no sex.

And I presume you're a vegan who doesn't support enslaving them for our convenience or killing them for food? At what point did humanity start caring about nonsapient species?

Drug legalization sounds good, though not particularly likely yet;

I'm with you there. It probably is a ways off, but working toward a more reasonable future isn't something to sneeze at just because results will take a while.

public nudity and free train travel both sound like good ideas, but are so extremely impractical/unlikely that they are not worth debating.
Hopefully progress will be made on those two issues in spite of the barriers in place.
Kill them all.
And they just keep coming. Why don't people realise that they look like fools jumping in with this sort of stuff? I mean even Genaia3 has at least been saying things more substantial than this.
I'm not determined to see some sick alternative motive, and I'll repeat what I said before I do not doubt that you would never abuse a child.

Well, thanks for that vote of confidence. I'm not sure exactly how much you mean by it, but at lest it's a start.

It is rather irritating though how you denounce child rapists in such stark terms without deeming it worth mentioning that you feel that you feel child sex and child rape are not the same thing.

It isn't worth mentioning most of the time because the act is harmful in our society regardless. That doesn't mean I think it's neccisarily so regardless of culture, but most of the time I'm not talking about a potential change in culture. In this case I am.

I believe that a child cannot legitimately consent to the act of sex because they have not reached a stage of sexual awakening where they can actually understand what the act means or offer any real consent to it.

I'm not up on the lingo here, so forgive the possibly stupid question. What do you mean by "sexual awakening"? Apparently from the context, it looks like some life changing event where suddenly sex is understood on a higher level than is possible for mere mortals prior to this magical awakening. I mean it can't just be the stirring of sexual feelings, since you talk about how this allows a person to "actually understand what the act means" and all that.

That's what the whole "puberty" transition is about. Do you really think that a 6-year old participating in a sexual activity really has any idea what they are doing?

Depends on the 6-year old.

I do believe that society can often have a negative impact upon the abused, but that does not take away from the wrongness of the act in the first place.
Regardless, I see no justification for perpetuating the negative impact society has on the abused. We can sort out our othe differences later. First let's work together to decrease the stygma, and thus lessen the trauma of childhood sexual abuse victums, shall we?

...

...

I guess not.

My "abusive and offensive responses" are mere semantics on an issue I feel strongly about. I find detailed and thought out ideological justifications of the right of grown men to participate in sexual activity with minors far more repulsive.

While you're offended by thought out ideological views, I'm offended by knee jerk emotional appeals. Which one of us looks like we're in a more reasonable position?

Please, you do your cause more harm than good by refusing to fight my reason with reasoned justifications of your own.

You know absolutely nothing about me so you are in no position whatsoever to comment on my "suitability to be around children". I'm a pretty laid back guy generally, but I'm done with the moral malaise of accomodation and apologism that's all too evident on this thread.

Opologism? I must've missed that. Could you point it out to me so I can verbally thrash those people who are excusing child molesters too? I can't believe I missed that. Usually I'm so on the ball catching this sort of thing.

If you took a survey of parents, teachers and say paediatricians and asked them what their views on paedophilia and paedophiles were would you expect some mild-mannered apology for them? Or do you think that most of them would display similar hostility?

I expect most to display ignorant hostility. That doesn't make it right, but it is what I would expect. I don't have a very positive view of human nature, and you're not doing much to help me with that.

Perhaps you feel that all those who demonstrate too strong a dislike of paedophilia or who actually (God forbid) use foul language in expresisng their opinion should be purged from their jobs and have their children taken away from them?

Or do such judgements only apply to me.
I imagine that you would advocate such action for people who don't object strongly enough.
It just occurred to me - it didn't at the time, but why was what I said so utterly unpleasant? Even as I typed it I had a feeling of unease, that was temporarily outweighed by my anger, but why? Certainly not because of the language itself - "cock" is pretty tame as profanity goes. Not because it was a description of sex, you certainly would not have reacted so strongly if we were talking about adults. So why then?

Well, there is the fact that you were sticking pedophiles and child molesters in the same boat, that you were making an emotional appeal in order to contradict a reasoned response from me, that you decided to go for a more graphic description of your hypothetical rather than explain why you considered it offensive, that your example was far more sexually explicit than it needed to be, and that a lot of people have a problem with anal sex even without bringing kids into the deal.

Of course that's not what you were asking. You were asking why everyone gets uncomfortable with the mental image. That would be the internalization of the taboo we've been talking about. I can cut through the taboo with some people by appealing to reason, but when you make graphic descriptions like that, the internalized taboo makes a person deeply offended.

It was because even the very idea of an adult having sex with a child is so utterly repulsive that even refer to it in anything other than the most general sense concocts feelings of nausea. But then if the very idea, or written description of child abuse is so unpleasant and enough to make me "a disgrace to all who know me" then why in hell don't you demonstrate a similar hostility to those who would seek to pass laws to make it legal in real life...a profanity in a far more real and offensive form - the kind that really ruins lives and scars children forever.

It has to do with them being more able to reason when the person they're speaking with is not deliberately invoking a strong taboo. This is why I tell you that emotional appeals are doing you more harm than good. When you violate the taboo, even by talking about this bluntly, people are going to be put off by you.

I could make far more graphic descriptions of things than you did, and probably more graphic than you would be able to dream up on your own, and that would make you physically ill just reading about.

I don't do so because I understand that people will react so emotionally to violating the taboo, and only by maintaining reason and logic will I be able to convince anyone of the morality of my position.

Whereas, however offensive you might deem them, these are just words on a page. You really have missed the point massively.
I agree. They're just words, but you need to understand that when you violate that taboo, people will associate you with the negative feelings they experiene as a result of the violation. By sticking to reason, I think you would do a far better job of discrediting me and my stance.

You can't recall threads that have passed out of existence as far as I know. Your actual quote (from memory was something along the lines of) "you sir, are a right wing bigot...with aims similar to Al-Qaeda". You know you actually have a very preachy streak to you. Also your quote that you "do not automatically hate someone just because of their sexuality" leads me to believe that you might be conflating the issues of homosexuality and paedophilia again.
That's a poor excuse for making untrue allegations. I asked you to quote me, literally and of course you cannot because your accusation is untrue. I may well seem "preachy" to you, of course I'm linking my homosexuality with the hatred that paedophiles experience from others. Both sorts of hatred, at heart, stem from the same source of ignorance.

I have argued on this issue in numerous threads, including ones that you have participated in, your characterisation of me as being purely abusive is intentionally misleading.
My accusation of you bring abusive is relevant when you are being abusive. If you are posting reasoned debate, thats a different matter.

My "abusive and offensive responses" are mere semantics on an issue I feel strongly about. I find detailed and thought out ideological justifications of the right of grown men to participate in sexual activity with minors far more repulsive.
I find abuse, of any sort, also repulsive.

You know absolutely nothing about me so you are in no position whatsoever to comment on my "suitability to be around children". I'm a pretty laid back guy generally, but I'm done with the moral malaise of accomodation and apologism that's all too evident on this thread.
Yet you take it upon yourself to do likewise with people you do not know. In order to engage in reasoned debate, a moral and accomodating stand is at least required. You do not have to agree with someone but at least treat them in the way you would like to be treated.

If you took a survey of parents, teachers and say paediatricians and asked them what their views on paedophilia and paedophiles were would you expect some mild-mannered apology for them? Or do you think that most of them would display similar hostility? Perhaps you feel that all those who demonstrate too strong a dislike of paedophilia or who actually (God forbid) use foul language in expresisng their opinion should be purged from their jobs and have their children taken away from them?
I work within the field of mental health, if I spoke the way you sometimes do, I would be out of my job pretty quickly. As I said earlier, abuse comes in many forms. You really cannot take a moral stance against perceived child abuse while you engage in hostile verbal abuse. The reaction of ignorance and violence is no excuse for justifying a dislike of a sexuality and the dislike of a paedophile who may not actually have abused anyone at all.

Or do such judgements only apply to me.
Such judgements apply to all. If, for instance a paedophile used similar language to that which you sometimes use, I would be the first to say the same things to him/her.

Burn those witches on a stake.

It's a matter of opinion.

It's one thing to say it's disgraceful to say what he said and it's another to say you are a disgrace to yourself and the people who know you.
When people use words and ideas they are a reflection of who the person is. I always believe that a person takes responsibility for what they say and do. If you hurt and abuse, this is especially so.

What he said is rather boorish and probably violates the rules of the board. However, you can't declare Freedom of Speech and Expression without the ability to say stupid and or hateful things.
Freedom of speech does not give carte blanche to abuse and offend
Yes, children might read this. Though I truly wonder how many are below 13 here?
The very fact there are should cause someone to think about their use of abusive language
This board did not declare an age limit and it didn't create a list of acceptable topics. There is only the word "obscene" That is left to interpretation. The topic at hand is considered obscene by many. You find his comments obscene. Probably the best solution would be to delete the treads and disallow such talk for awhile as it begs for flaming and trolling.
Or, accept that not everyone will agree with each other but at least speak in a reasoned way. I have great resentment when I see evidence of abuse. Am Itherefore to become equally abusive when confronting it?

What I find interesting is that your use of the "think of the children" argument. The very people that abused you for your sexuality use it all the time.
True, which is why I dislike lumping in the issue of paedophilism as a sexuality with knee jerk accusations of child abuse. A persons sexuality is one thing. What they do with regard to their sexuality is another. This includes all types of sexuality. As a matter of interest, I know many more heterosexuals who have been sexually abusive than I know of paedophiles being sexually abusive (one). I will not therefore say every male heterosexual is a latent abuser, no more would I say this of every paedophile

Finally, was his comments abusive to children? Can you prove any are present? We would have no argument if he spouted off like that all the time in front of children. I really doubt he does.
I repeat, the fact that children may be reading this is sufficient reason for him to moderate his postings.
Interesting. Are you Religious?NO, in fact if you read the thread I started, you will see that I do not think much of religion/superstition.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485580

Burn those witches on a stake.
I didn't know you were still even on this forum.

Why are you fanning the flames of hatrid?

Is this your actual opinion, or are you really a pedophile as you've stated in the past?

Regardless, this statement pretty much proves that you're willing to post things you don't really believe in order to get a reaction, whether you really believe this, or you actually support the policies on the other side of this arguement you've suggested elsewhere.

I think you're a problem, no matter what side of this arguement your real opinion happens to fall on.

I don't know if you're showing your true colors with this post, or if you're making some sort of misguided attempt to make a point, but either way, your efforts are most certainly not appreciated.

I didn't know you were still even on this forum.

Why are you fanning the flames of hatrid?

Is this your actual opinion, or are you really a pedophile as you've stated in the past?

Regardless, this statement pretty much proves that you're willing to post things you don't really believe in order to get a reaction, whether you really believe this, or you actually support the policies on the other side of this arguement you've suggested elsewhere.

I think you're a problem, no matter what side of this arguement your real opinion happens to fall on.

I don't know if you're showing your true colors with this post, or if you're making some sort of misguided attempt to make a point, but either way, your efforts are most certainly not appreciated.

Since the term "witch hunt" is generally a pejorative phrase used to imply demonisation or unjustified harassment I'm guessing he was being sarcastic.

I'll reply to your other points directed toward me later.

Kill them all.

I'd rather they kill nazi's first.
It's amazing how people can simultaiously claim the moral highground, and call for the execution of people they disagree with.

In my opinion, these people are a joke. We should treat them as such.

Since the term "witch hunt" is generally a pejorative phrase used to imply demonisation or unjustified harassment I'm guessing he was being sarcastic.

Either way, I'm not fond of the guy, and I do think he does my side of the debate a disservice.

I'll reply to your other points directed toward me later.
Okay. I'll look forward to it.

Either way, I'm not fond of the guy, and I do think he does my side of the debate a disservice.

Okay. I'll look forward to it.

I'm in the middle of my exams at the moment so I use the word "later" loosely.

Pedophilia. While I have no problem respecting pedophiles as individuals, creating a national pedophilia party is pretty pointless. Because for the most part, the age of consent would still be in place as held by the majority. And children should be protected under the law, hence pedophilia party is rendered null and void, unless they have other motives in the government. Thats how I see it anyway, I dunno what its really like in the Dutch parliament.

I'm in the middle of my exams at the moment so I use the word "later" loosely.
Ah, so by late you mean never? I wish you would have said something sooner, then I wouldn't have gotten my hopes up.

Anyway, good luck on your exams.
Pedophilia. While I have no problem respecting pedophiles as individuals, creating a national pedophilia party is pretty pointless. Because for the most part, the age of consent would still be in place as held by the majority. And children should be protected under the law, hence pedophilia party is rendered null and void, unless they have other motives in the government. Thats how I see it anyway, I dunno what its really like in the Dutch parliament.
Well, there are a few other modives us pedophiles happen to share, beyond altering the AoC.

There is the redefinition of "child porn" to something more firmly defined than the current "I know it when I see it" standard that is in place throughout the western world.

Then of course there's throwing out the "incest exceptions" in the existing statutory rape laws. (Because, quite frankly, we don't generally see what positive role protecting incestuous child rapes is serving.)

There's also the funding of studies to determine accurately the extent of the damage of adult-child sexual relationships, and to clarify the origins of that damage. (As things are now, research is being crushed by the weight of the social taboo. The US Congress even passed a law against a specific study which had the "wrong" findings.)

There are also quite a few of us with strong opinions on other aspects of the children's rights issue, particularly the support of a real declaration of human rights for children, enshrining rights to free speech (with guarentees agaist parental retribution for not towing the family line), freedom of religeon (rather than the freedom of their parents to idoctrinate them as the charter currently guarentees) among others.

I could probably go on, but I think you get the point. We have more things to do than constantly loby for a lowered AoC.