NationStates Jolt Archive

You didn't just misread that. In the Netherlands pedophiles founded a political party to protect their rights.

(Dutch) http://www.ad.nl/binnenland/article372253.ece

On their agenda would be : Legislation that will make is legal for 12 year olds to engage in sexual activities with other people of any age
Legislation that will make it legal for 16+ year olds to play in porn
Legislation that will make porn movies with kids in it legal
Also they completly wish to abolish the 1st chamber (similair to UK's "House of Commons") and to abolish the fact there is a Prime minister.

about 82% percent of the Dutch population thought that this party should be declared illigal and that the government should take actions against. They are also surprised that this party was even allowed to be founded. Other political factions have not made any official reply to the founding of this party.

I am personally surprised this hasn't been brought to this forum any sooner, Im not a regular poster, but I read things here weekly and sometime daily. Your opinions on this?

posted this yesterday......


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485238

whoopsie

The Netherlands will probably get a boost in pervert kid-fucker tourism revenue now.

The Netherlands will probably get a boost in pervert kid-fucker tourism revenue now.


NAMBLA supports this party i suppose

NAMBLA supports this party i suppose


I have no idea. That an organization I'm not interested in "googling" to find out,either.
Its safe to assume yes though.

Ooooh, free trains, that would come in handy (it's in their program)!

Too bad they would be even fuller, even now I barely find a seat. :(

On-topic, I don't think this party will live on for over a year.

I have no idea. That an organization I'm not interested in "googling" to find out,either.
Its safe to assume yes though.


NAMBLA is a child molesting organization from south park, probably wont find them on google.

NAMBLA is a child molesting organization from south park, probably wont find them on google.

No, they are very real...their homepage is the first result in Google searches for their name. They've been around since the 70's...

Wikipedia Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA)

NAMBLA is a child molesting organization from south park, probably wont find them on google.


That may be, but the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is real and thinks that the age of consent should be lowered-I think to like 10 or 12 years old. And apparently,they are only interested in young boys.

It may have been a joke on South Park, but they DO exist and ARE molestors according to the law and my opinion.

about 82% percent of the Dutch population thought that this party should be declared illigal and that the government should take actions against.

82% ??? That is depressingly high :(
Whatever happened to "I despise what you say, but I'll fight till death for your right to say it " ?

Doesn't surprise me. I've seen plenty of "hey pedophilia isn't wrong, its fun" arguments here on this message board.

The Netherlands will probably get a boost in pervert kid-fucker tourism revenue now.
You do realise that this party is about as likely to accomplish everything on it's platform as every other political party in existence, don't you? I mean just because they have the party doesn't mean they're guarenteed to accomplish real change.
That may be, but the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is real and thinks that the age of consent should be lowered-I think to like 10 or 12 years old. And apparently,they are only interested in young boys.

It may have been a joke on South Park, but they DO exist and ARE molestors according to the law and my opinion.
They are indeed real, but I don't know on what grounds you're calling them molesters. Last I'd heard they were working on legal and political systems. I thought they were trying to work within the system to improve the level of discussion and reason in the legislation, rather than serve as some sort of support network for child molesters. If you have some sort of evidence to back up your accusations, I'd really like to see it.
82% ??? That is depressingly high :(
Whatever happened to "I despise what you say, but I'll fight till death for your right to say it " ?
That doesn't apply to pedophiles. With us it's "I despise what you say, so I'll fight to the death so you don't get the right to say it."

Not a whole lot of people are willing to stand up for our rights, and I think that number bears that out.
Doesn't surprise me. I've seen plenty of "hey pedophilia isn't wrong, its fun" arguments here on this message board.
From who?

You do realise that this party is about as likely to accomplish everything on it's platform as every other political party in existence, don't you? I mean just because they have the party doesn't mean they're guarenteed to accomplish real change.

They are indeed real, but I don't know on what grounds you're calling them molesters. Last I'd heard they were working on legal and political systems. I thought they were trying to work within the system to improve the level of discussion and reason in the legislation, rather than serve as some sort of support network for child molesters. If you have some sort of evidence to back up your accusations, I'd really like to see it.



Oh-none of them involved currently in sexual relationships with minors? Then I'm wrong.

If they are, however-they are child molestors.

I think you know the deal without me dragging one in under your nose in the act, right?

You seem to be up to speed on their efforts. And very defensive.

That may be, but the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is real and thinks that the age of consent should be lowered-I think to like 10 or 12 years old. And apparently,they are only interested in young boys.

It may have been a joke on South Park, but they DO exist and ARE molestors according to the law and my opinion.


well most humor on that show stems from the truth.


i didnt know they were real (but then again i didnt really look it up either)


they are based out in the midwest right?

From who?

Let me think deeply about this one and get back to you, Mr Jackson.

snippy: That doesn't apply to pedophiles. With us it's "I despise what you say, so I'll fight to the death so you don't get the right to say it."

Not a whole lot of people are willing to stand up for our rights, and I think that number bears that out.
Damn skippy. I'm perilously close to violating about 37 Forum rules and getting myself banned in just responding to you. :eek:

There we have it folks - A Child Predator on a Forum full of teens and sub-teens. - That or an equally sick Troll. How lovely. :headbang:

Remember to bring your self sefense weapon of choice to your next Forum Meet - just in case. :mad:

That doesn't apply to pedophiles. With us it's "I despise what you say, so I'll fight to the death so you don't get the right to say it."

Damn skippy. I'm perilously close to violating about 37 Forum rules and getting myself banned in just responding to you. :eek:

There we have it folks - A Child Predator on a Forum full of teens and sub-teens. - That or an equally sick Troll. How lovely. :headbang:

Remember to bring your self sefense weapon of choice to your next Forum Meet - just in case. :mad:

@The Five Castes: I see your point.

Oh-none of them involved currently in sexual relationships with minors? Then I'm wrong.

If they are, however-they are child molestors.

I think you know the deal without me dragging one in under your nose in the act, right?

You seem to be up to speed on their efforts. And very defensive.
I was actually asking those questions because I wasn't "up to speed". I'd heard of them, seen mention of their existence on wiki, and thus knew of their existence and general status as a political pressure group. I was hoping that you could tell me for sure that there was something that the group had officially supported that would get the entire group branded child molesters.

Am I to assume you don't actually have a statement, from them or the authorites to corroborate your accusation? That you just assume that because they're advocating for pedophiles they must be child molesters? Please, prove me wrong if you can. If you do, I'll disavow them right now.
Let me think deeply about this one and get back to you, Mr Jackson.
And the steriotyping continues. I know I've never suggested anything of the sort, and the whole reason I joined this community in the first place was to tell off a poster named Dark Shadowy Nexus. That might be the guy you're thinking of. I don't know, since I only saw the one thread of his.
Damn skippy. I'm perilously close to violating about 37 Forum rules and getting myself banned in just responding to you. :eek:

No need to get yourself banned. I'm sure we can all behave like reasonable adults here. I think the best way to discredit me would be to listen to my arguements, then display for all to see whatever holes you find, rather than simply spouting prejudice.

After all, you wouldn't want me to look like the reasonable one, would you?

There we have it folks - A Child Predator on a Forum full of teens and sub-teens. - That or an equally sick Troll. How lovely. :headbang:

While I am a pedophile, I object to the term Child Predator. I've never done anything sexual with a minor, and never intend to. Child abusers of all sorts are the scum of the earth, and lumping me in with them is offensive on a whole other level.

Remember to bring your self sefense weapon of choice to your next Forum Meet - just in case. :mad:
You may find it ironic that I never meet people I know from the internet in real life. After all, they might be some psycho trying to lure me in. :p

@The Five Castes: I see your point.
Note that my final comment should be directed to kids meeting up and their potential need to protect themselves from predatory scum... not directed to the predatory scum.

Note that my final comment should be directed to kids meeting up and their potential need to protect themselves from predatory scum... not directed to the predatory scum.
You went and did it, didn't you? You got yourself banned.

Why didn't you take my advice instead of continuing to spout prejudice?

Oh well, at least you've helped me illustrate my point.

82% ??? That is depressingly high :(
Whatever happened to "I despise what you say, but I'll fight till death for your right to say it " ?
It gets thrown out the window when you learn that a balding fourty year old wants to lure your ten year old son into his house for sex.

It gets thrown out the window when you learn that a balding fourty year old wants to lure your ten year old son into his house for sex.
I'll cite another famous quote:
"Free speech is about protecting the hard words, not the soft words."

Do you honestly think that this political party is in favor of that kind of thing? Contrary to popular opinion, pedophiles are not all child molesters.

Even if you ignore the ages involved, rape is still going to count as rape, and will still be illegal.

It gets thrown out the window when you learn that a balding fourty year old wants to lure your ten year old son into his house for sex.

Why ? I mean, when he actually *tries* to do that, I can still cut his dick off.

Why ? I mean, when he actually *tries* to do that, I can still cut his dick off.
A lot of people can't understand that. They assume that all pedophiles will molest at the first oportunity. They assume that because we're attracted to someone, we'll rape them rather than abstain if we can't obtain conscent.

I worry about these people's additudes toward sex.

You went and did it, didn't you? You got yourself banned. Not hardly.
Why didn't you take my advice instead of continuing to spout prejudice? Because I don't take the advice of people with diseased minds.
Oh well, at least you've helped me illustrate my point.
That you don't know what you are talking about?

Not hardly.

I just assumed what with your post count reading "n/a", your rank disapearing, and your online/offline indicator disapearing.

Because I don't take the advice of people with diseased minds.

Again with the personal attacks.

Sound advice is sound advice regardless of its source.

That you don't know what you are talking about?
No. Take a look at post 18. It contains my point, your response to that point, and the reaction of an observer with the words "I see your point" directed to me.

That doesn't apply to pedophiles. With us it's "I despise what you say, so I'll fight to the death so you don't get the right to say it." Not a whole lot of people are willing to stand up for our rights, and I think that number bears that out.

Okay... As a more-or-less average person who's fairly liberal-minded about sex, having read some of the 'stronger' replies already, I feel compelled to respond to you, 5C. And right up front, so nothing that follows gets misconstrued, I'm not going to accuse you of having perpetrated child-abuse; admitting to pedophilia is not the same thing as admitting to having committed any particular act. So that said...

For my own part, if you or any other self-described pedophile were to tell me "I am attracted to-- and desire sexual contact with-- children" I would find what you were saying distasteful. I would not, however, deny you your right to feel as you do, or to say that you feel that way. And I suspect that the average person, as a matter of intellectual conscience, doesn't object to your right to free speech. Everyone ought to be free to have and to voice their opinion (until and unless they do so in a way meant to incite hatred and violence, in which case they're complicit with violating others' right to security of the person, which ranks higher in the heirarchy of rights than freedom of speech).

However. You refer to the defense of your rights, and there is some ambiguity; IF you mean your right to free speech, then yes, clearly many people experience a lapse in their responsibility to defend that right (insofar as it isn't abused to incite hatred and violence). IF you mean to include among your rights, however, a right to pursue sexual gratification with children, then there's a problem.

The dilemma is this. Referring back to that heirarchy of rights; the right to security of the person ranks above the right to any individual's sexual gratification. That ought to be intuitive, anyone who ascribes to 'rights' in general must surely recognise that if the right to be alive and to have physical safety is not at or very near the top of the list, then we are all of us prey to others.

As to the more specific matter of pursuing sexual gratification with children: no adult has any 'right' to have sex with a child. Children haven't the wisdom or the maturity to deal with sex in the same context as an adult-- it's practically a defining characteristic of 'childhood.' Children don't contextualise things in the same way that adults do. A child cannot appreciate sexual contact-- its interpersonal meaningfulness or its ramifications for them personally (contemporaneously or later on in their life)-- the way a sexual self-actualising adult does. This boils down to: children cannot give informed, meaningful consent to have sex with adults. And I would contend that any adult who argues otherwise does so purely out of self-interest, to legitimate their sexualised image of children. Said adult would not be seeing the child for who and what the child is, not seeing the child's best interests, but rather desiring the child and then constructing an incidental argument to validate that desire.

Now if a child cannot give informed, meaningful consent to have sex with an adult, there can be no sexual peer relationship between them. The only alternatives to a sexual peer relationship are exploitation (which can still be consentual, such as in dom/sub relationships in the BDSM lifestyle-- which I do know something about, not just blowing smoke), and abuse. If your 'partner' can not give consent, then the sexual relationship is inherently abusive. And as that contravenes the right to safety of the person, it means that no one has a 'right' to a sexual relationship undertaken without mutual consent. Ergo, no adult has a right to a sexual relationship with a child.

As for how vehemently people tend to respond to admitted pedophiles, I really don't think that reflects them objecting to your right to free speech. It's a very powerful objection to even the notion of the pedophile 'platform' (pursuit of legal/governmental/social policies to legitimate adult+child sexual relations) ever being realised. If the hypothetical pedophile from the beginning of my post told me he desired sexual contact with children... I *would* have a duty to stand up for his right to say that he felt that way. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't fight tooth and nail to oppose the societal or legislative realisation of his desires, and in the process of opposing his platform I could very well end up saying some pretty inflammatory things myself.

Anyway... for what it's worth, I don't think your sexual preference is healthy, and I'll never lend my assent to it as a matter of social policy, but I can't reasonably oppose your right to 'come out' as a pedophile. To do so would validate all those homophobes out there who'd prefer that I stay silent and invisible and never threaten their comfort zone.

BRAVO GSM!

Well said.

Okay... As a more-or-less average person who's fairly liberal-minded about sex, having read some of the 'stronger' replies already, I feel compelled to respond to you, 5C. And right up front, so nothing that follows gets misconstrued, I'm not going to accuse you of having perpetrated child-abuse; admitting to pedophilia is not the same thing as admitting to having committed any particular act. So that said...

For my own part, if you or any other self-described pedophile were to tell me "I am attracted to-- and desire sexual contact with-- children" I would find what you were saying distasteful. I would not, however, deny you your right to feel as you do, or to say that you feel that way. And I suspect that the average person, as a matter of intellectual conscience, doesn't object to your right to free speech. Everyone ought to be free to have and to voice their opinion (until and unless they do so in a way meant to incite hatred and violence, in which case they're complicit with violating others' right to security of the person, which ranks higher in the heirarchy of rights than freedom of speech).

However. You refer to the defense of your rights, and there is some ambiguity; IF you mean your right to free speech, then yes, clearly many people experience a lapse in their responsibility to defend that right (insofar as it isn't abused to incite hatred and violence). IF you mean to include among your rights, however, a right to pursue sexual gratification with children, then there's a problem.

The dilemma is this. Referring back to that heirarchy of rights; the right to security of the person ranks above the right to any individual's sexual gratification. That ought to be intuitive, anyone who ascribes to 'rights' in general must surely recognise that if the right to be alive and to have physical safety is not at or very near the top of the list, then we are all of us prey to others.

As to the more specific matter of pursuing sexual gratification with children: no adult has any 'right' to have sex with a child. Children haven't the wisdom or the maturity to deal with sex in the same context as an adult-- it's practically a defining characteristic of 'childhood.' Children don't contextualise things in the same way that adults do. A child cannot appreciate sexual contact-- its interpersonal meaningfulness or its ramifications for them personally (contemporaneously or later on in their life)-- the way a sexual self-actualising adult does. This boils down to: children cannot give informed, meaningful consent to have sex with adults. And I would contend that any adult who argues otherwise does so purely out of self-interest, to legitimate their sexualised image of children. Said adult would not be seeing the child for who and what the child is, not seeing the child's best interests, but rather desiring the child and then constructing an incidental argument to validate that desire.

Now if a child cannot give informed, meaningful consent to have sex with an adult, there can be no sexual peer relationship between them. The only alternatives to a sexual peer relationship are exploitation (which can still be consentual, such as in dom/sub relationships in the BDSM lifestyle-- which I do know something about, not just blowing smoke), and abuse. If your 'partner' can not give consent, then the sexual relationship is inherently abusive. And as that contravenes the right to safety of the person, it means that no one has a 'right' to a sexual relationship undertaken without mutual consent. Ergo, no adult has a right to a sexual relationship with a child.

As for how vehemently people tend to respond to admitted pedophiles, I really don't think that reflects them objecting to your right to free speech. It's a very powerful objection to even the notion of the pedophile 'platform' (pursuit of legal/governmental/social policies to legitimate adult+child sexual relations) ever being realised. If the hypothetical pedophile from the beginning of my post told me he desired sexual contact with children... I *would* have a duty to stand up for his right to say that he felt that way. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't fight tooth and nail to oppose the societal or legislative realisation of his desires, and in the process of opposing his platform I could very well end up saying some pretty inflammatory things myself.

Anyway... for what it's worth, I don't think your sexual preference is healthy, and I'll never lend my assent to it as a matter of social policy, but I can't reasonably oppose your right to 'come out' as a pedophile. To do so would validate all those homophobes out there who'd prefer that I stay silent and invisible and never threaten their comfort zone.
I am in awe of that rebuttal.Very cool.!!!

In risk of this starting to sound like a broken record. Congratulations GSM. Very well put.

With us it's "I despise what you say, so I'll fight to the death so you don't get the right to say it."


You do realise they're not asking to leagalise rape. Not to mention other countrys have the legal age of sex at 12 anyway. Yeah I might disagree and think 13/14 might be a better age and that the motives of adult men to try and put this party together are super scary but they're not arguing to take anyones rights away as far as I can see.

Personally I'd argue spreading absinence messages and being anti condom which some people have argued for is faaar worse and wrong but I'll tolerate those folks.

I'm not entirely certain why people have the type of kneejerk reaction that they have when discussing pedophilia. Personally, I dislike the idea of pedophilia and sex with minors, but it seems to me that the idea of having a discussion about why this type of thing is unacceptable is a much better idea than simply saying "ewww, die pedo!" or something to that effect. I feel the same way about discussions of racism and the like, as well.

ever hear of NAMBLA

The Five Casts: When I first started posting on this subject (as Santa Barbara) Dark Shadowy Nexus (and someone of another name who sigged his posts as "Baldur" who claimed to be his "friend") were the ones advocating pedophilia, and you were the one agreeing with them. Your first post to me was in defense of them when I unfairly and cruelly dared to label one of these guys a pedophile. So I find your assertation that you came here to tell one of them off just a bit confusing.

I'm not entirely certain why people have the type of kneejerk reaction that they have when discussing pedophilia. Personally, I dislike the idea of pedophilia and sex with minors, but it seems to me that the idea of having a discussion about why this type of thing is unacceptable is a much better idea than simply saying "ewww, die pedo!" or something to that effect. I feel the same way about discussions of racism and the like, as well.

Yeah I'm not sure why anyone would have a kneejerk reaction when discussing terrorism or 9/11 either. I mean it's my right to say that everyone who died in 9/11 deserved it, that in fact terrorists are decent people, and that I hope more people die because of terrorist attacks. You wouldn't want to infringe on my rights would you?

I'm also not sure why, when I suggest that so-called "rape" be legalized on the grounds that every woman consents to having sex just by being a woman, anyone disagrees with me. I'm obviously not advocating rape since in my view rape doesn't exist. I'm not advocating violence, violence only happens in an evil society where women can say "no" to sex and then suddenly it becomes "non consentual." I just have a different worldview, leave me and my rights alone! :)

Yeah I'm not sure why anyone would have a kneejerk reaction when discussing terrorism or 9/11 either. I mean it's my right to say that everyone who died in 9/11 deserved it, that in fact terrorists are decent people, and that I hope more people die because of terrorist attacks. You wouldn't want to infringe on my rights would you?

If only the WTC had been destroyed one hour earlier.. then Al Queada would have been globally hailed as "people with balls".

82% ??? That is depressingly high :(
Whatever happened to "I despise what you say, but I'll fight till death for your right to say it " ?
............
What part of 40-year old balding european men fucking innocent 10 year old boys can you defend?

I'm not entirely certain why people have the type of kneejerk reaction that they have when discussing pedophilia. Personally, I dislike the idea of pedophilia and sex with minors, but it seems to me that the idea of having a discussion about why this type of thing is unacceptable is a much better idea than simply saying "ewww, die pedo!" or something to that effect. I feel the same way about discussions of racism and the like, as well.

Part of the reason for the reaction is because we have all been children, and we know that when we were, we had adults take advantage of us in different ways, not necessarily sexual, but we had no power.

As children, we had no power.

If someone told us what to do, we had to do it. Our parents did not have to threaten us with what we knew was in their power---remember the story of Hansel and Gretel? Father can't afford to feed his children, so he takes them out into the forest to leave them to die?

Maybe most parents would not, but they had the power to leave us or do anything else to us that they wanted.

And really, so could any other adult. For an adult to want to have sex with a child, means that the adult can make that happen, without any real consent. He can talk the child into it, seduce the child, and the child cannot refuse.

To desire such a relationship, is to desire to control and exploit a weaker being for your own satisfaction. Doesn't matter if you tell yourself that they enjoy it. It is ultimate selfishness.

And having been helpless children, or being parents of helpless children, we recoil at the thought that someone who is too big for the child to fend off, has designs on that child, that will hurt the child, no matter what the pedophile tells him or herself.

And for any pedophile to think that a child benefits from such a relationship means that they are self-deluded in the extreme. Having organizations such as NAMBLA to support them in their aims only reinforces those desires and the thought that they may be okay to want that, and ultimately to act on those desires.

By definition, adult-child sex cannot be anything other than rape.

And raping children is wrong.

That is part of the reason for the reaction.

And I personally believe that anyone caught doing it should be executed, so that they can meet their maker for final judgement asap.:sniper:

............
What part of 40-year old balding european men fucking innocent 10 year old boys can you defend?
That was not what he was trying to defend at all

............
What part of 40-year old balding european men fucking innocent 10 year old boys can you defend?

The right for people to *say* it should be legal. And then to oppose them, but that is secondary.

A lot of people can't understand that. They assume that all pedophiles will molest at the first oportunity. They assume that because we're attracted to someone, we'll rape them rather than abstain if we can't obtain conscent.

I worry about these people's additudes toward sex.

... You're not allowed to do anything with them even if they consent. By saying "I abstain", you do one of two things: You say "I'm a virgin, and do not masturbate to porn, seeing as the porn I would masturbate to would be illegal", or "I don't have sex with kids until they say it's okay" Which is sick and illegal.

You do realize the age of consent doesn't apply to people over 18, right? And that there's a reason it's illegal, because people under a certain age shouldn't be able to decide who they should have sexual relations with, because in fact they shouldn't be having sexual relations at all, for the most part, simply because they're ignorant of the consequences and how it will affect them later in life, and even to the point of where they don't really understand what's happening. Kids are stupid, and pedophiles are child molesters unless they completely abstain and never have sex at all - They prey upon the stupid.

............
What part of 40-year old balding european men fucking innocent 10 year old boys can you defend?
The existence of the political party isn't very important. Even if it remains legal, nobody in his sane mind who vote for them, so they'd be stuck in marginality forever.

Kinda like the Christian heritage party in Canada. Even hardcore fundamentalists conservatives find them too nutty to vote for.

Okay... As a more-or-less average person who's fairly liberal-minded about sex, having read some of the 'stronger' replies already, I feel compelled to respond to you, 5C. And right up front, so nothing that follows gets misconstrued, I'm not going to accuse you of having perpetrated child-abuse; admitting to pedophilia is not the same thing as admitting to having committed any particular act. So that said...

Thank you for at least understanding that much.

For my own part, if you or any other self-described pedophile were to tell me "I am attracted to-- and desire sexual contact with-- children" I would find what you were saying distasteful. I would not, however, deny you your right to feel as you do, or to say that you feel that way. And I suspect that the average person, as a matter of intellectual conscience, doesn't object to your right to free speech. Everyone ought to be free to have and to voice their opinion (until and unless they do so in a way meant to incite hatred and violence, in which case they're complicit with violating others' right to security of the person, which ranks higher in the heirarchy of rights than freedom of speech).

While the average person, when thinking clearly may well think as you do, the nature of this subject precludes the ability of many to think clearly and make certain that the views they advocate are in line with their "intellectual consience". Most people strongly support the right to free speech, but often make an exception in their thinking specifically for me and my kind. Just look at how many opressive internet survalence laws have been passed on the grounds of "the pedophile problem".

However. You refer to the defense of your rights, and there is some ambiguity; IF you mean your right to free speech, then yes, clearly many people experience a lapse in their responsibility to defend that right (insofar as it isn't abused to incite hatred and violence). IF you mean to include among your rights, however, a right to pursue sexual gratification with children, then there's a problem.

Of course I reffer to the defense of my rights to self-determination and free speech. I do not suggest in any way that I have the right to have sex with kids. That would be a perversion of the term "right", and I have too high a respect for the language to allow myself to slip up like that. Rights are held by individuals and specifically limit what people can do to and individual. There is no right to do anything to anyone, except of course express yourself, and even then, they have the right not to listen.

To further clarify, what I defend in this issue is my right to life, my right to expression, and my right to pursue my own gratification where it does not interfear with any of the rights of others.

The dilemma is this. Referring back to that heirarchy of rights; the right to security of the person ranks above the right to any individual's sexual gratification. That ought to be intuitive, anyone who ascribes to 'rights' in general must surely recognise that if the right to be alive and to have physical safety is not at or very near the top of the list, then we are all of us prey to others.

That is not something I would argue with even if I could. We do have an inherent right to self-determination. All of us, even children, and to impose on that right is not acceptable.

As to the more specific matter of pursuing sexual gratification with children: no adult has any 'right' to have sex with a child.

Nor does any adult have any "right" to have sex with another adult.

Children haven't the wisdom or the maturity to deal with sex in the same context as an adult-- it's practically a defining characteristic of 'childhood.'

And here I think is where we're going to start to disagree. The reason kids don't have wisdom or maturity is not because they're kids. It's because our culture keeps them ignorant, and allows them to get away with being immature. There is no biological development requirement that kids be stupid. That's just what our culture reinforces.

Children don't contextualise things in the same way that adults do. A child cannot appreciate sexual contact-- its interpersonal meaningfulness or its ramifications for them personally (contemporaneously or later on in their life)-- the way a sexual self-actualising adult does.

What ramifications, exactly are you saying a child is not capable of dealing with? We have certain cultural expections around sexual encounters, but how much of that is inherent to the act, and how much is social construct?

This boils down to: children cannot give informed, meaningful consent to have sex with adults.

Informing that conscent is then impossible? Providing information is not the cure for ignorance?

And I would contend that any adult who argues otherwise does so purely out of self-interest, to legitimate their sexualised image of children.

I suppose then that the origins of my beliefs must have nothing to do with having been smarter as a kid than the adults in my life expected me to be. It couldn't be that I was a kid myself once, and still believe that I was more capable of reason than I've ever been given due credit for. No. It must be because I want sex.

Said adult would not be seeing the child for who and what the child is, not seeing the child's best interests, but rather desiring the child and then constructing an incidental argument to validate that desire.

It could be as easily argued that an adult who wishes to deny the child's right to sexual self-determination by forcing abstinence is also nt seeing the child's best interests, but rather desiring to control the child's life and then constructing an incidental arguement to validate that desire.

Neither one of us is arguing in a vaccum. We're both prejudiced by our various experiences. The difference is that I admit my own prejudice and invite you all to prove where it has led to invalid arguements. Prejudice alone is not sufficient grounds to dismiss me.

Now if a child cannot give informed, meaningful consent to have sex with an adult, there can be no sexual peer relationship between them. The only alternatives to a sexual peer relationship are exploitation (which can still be consentual, such as in dom/sub relationships in the BDSM lifestyle-- which I do know something about, not just blowing smoke), and abuse. If your 'partner' can not give consent, then the sexual relationship is inherently abusive.

The only thing I disagree with is that it is impossible for a child to conscent based soely on the fact that it is a child. Maturity, physical and mental, is not something that can be measured on a clock.

And as that contravenes the right to safety of the person, it means that no one has a 'right' to a sexual relationship undertaken without mutual consent. Ergo, no adult has a right to a sexual relationship with a child.

No one has the right to a sexual relationship with an adult either. We wave the right not to be involved in a sexual relationship when we actually want to be involved in it. That's the way it works. Now, you can argue that children don't have the same right to wave that right, but that is arguing against the self-determination of children, not in favor of it.

As for how vehemently people tend to respond to admitted pedophiles, I really don't think that reflects them objecting to your right to free speech. It's a very powerful objection to even the notion of the pedophile 'platform' (pursuit of legal/governmental/social policies to legitimate adult+child sexual relations) ever being realised. If the hypothetical pedophile from the beginning of my post told me he desired sexual contact with children... I *would* have a duty to stand up for his right to say that he felt that way. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't fight tooth and nail to oppose the societal or legislative realisation of his desires, and in the process of opposing his platform I could very well end up saying some pretty inflammatory things myself.

I disagree. This isn't even about fear that society is somehow going to change in my favor here. No one in their right mind really expects this party to accomplish their goals, so that fear couldn't possibly be the reason.

The only thing left is that these people don't want to be involved in a rational debate on the subject because what they really fear is that we'll prove to be more reasonable than them, and that their arguements will fail in the face of ours.

Anyway... for what it's worth, I don't think your sexual preference is healthy, and I'll never lend my assent to it as a matter of social policy, but I can't reasonably oppose your right to 'come out' as a pedophile. To do so would validate all those homophobes out there who'd prefer that I stay silent and invisible and never threaten their comfort zone.
And I suppose you wouldn't be offended by someone calling your sexual prefference unhealthy?

No one really oposes my right to "come out". After all, then they'll know who I am and the real discrimination can start.
I'm not entirely certain why people have the type of kneejerk reaction that they have when discussing pedophilia. Personally, I dislike the idea of pedophilia and sex with minors, but it seems to me that the idea of having a discussion about why this type of thing is unacceptable is a much better idea than simply saying "ewww, die pedo!" or something to that effect. I feel the same way about discussions of racism and the like, as well.
I rather feel the same way. Hopefully your view is more common than my cynical mind will allow me to believe.
The Five Casts: When I first started posting on this subject (as Santa Barbara) Dark Shadowy Nexus (and someone of another name who sigged his posts as "Baldur" who claimed to be his "friend") were the ones advocating pedophilia, and you were the one agreeing with them. Your first post to me was in defense of them when I unfairly and cruelly dared to label one of these guys a pedophile. So I find your assertation that you came here to tell one of them off just a bit confusing.

Then let me clarify. Dark Shadowy Nexus was touting the benefits of early sexualization. As I don't feel it's even been established that all the harm comes from social factors, the assertion that this was somehow good for development was needless to say unproven conjecture at best. Further, he seemed to enjoy suggesting that he'd been out raping kids, and I can't stand child molesters. Ultimately his behavior and his poor arguement style was giving me a bad name.

I never defended anyone you "unfairly and cruelly dared to label a pedophile". Both DSN, and Baldur had points I agreed with and disagreed with. I argued with everything I disagreed with without prejudice, and that includes stuff these two have said. My post history will bear this out.

I don't advocate sex with kids because even if we could prove the trauma was entirely based in social constructs, those kids would still have to live in this society. I'm not about to let someone I care about trade a few moments of pleasure for a lifetime of emotional torture, which is what society does to kids who have been involved with adults.

Yeah I'm not sure why anyone would have a kneejerk reaction when discussing terrorism or 9/11 either. I mean it's my right to say that everyone who died in 9/11 deserved it, that in fact terrorists are decent people, and that I hope more people die because of terrorist attacks. You wouldn't want to infringe on my rights would you?

I know you're being sarcastic, but I really do support those people who make those assertions. I fully support their right to expose their stupidity and prejudice on the public forum of their chosing. It is also the right of the rest of us to point and laugh at it.

In a free marketplace of ideas, the ones with the most merrit should rise to the top, and the ones that really are crazy will fall by the wayside. Why are you afraid of this debate?

I'm also not sure why, when I suggest that so-called "rape" be legalized on the grounds that every woman consents to having sex just by being a woman, anyone disagrees with me. I'm obviously not advocating rape since in my view rape doesn't exist. I'm not advocating violence, violence only happens in an evil society where women can say "no" to sex and then suddenly it becomes "non consentual." I just have a different worldview, leave me and my rights alone! :)
Straw man. Need I say more?
............
What part of 40-year old balding european men fucking innocent 10 year old boys can you defend?
You don't really expect me to answer that stream of steriotypes and misconstrued arguements, do you?
Part of the reason for the reaction is because we have all been children, and we know that when we were, we had adults take advantage of us in different ways, not necessarily sexual, but we had no power.

As children, we had no power.

If someone told us what to do, we had to do it. Our parents did not have to threaten us with what we knew was in their power---remember the story of Hansel and Gretel? Father can't afford to feed his children, so he takes them out into the forest to leave them to die?

Maybe most parents would not, but they had the power to leave us or do anything else to us that they wanted.

And really, so could any other adult. For an adult to want to have sex with a child, means that the adult can make that happen, without any real consent. He can talk the child into it, seduce the child, and the child cannot refuse.

Which is exactly why I advocate putting power into the hands of children. Enshrining a right to self-expression without fear of parental retaliation, and other important human rights children are routinely denied. Self-determination, the right not to be a slave, is one of the most basic human rights, yet children are denied any form of self-determination or personal soverignty. They are treated like the property of their parents, or of society, depending on the particular issue. They are never treated as independent human beings like they really are.

People deny them choices in every other aspect of their lives, and it seems my kind are the only ones who want to give them real rights, rather than "rights" in the orwellian usage of the term we apply to kids now adays.

To desire such a relationship, is to desire to control and exploit a weaker being for your own satisfaction. Doesn't matter if you tell yourself that they enjoy it. It is ultimate selfishness.

Amazing how often people give me things that can be turned right around with hardly any editing:

To desire to prevent such a relationship, is to desire to control and exploit a weaker being for your own satisfaction. Doesn't matter if you tell yourself that they can't enjoy it. It is ultimate selfishness.

Please pay closer attention to when you're using real arguements based on facts and when you're using emotional arguements based on social norms.

And having been helpless children, or being parents of helpless children, we recoil at the thought that someone who is too big for the child to fend off, has designs on that child, that will hurt the child, no matter what the pedophile tells him or herself.

And yet you have no problem telling them every day what they can't do, so long as one of the things they can't do is sex.

And for any pedophile to think that a child benefits from such a relationship means that they are self-deluded in the extreme. Having organizations such as NAMBLA to support them in their aims only reinforces those desires and the thought that they may be okay to want that, and ultimately to act on those desires.

I need no validation. I know who I am regardless of any group. What these organizations do is advocate for social change.

You can't disallow a legitimate organization because someone took their message too far. It's like suggesting Islam is a religeon of hate because of what a few extremists do, then suggesting that the Masques be burned down because the existence of the churches legitimizes the extremists.

By definition, adult-child sex cannot be anything other than rape.

I think we have a lot of definitions to cover here. Are you talking legal definitions? If so, you're right, but those legal definitions can change with changing laws. If you're talking moral definitions, you're going to need to do a hell of a lot better defining "adult" and "child", because being on one side or the other of an arbitrary age line does not determine a person's actual maturity.

And raping children is wrong.

And so is raping adults. What's your point?

That is part of the reason for the reaction.

So it's the same reason people are burning Masques and beating up Muslims? I don't want any part of that reasoning.

And I personally believe that anyone caught doing it should be executed, so that they can meet their maker for final judgement asap.:sniper:
I agree that rapists of all stripes should be punished harshly. I disagree with your assertion that this is always, and will always be, a traumatic rape event.
... You're not allowed to do anything with them even if they consent. By saying "I abstain", you do one of two things: You say "I'm a virgin, and do not masturbate to porn, seeing as the porn I would masturbate to would be illegal", or "I don't have sex with kids until they say it's okay" Which is sick and illegal.

False dillema. Case in fact, I am a virgin, and don't intend to have sex with kids even if they ask for it, since that would expose them to the social torture society puts such children through.

As for the porn, I do seek it out sometimes, because regardless of legality, it's not something I consider morally wrong. (It is morally wrong to create it or to support materially or morally someone who does, but viewing it without supporting the manufacturer is morally neutral.) It's like the speed limit, one of those laws you don't really believe is based in the greater good so you ignore.

As you can see, I don't fit your binary structure.

You do realize the age of consent doesn't apply to people over 18, right?

What are you even trying to say here? That I could have sex with adults? That makes no sense. It's like reminding gays that they can have sex with the oposite gender.

And that there's a reason it's illegal, because people under a certain age shouldn't be able to decide who they should have sexual relations with,

You know, that's the same additude you see in plently of child molesters.

because in fact they shouldn't be having sexual relations at all, for the most part,

Again, denying them control over their own sexuality.

simply because they're ignorant of the consequences and how it will affect them later in life,

Which can't be countered by educating them? Like adults magically gain this knowledge on their 18th birthday?

and even to the point of where they don't really understand what's happening.

So explaining things beforehand is impossible?

Kids are stupid,

Offensive in the extreme. Kids are ignorant because they lack information. They are not stupid.

and pedophiles are child molesters unless they completely abstain and never have sex at all

Actually, pedophiles don't have to be attracted only to children to meet the definition. It only needs to be one aspect of their sexualty to count. Me, I happen to be attracted to adult women to.

- They prey upon the stupid.
No. That's gold diggers, guys looking for their friday night hook up, and everyone else looking to pressure someone into sex.

And here I think is where we're going to start to disagree. The reason kids don't have wisdom or maturity is not because they're kids. It's because our culture keeps them ignorant, and allows them to get away with being immature. There is no biological development requirement that kids be stupid. That's just what our culture reinforces.

Well you're right, we do begin to disagree. I do agree that the "innocence" of children is to some extent a myth, and to some extent artificially imposed by society. I do agree that our culture expends an inordinate amount of energy in keeping children ignorant, perhaps beyond their time. But I firmly believe that the value of any argument must factor in the argument taken to its extreme, because invariably there are those who would push things to their extremes. The argument in favour of "not holding back children's development," taken to its extreme, can become a defense for adults having sex with babies. You know there's at least one guy out there who'd be into that, and who would argue that it's legitimate because "the innocence of children is a social construct." As such we need a point at which we declare an impassible threshold. We must draw a line somewhere to protect all those children who aren't 'exceptionally' mature.

What ramifications, exactly are you saying a child is not capable of dealing with? We have certain cultural expections around sexual encounters, but how much of that is inherent to the act, and how much is social construct?

Intimacy, mostly. Whether it's a product of how we're socialised or not, sex is intimate; there's a vulnerability involved. And for someone to be ready for such an interpersonal experience, they need a certain core integrity. If you haven't developed your emotional 'self' yet, then rushing (or being rushed) into a very intimate situation with another person runs a stronger chance of making you dependent on someone else, retarding your own growth. It's evidenced by how fleeting (and often shallow) young people's relationships with each other tend to be. Kids need to figure out who they are before they connect themselves so closely with another person. And again, whether these expectations (on sexual encounters) are a social construct, they are a reality for many people, and there needs to be a threshold where the real needs of the majority determine the minimum standard in broader policies.

Informing that conscent is then impossible? Providing information is not the cure for ignorance?

Again, I assume you're reasonable enough to accept the premise that there are people out there who would argue that sitting down a kid who's developed the most basic language skills and giving them a sex-ed lesson qualifies that child to give their consent to have sex. It's an extreme case, but the bar must be set high enough to prevent as much abuse as possible while still making reasonable allowances for personal autonomy. As far as the developmental rate of the average child in our culture as it is now, for better or worse, I defy you to prove that the majority of children out of a random sample within the age range we've been talking about are emotionally equipped to assimilate a sexual experience with an adult in a way that wouldn't be traumatic to them in their own adulthood.

I suppose then that the origins of my beliefs must have nothing to do with having been smarter as a kid than the adults in my life expected me to be. It couldn't be that I was a kid myself once, and still believe that I was more capable of reason than I've ever been given due credit for. No. It must be because I want sex.

I was a kid once too, and throughout my childhood everyone thought I was exceptionally mature for my age. I mostly associated with adults; I was more comfortable around them because I found my peers immature and boorish. That doesn't mean that I was ready to have sex, with another kid my own age let alone an adult. And hell, now I'm 27 and I feel a bit leery of myself when I find that I'm attracted to teenagers. Mostly because I appreciate that in the short head-start I've had on them, I've learned to see things in a context that they haven't, yet. And for me to get sexually involved with someone much younger than myself-- however mature they thought themselves to be-- to me would feel like an abuse of power on my part.

It could be as easily argued that an adult who wishes to deny the child's right to sexual self-determination by forcing abstinence is also nt seeing the child's best interests, but rather desiring to control the child's life and then constructing an incidental arguement to validate that desire.

Granted, and I'm sure many adults are guilty of that. But referring once more to the issue of minimum standards, there is a point where-- regardless of the merit of the adult's motivation-- the act of protecting a child's 'innocence' (whether real or merely presumed) is legitimate because it's predicated on a truth: namely, that children do need protecting up to some point. And imprecise as human beings are, we eventually need to set an arbitrary limit based on a lowest or near-lowest common denominator.

Neither one of us is arguing in a vaccum. We're both prejudiced by our various experiences. The difference is that I admit my own prejudice and invite you all to prove where it has led to invalid arguements. Prejudice alone is not sufficient grounds to dismiss me.

Are you referring to other people dismissing you? Because I don't think that's what I've done-- I've tried to be rational and objective in engaging your point-of-view.

The only thing I disagree with is that it is impossible for a child to conscent based soely on the fact that it is a child. Maturity, physical and mental, is not something that can be measured on a clock.

Measured, no. We can't measure, precisely. But based on correlating our arbitrary method of time-keeping with observational evidence (in this case, of general trends in children's emotional development), we can approximate. And while I can't recall that you've weighed in on any particular age-range, I believe at the beginning of the thread there was a reference to this Dutch political party advocating an age of consent in the neighbourhood of 10 to 12 years old. And approximating based on my experience of being that age, and based on the majority of kids I've encountered around that age, I don't think kids that old are prepared for sex with adults (or each other, for that matter).

And I suppose you wouldn't be offended by someone calling your sexual prefference unhealthy?

Sure I would be. However I think there is a genuine difference between homosexuality and pedophilia. In the case of my being gay, my attraction to other men defies a cultural norm that is based on exaggerated qualitative differences between the sexes. 'Normative' heterosexual bias (at least socially) is based on a belief that men and women are so different-- and therefore complementary-- that they ought to couple together, and by being attracted to other men I'm deviating from that. In the case of pedophilia, however, the adult attraction to children defies a cultural norm that's based on genuine (or at least less radically exaggerated) differences between age groups. 'Normative' intragenerational bias is based on the belief that adults possess a maturity that children do not, and that it follows from that that adults are qualified to engage in relationships (namely, sexual) that children are not. Now IF it turned out to be true that man+woman was inherently 'better,' between another adult gay male and I we've deviated as peers so we can both take responsibility for ourselves. But IF it is true that the assumption that informs social bias against pedophilia is correct, and there are indeed important developmental thresholds that separate children from adults, then pedophilia would represent a real abuse-- an exploitation of the child by the adult-- for which the adult would be implicitly responsible.

Without being qualified, myself, to say definitively that society is absolutely right or wrong in condemning pedophilia, I'm nonetheless curious; What do you think the age of consent ought to be, 5C? And can you objectively rationalise-- prioritising the best interests of the most vulnerable party in question-- the age at which you think it should be set? You challenged my assertion that arguments in favour of legitimating pedophilia are motivated by the adult's self-interest, so I invite you to make a case that isn't; a rational treatise on the qualifications of a child of X years to consent to sex with an adult, that objectively considers observed trends in pediatric development and child-psychology. You seem like you could handle whatever backlash it might provoke, and you've mentioned a couple times that you think there are indeed rational arguments in favour of pedophilia that 'reactionaries' don't want to hear (and so try to prevent from being heard) for fear that they won't be able to effectively counter them. I'm unfamiliar with the nature and particulars of such an argument, and whether I can accept them or not, I'm curious to see them laid out.

Pedophiles should all be castrated, lobotomized, bound, gagged, and tossed off cliffs into murky pools filled with flesh-eating piranhas.

I kid you not.

It's their right to form that party if they want. They'll never have enough support to accomplish anything. Making it illegal would be redundant.

Pedophiles should all be castrated, lobotomized, bound, gagged, and tossed off cliffs into murky pools filled with flesh-eating piranhas.

Even if they do not act upon their feelings ?

I kid you not.

Pun intended ?

Even if they do not act upon their feelings ?

Oh...in that case, no, they don't deserve punishment. Psychiatric help, maybe, but not punishment.

Pun intended ?

No, lol. :P

The problem with pedophilia as a crime (and im not shouting its virtues) is that it has become the first *real* thought crime in western society. the driving aim of all legislation on the matter is to protect children correct? thats why sexual contact wit ha minor is illegal, and thats why observing and creating images of sexual contact with a minor is illegal. one of the huge problems is that the legislation assumes that every person that downloads images will one day attempt to rape a child.

this i feel is erroneous, its like saying that every person that enjoys non-consent erotic literature, or downloasds a porn movie with simulated rape is destined to one day go out and rape another person. its a total fallacy.

case in point. if i download an image depicting the rape of a child, i could serve time in prison. EVEN if that image is totally digitally generated, even if i could prove that no harm ever came to a child in the process of manufacturing the image. thus, "thought crime"

another extension: i believe there is a case in american law of an 18 year old being imprisoned for having nude images of his 17 year old girl friend? can any one enlighten us on this?

darkside

pps, what is the age of consent in the us? its 16 here in england

After pondering this issue a bit, I have a question for the resident pedophiles:

Do you primarily want to be able to have sex with children, or to be allowed to have a full relationship (say: marriage) with them that includes sexual relations ?

Pedophiles should all be castrated, lobotomized, bound, gagged, and tossed off cliffs into murky pools filled with flesh-eating piranhas.

I kid you not.

And again with the sanctioning of murder. A pedophile is attracted to, but not necessarily guilty of actual child-abuse. Any pedophile can choose to obey the laws and abstain of pursuing the subjects of their desires, just like anyone can choose to be abstinent. I may not be sympathetic to pedophilic preferences, but as a member of another sexual minority-- one that in some places does see people sentenced to castration, torture, and execution-- I feel compelled to point out the difference. Penalising people (within the extent of the law) for committing criminal acts is one thing. Advocating mass-murder for what people think and feel, for who/what they are, is quite another. And that's the kind of thinking that leads to death-squads and holocausts, things that-- regardless of how the perpetrators may have considered themselves justified at the time-- are rightly condemned in the eyes of history. How infallible and perfectly righteous are you, calling for the extermination of someone you don't know? Based purely on one word (namely, 'pedophile'), that you evidently don't/can't even differentiate from another (ie. child-abuser).

Yeah I'm not sure why anyone would have a kneejerk reaction when discussing terrorism or 9/11 either. I mean it's my right to say that everyone who died in 9/11 deserved it, that in fact terrorists are decent people, and that I hope more people die because of terrorist attacks. You wouldn't want to infringe on my rights would you?

I'm also not sure why, when I suggest that so-called "rape" be legalized on the grounds that every woman consents to having sex just by being a woman, anyone disagrees with me. I'm obviously not advocating rape since in my view rape doesn't exist. I'm not advocating violence, violence only happens in an evil society where women can say "no" to sex and then suddenly it becomes "non consentual." I just have a different worldview, leave me and my rights alone! :)I'm not suggesting that you have the right to rape women, but you have the right to say that you should have the right. Therefore, it makes more sense to me to have a discussion with you detailing the many reasons why you shouldn't rape women as opposed to simply dismissing your statement as unacceptable and saying that you should be killed for it.

Part of the reason for the reaction is because we have all been children, and we know that when we were, we had adults take advantage of us in different ways, not necessarily sexual, but we had no power.I can understand this, your argument was very well-thought out, aside from the last sentence. With that said, it seems to me that we, as people, should strive to rise above our kneejerk reactions and consider why we have them.

What are you even trying to say here? That I could have sex with adults? That makes no sense. It's like reminding gays that they can have sex with the oposite gender. This is the part that I can't comprehend about pedophilia. I mean, there are people who like their sexual partners to look young, while I'm not especially one of those people it at least makes sense to me. The question is: what is it about a child turning from age 17 to age 18 that means that you are incapable of having a relationship with the now-an-adult-former-child? Whatever the line would be for you...13 to 14, 8 to 9, 15 to 16, whatever it is, what is it about the crossing of that threshold that means that you are no longer attracted to the person?

The question is: what is it about a child turning from age 17 to age 18 that means that you are incapable of having a relationship with the now-an-adult-former-child? Whatever the line would be for you...13 to 14, 8 to 9, 15 to 16, whatever it is, what is it about the crossing of that threshold that means that you are no longer attracted to the person?

I assume that same people are primarily attracted to pre-pubescent children, so their "target group" is located well below the age of 18. Others may find the children who just started puberty - boys with starting beards, girls with slowly developing breasts - to be exiting. Again, these things happen well before 18.
I doubt very many pedophiles exist that say "well.. an hour ago you were 17 and hot.. but now you're 18 and therefor uninteresting".

I assume that same people are primarily attracted to pre-pubescent children, so their "target group" is located well below the age of 18. Others may find the children who just started puberty - boys with starting beards, girls with slowly developing breasts - to be exiting. Again, these things happen well before 18.
I doubt very many pedophiles exist that say "well.. an hour ago you were 17 and hot.. but now you're 18 and therefor uninteresting".Oh, I understand this, but the fact remains that there are many adults who look like they're children, I don't see why someone who likes children would automatically rule these adults out.

They assume that because we're attracted to someone, we'll rape them rather than abstain if we can't obtain conscent.

I worry about these people's additudes toward sex.

And this is why many of us are heartily in favor of the age of consent laws in place -- because most psychologists agree that under a certain age, most children cannot consent since they are not mentally able to understand the consequences of their choices. This is, after all, why minors cannot enter into a contract.

Well, here are some tales of the oh some damnable pedophily.
I was 15, she was twentysomething, it was fun and my oh so fragile psyche must be irreversibly crippled. Oh the horror!
Well i was 17 and she was 15. It was a relationship with mutual respect and we both had a nice time. Too bad i had birthday earlier in the year than her. What an evil, damnable predator i am, right? I still hope someone castrates me and rapes me with burning hot razorwire or whatever barbaric punishment those righteous defenders of our youth come up with.
A friend of mine, a very bright law student of 20 years is in a loving relationship since six years with a guy in hid mid-thirties. Poor kid, you say? Well it was her who pursued it and, alas, she is still of a healthy body, mind and soul. How can that be?

Feel free to flame me, and call me things i am not, but in disagreement with a lot of people i dont feel pedophiles are molestors and rapists per se, and some people who are rapists by the letter of the law did no one any harm.

Well, here are some tales of the oh some damnable pedophily.
I was 15, she was twentysomething, it was fun and my oh so fragile psyche must be irreversibly crippled. Oh the horror!
Well i was 17 and she was 15. It was a relationship with mutual respect and we both had a nice time. Too bad i had birthday earlier in the year than her. What an evil, damnable predator i am, right? I still hope someone castrates me and rapes me with burning hot razorwire or whatever barbaric punishment those righteous defenders of our youth come up with.


This is hardly what's being discussed, i think. You were an adolescent (not just legally, although i'm not sure, but i think the body ends it's development at the age of 21) in a relationship with another adolescent. Despite your 2 year diference, you were in a relationship *with mutual respect* with her. I'm guessing you weren't with her just for the sex, right? The shock value here is in the word "children", which is something you or your parter could hardly be considered, at the age you specified.

Well, here are some tales of the oh some damnable pedophily.
I was 15, she was twentysomething, it was fun and my oh so fragile psyche must be irreversibly crippled. Oh the horror!

Now assume you were 6 at that time. Does it feel different ?

This is exactly what the legal aspect of staturory rape is about. An arbitrary age is set without taking into account that individuals may differ from an assumed norm. It just is assumed that kids cannot give consent, which may be true some times and downright condescending at others.
I dont have anything going for children, but the picture drawn of them as asexual beings is plain wrong. Every teenager getting into puberty can testify, the urge for sex is there, sometimes as early as 12 or 13. Yes, i also wish that they find a nice person of the same age group to experiment with and that it is a harmonic experience, but to flat rule out any other option out of a father-knows-best attitude can cause harm as well.
Alma Mater, yes, 6 would have been way too early, i would not have been able to grasp the concept, nor be physically ready nor give consent. And the woman in question would most likely have never considered it. My problem is, a lot of people see the supposed crime and grab for their pitchfork and torches, without even asking. The law does not make a difference if the victim is 6 years or 17 years and 11 monthes. The suspicion alone is enough for some to call for violence against the perpetrator. An aquaintance of mine, a teacher, was falsely charged with molestation. After he lost his job, his familiy and his friends and a good deal of his money plus his home he was absolved of all charges, not for lack of evidence, but because he was innocent. Well, i sure hope he is doing well in the new city he now lives in and some people apologise to him, because he deserves a bit of luck and kindness now.

Well you're right, we do begin to disagree. I do agree that the "innocence" of children is to some extent a myth, and to some extent artificially imposed by society. I do agree that our culture expends an inordinate amount of energy in keeping children ignorant, perhaps beyond their time.

So far, so good. I agree to that.

But I firmly believe that the value of any argument must factor in the argument taken to its extreme, because invariably there are those who would push things to their extremes.

I think that's something we disagree on. Any principle, when taken to the extreme will lead to horrible consequences, so it isn't a fair standard to judge something by.

The argument in favour of "not holding back children's development," taken to its extreme, can become a defense for adults having sex with babies.

It could... if there is somehow evidence suggesting that babies: aren't harmed by sexual contact, can offer explicit conscent, and get something out of the sexual relationship. If you can show me such evidence, I'd love to look it over.

You know there's at least one guy out there who'd be into that,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but...

...guilty.

and who would argue that it's legitimate because "the innocence of children is a social construct."

I think I've shown that it would take more than the "social construct" arguement to actually advocate the extreme position you've suggested.

As such we need a point at which we declare an impassible threshold. We must draw a line somewhere to protect all those children who aren't 'exceptionally' mature.

I disagree most definately with the idea that a line in the sand is ever strictly neccisary. Again, other qualification besides the chronological age of a person can be used, which could still safeguard those who would be harmed, while permiting the ones who wouldn't to behave as they saw fit.

Intimacy, mostly. Whether it's a product of how we're socialised or not, sex is intimate; there's a vulnerability involved. And for someone to be ready for such an interpersonal experience, they need a certain core integrity. If you haven't developed your emotional 'self' yet, then rushing (or being rushed) into a very intimate situation with another person runs a stronger chance of making you dependent on someone else, retarding your own growth.

And again, why assume that any given adult has developed this sense of "self" you're talking about? Rushing into sx before you're ready is unhealthy, and you won't find me disagreeing with you. The question is, why does an arbitrary line in the sand tell you anything about the actual maturity of those on either side of the line?

It's evidenced by how fleeting (and often shallow) young people's relationships with each other tend to be. Kids need to figure out who they are before they connect themselves so closely with another person. And again, whether these expectations (on sexual encounters) are a social construct, they are a reality for many people, and there needs to be a threshold where the real needs of the majority determine the minimum standard in broader policies.

And why must these minimum standards come in the form of an arbitrary line? Why is it so inconceavable to use a cognative test to determine that the emotional and intelectual maturity of the person taking them is sufficiently developed for sex? Other than the obvious answer that many people who are currently considered "ready" might fail such a test while those who we currenty consider "not ready" might pass.

Again, I assume you're reasonable enough to accept the premise that there are people out there who would argue that sitting down a kid who's developed the most basic language skills and giving them a sex-ed lesson qualifies that child to give their consent to have sex.

It requies more than linguistic capability. It requires true comprehension, and even if someone did argue that, it should be quite easy to demonstrate to a jury that they were incompotent. We already have rape laws for people who are mentally impaired for one reason or another. Why can't this apply here?

It's an extreme case, but the bar must be set high enough to prevent as much abuse as possible while still making reasonable allowances for personal autonomy.

How exactly does a blanket ban make "reasonable allowances for personal autonomy"?

As far as the developmental rate of the average child in our culture as it is now, for better or worse, I defy you to prove that the majority of children out of a random sample within the age range we've been talking about are emotionally equipped to assimilate a sexual experience with an adult in a way that wouldn't be traumatic to them in their own adulthood.

Why must a majority be so equiped to agknowledge that some might be?

As for your request, I defy you to provide me with a sample that isn't living in an antisex culture that stygmatizes such relationships, regards them as invariably abusive, and causes those involved a lifetime of emotional torture.

I was a kid once too, and throughout my childhood everyone thought I was exceptionally mature for my age. I mostly associated with adults; I was more comfortable around them because I found my peers immature and boorish. That doesn't mean that I was ready to have sex, with another kid my own age let alone an adult.

And because of your inadequacies, any of the ones who were ready should be held back? I don't get it.

And hell, now I'm 27 and I feel a bit leery of myself when I find that I'm attracted to teenagers.

I could have succombed to self-hate too. I could have recioled every time I considered deviant sexual behavior. I could have destroyed myself. But I didn't. I accepted what I am. Isn't that the healthier behavior?

Mostly because I appreciate that in the short head-start I've had on them, I've learned to see things in a context that they haven't, yet. And for me to get sexually involved with someone much younger than myself-- however mature they thought themselves to be-- to me would feel like an abuse of power on my part.

What exactly do you understand so much better than they do? What new information have you gleaned that they're incapable of comprehending?

Granted, and I'm sure many adults are guilty of that. But referring once more to the issue of minimum standards, there is a point where-- regardless of the merit of the adult's motivation-- the act of protecting a child's 'innocence' (whether real or merely presumed) is legitimate because it's predicated on a truth: namely, that children do need protecting up to some point. And imprecise as human beings are, we eventually need to set an arbitrary limit based on a lowest or near-lowest common denominator.

In what way is it legitimate to prevent the aquisition of knowledge, and the exersise of self-determination if you agknowledge the possibility that you're doing so based on a myth?

Are you referring to other people dismissing you? Because I don't think that's what I've done-- I've tried to be rational and objective in engaging your point-of-view.

You've seen what I've had to put up with in this thread alone. I'm not sure whether I was objecting to something you said, or some general additude to be honest. I'll need to go over the thread of the conversation.

Measured, no. We can't measure, precisely. But based on correlating our arbitrary method of time-keeping with observational evidence (in this case, of general trends in children's emotional development), we can approximate.

And how do we make that approximation? What measures are we basing our approximations on? And more importantly, why can't we use those same measures we used to derive this oh so reasonable age line to determine compotence on a case by case basis?

And while I can't recall that you've weighed in on any particular age-range,

I have stated that I don't care if the line is 18, 35, or 2. An arbitrary line is an arbitrary line, and they don't serve a valuable purpose.

I believe at the beginning of the thread there was a reference to this Dutch political party advocating an age of consent in the neighbourhood of 10 to 12 years old. And approximating based on my experience of being that age, and based on the majority of kids I've encountered around that age, I don't think kids that old are prepared for sex with adults (or each other, for that matter).

You're making sweeping generalizations based soely on a "majority" of kids you've encountered.

I know everyone hates it when slavery and the civil rights movement come up related to this topic, but I don't know how else to put it. If a "majority" of black slaves weren't able to handle freedom because they'd never had a chance to experience it, would it make sense to keep all of them in their shacks?

I bring up slavery because denying kids the rights of self-determination is exactly that, whether you genuinely believe it to be for their own good or not.

Sure I would be. However I think there is a genuine difference between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Here we go. You're about to make some horribly offensive generalization like "my sexuality isn't harmful, yours involves raping children" aren't you?

In the case of my being gay, my attraction to other men defies a cultural norm that is based on exaggerated qualitative differences between the sexes. 'Normative' heterosexual bias (at least socially) is based on a belief that men and women are so different-- and therefore complementary-- that they ought to couple together, and by being attracted to other men I'm deviating from that. In the case of pedophilia, however, the adult attraction to children defies a cultural norm that's based on genuine (or at least less radically exaggerated) differences between age groups.

You don't even see that the only difference is that you accept the bais against my group while rejecting the bais against your group out of hand, do you?

'Normative' intragenerational bias is based on the belief that adults possess a maturity that children do not, and that it follows from that that adults are qualified to engage in relationships (namely, sexual) that children are not.

Of course. If you internalise the bias, it does make perfect sense. I just question why you're willing to internalise this bias, but not the heteronormative bias.

Now IF it turned out to be true that man+woman was inherently 'better,' between another adult gay male and I we've deviated as peers so we can both take responsibility for ourselves. But IF it is true that the assumption that informs social bias against pedophilia is correct, and there are indeed important developmental thresholds that separate children from adults, then pedophilia would represent a real abuse-- an exploitation of the child by the adult-- for which the adult would be implicitly responsible.

A lot of if's there that you seem to have accepted as fact on the "just in case" doctrine.

Without being qualified, myself, to say definitively that society is absolutely right or wrong in condemning pedophilia, I'm nonetheless curious; What do you think the age of consent ought to be, 5C?

I think I've made it clear that I disagree with the use of an arbitrary line at all. I believe that more useful measures of maturity can be used that would both allow greater liberty to sexually opressed minors, and would disqualify those "adults" I keep hearing about who aren't ready for sex even though they're above the arbitrary AoC.

And can you objectively rationalise-- prioritising the best interests of the most vulnerable party in question-- the age at which you think it should be set? You challenged my assertion that arguments in favour of legitimating pedophilia are motivated by the adult's self-interest, so I invite you to make a case that isn't; a rational treatise on the qualifications of a child of X years to consent to sex with an adult, that objectively considers observed trends in pediatric development and child-psychology.

You've made the false assumption that I have an age X at which I would support an AoC. If I were writing policy, there would be no AoC, and qualification would be based for everyone on the same rationale used to determine if an "adult" is sufficiently in command of his/her mental capabilities to make rational judgements. Since there would no doubt be a need to determine in advance with some measure of certainty that such qualifications existed, I would propose a lisencing system. We test a person's cognitive capablilties, and determine if they can make sound decisions based on the avalible information. We then test to determine that they have all the relavent information neccisary for informed sexual decisionmaking.

Under this system, if you want to have sex, you get tested and get your license, whether you're 6 or 60.

You seem like you could handle whatever backlash it might provoke, and you've mentioned a couple times that you think there are indeed rational arguments in favour of pedophilia that 'reactionaries' don't want to hear (and so try to prevent from being heard) for fear that they won't be able to effectively counter them. I'm unfamiliar with the nature and particulars of such an argument, and whether I can accept them or not, I'm curious to see them laid out.
Let's see how you do with my licensing idea first.
Pedophiles should all be castrated, lobotomized, bound, gagged, and tossed off cliffs into murky pools filled with flesh-eating piranhas.

I kid you not.
Your ignorant prejudice looks even more idiotic for having posted directly after someone who's made such an effort to lay out well reasoned arguements.
The problem with pedophilia as a crime (and im not shouting its virtues) is that it has become the first *real* thought crime in western society. the driving aim of all legislation on the matter is to protect children correct? thats why sexual contact wit ha minor is illegal, and thats why observing and creating images of sexual contact with a minor is illegal. one of the huge problems is that the legislation assumes that every person that downloads images will one day attempt to rape a child.

this i feel is erroneous, its like saying that every person that enjoys non-consent erotic literature, or downloasds a porn movie with simulated rape is destined to one day go out and rape another person. its a total fallacy.

case in point. if i download an image depicting the rape of a child, i could serve time in prison. EVEN if that image is totally digitally generated, even if i could prove that no harm ever came to a child in the process of manufacturing the image. thus, "thought crime"

Pedophiles must be the answer to the prayers of those people who read 1984 and think "that's a good idea". It's startling what people will tollerate in the name of dealing with the "pedophile problem".

another extension: i believe there is a case in american law of an 18 year old being imprisoned for having nude images of his 17 year old girl friend? can any one enlighten us on this?

darkside

That is correct. American law does allow for this idiocy.

pps, what is the age of consent in the us? its 16 here in england
It actually varries from state to state within the US from I think 14-18. Some laws make exceptions if the parties are within a certain age, and some don't. Some laws make it possible for two people to "rape eachother" if they're both under the AoC. Other states declare the "rapist" to be the older person in the relationship regardless of circumstances, and still others divide the "rapist/victum" status arbitrarily.
After pondering this issue a bit, I have a question for the resident pedophiles:

Do you primarily want to be able to have sex with children, or to be allowed to have a full relationship (say: marriage) with them that includes sexual relations ?
Who's to say I want anything more than the right to exist? I honestly think that's too much to hope for.

As for your choice, I see what you're trying to do. You're trying to paint my sexuality as nocommital and shallow, since by definition marriage is till death do us part, and pedophiles are attracted to children who invariably grow up.
And again with the sanctioning of murder. A pedophile is attracted to, but not necessarily guilty of actual child-abuse. Any pedophile can choose to obey the laws and abstain of pursuing the subjects of their desires, just like anyone can choose to be abstinent. I may not be sympathetic to pedophilic preferences, but as a member of another sexual minority-- one that in some places does see people sentenced to castration, torture, and execution-- I feel compelled to point out the difference. Penalising people (within the extent of the law) for committing criminal acts is one thing. Advocating mass-murder for what people think and feel, for who/what they are, is quite another. And that's the kind of thinking that leads to death-squads and holocausts, things that-- regardless of how the perpetrators may have considered themselves justified at the time-- are rightly condemned in the eyes of history. How infallible and perfectly righteous are you, calling for the extermination of someone you don't know? Based purely on one word (namely, 'pedophile'), that you evidently don't/can't even differentiate from another (ie. child-abuser).
They show up every time this debate comes up, and it seems that they represent a certain demographic. The same illiterate demographic which was out beatin up pediatricians because the words were too close for them to tell apart.

Do you see why we need an advocating organization?
I'm not suggesting that you have the right to rape women, but you have the right to say that you should have the right. Therefore, it makes more sense to me to have a discussion with you detailing the many reasons why you shouldn't rape women as opposed to simply dismissing your statement as unacceptable and saying that you should be killed for it.

I can understand this, your argument was very well-thought out, aside from the last sentence. With that said, it seems to me that we, as people, should strive to rise above our kneejerk reactions and consider why we have them.

I am equally disgusted when people go so far as to suggest limiting people's rights just because they happen to hate a certain group. Unfortunately, that group is as unlikely to listen to you as they are to listen to me.

This is the part that I can't comprehend about pedophilia. I mean, there are people who like their sexual partners to look young, while I'm not especially one of those people it at least makes sense to me. The question is: what is it about a child turning from age 17 to age 18 that means that you are incapable of having a relationship with the now-an-adult-former-child? Whatever the line would be for you...13 to 14, 8 to 9, 15 to 16, whatever it is, what is it about the crossing of that threshold that means that you are no longer attracted to the person?
I think it should be obvious that it isn't a number that we find stimulating. It's a set of physical characteristics. I could list them, but I would probably get carried away, and go too far for the forum rules. Suffice it to say that I find characteristics associated with prepubescent females attractive. The build and physique, lack of naturally occuring body hair, etc.

I can't speak to the preferences of exclusive pedophiles, since I happen to be attracted to adults too, but I can tell you that once someone enters adolescence, I'm generally not attracted to them until they leave it. There is something about the unresolved nature of their physical development that's just a turn off for me.

Of course this is just physical attraction, and has little if anything to do with love or maintaining a relationship. I mean what does a guy who's got "normal" views of sexualty do when their significant other gets to sixty? Do they stop loving them or does the fact that they do love them allow them to look past what they're normally physically attracted to?
Oh, I understand this, but the fact remains that there are many adults who look like they're children, I don't see why someone who likes children would automatically rule these adults out.
Who's to say we do?
This is hardly what's being discussed, i think.

His point was most definately what is being talked about here. The Age of Conscent is about imposing an arbitrary line, and the elimination of an arbitrary line is exactly what this party is ultimately advocating. The arbitrary nature of AoC makes situations like he describes illegal, simply because that's where the line happened to fall.

You were an adolescent (not just legally, although i'm not sure, but i think the body ends it's development at the age of 21) in a relationship with another adolescent. Despite your 2 year diference, you were in a relationship *with mutual respect* with her. I'm guessing you weren't with her just for the sex, right? The shock value here is in the word "children", which is something you or your parter could hardly be considered, at the age you specified.
And I suppose you have yet another arbitrary line to suggest?

I am equally disgusted when people go so far as to suggest limiting people's rights just because they happen to hate a certain group. Unfortunately, that group is as unlikely to listen to you as they are to listen to me. I suppose it's a good test to figure out whether or not people really believe in the ideal of free speech or are just paying it lip service.

I think it should be obvious that it isn't a number that we find stimulating. It's a set of physical characteristics. I could list them, but I would probably get carried away, and go too far for the forum rules. Suffice it to say that I find characteristics associated with prepubescent females attractive. The build and physique, lack of naturally occuring body hair, etc.

I can't speak to the preferences of exclusive pedophiles, since I happen to be attracted to adults too, but I can tell you that once someone enters adolescence, I'm generally not attracted to them until they leave it. There is something about the unresolved nature of their physical development that's just a turn off for me.Do you think this has to do more with nature or nurture? I ask because if it's nurture, it's possible that it's psychological, and might be removed with psychological help. I'm not saying that it necessarily *should* be removed, but it seems to me that if I had this type of sexual attraction that I'd be happier without it.

Of course this is just physical attraction, and has little if anything to do with love or maintaining a relationship. I mean what does a guy who's got "normal" views of sexualty do when their significant other gets to sixty? Do they stop loving them or does the fact that they do love them allow them to look past what they're normally physically attracted to?Well, it seems to be as you suggest, but then again I hear all these tales about older married people dumping their spouses for someone younger...I suppose that's just my cynical side manifesting itself, though.

Who's to say we do?Well if you don't, then does this mean that you're capable of pursuing relationships with adults, and if so, why wouldn't you do so and save yourself a lot of hassle?

I suppose it's a good test to figure out whether or not people really believe in the ideal of free speech or are just paying it lip service.

It's sad how many people fail that test. Important to know, but still sad.

Do you think this has to do more with nature or nurture?

I know it's a combination of factors.

I think nature plays a pretty big part in this, considering how common the attraction to pedomorphic characteristics is even among the sexually "normal". (By pedomorphic characteristics, I include round face, small frame, and lack of body hair in females, and the preference for a lack of facial hair in males.)

There is other evidence to suggest a genetic predisposition, but since this subject is too dificult to talk about with my family, it's impossible to tell how much of this is me misinterpreting things through the lens of my own condition.

As for the nurture arguement, I think it also has plenty of merrit. Ironically, I think the major anti-sex education I got may have had something to do with it. Evidence from peer pressure suggested that everyone was having sex, and evidence from the school's official programs suggested that everyone who was having sex was likely to get AIDS.

There was also the drive to complete a piece of anatomical inquiry about the female form. Every medium I'd seen seemed to cover up or remove definition from the genetals, so I had no idea what was there. I vividly remember thinking that my first chance to find this out was likely to be during a diaper change.

I ask because if it's nurture, it's possible that it's psychological, and might be removed with psychological help.

I doubt it. The "nurture" based stuff was what led me to consider the idea in the first place, but that genie is out of the bottle. I'm a lot more informed now, but that hasn't eliminated my ability to find girls attractive.

I'm not saying that it necessarily *should* be removed, but it seems to me that if I had this type of sexual attraction that I'd be happier without it.

I did something once, a long time ago. It soured me on the entire idea of "self-improvement". This is something that's a part of who I am, for better or worse. I wouldn't get rid of it even if I did believe it was possible. To do so would be to violate my most deeply held moral belief, the belief that changing who a person fundamentally is at the core is the one absolutely unforgivable sin in existence.

Well, it seems to be as you suggest, but then again I hear all these tales about older married people dumping their spouses for someone younger...I suppose that's just my cynical side manifesting itself, though.

Eh. I'm a romantic. I actually believe all that "true love is eternal" stuff.

Well if you don't, then does this mean that you're capable of pursuing relationships with adults, and if so, why wouldn't you do so and save yourself a lot of hassle?
I actually do pursue such relationships, but that doesn't mean I stop being a pedophile. All that's required for me to fit the definition is that I have to be able to be attracted to children. I advocate my positions on a moral basis rather than a practical one.

Besides that, did you know about their sexuality polygraph? It's a device used to measure sexual arrousal in males by strapping a device to the penis and exposing the male to various images. It's a thought-crime enforcement tool in its truest form, since the only possible use of this tool is to determine who is a pedophile (or gay if they were still persecuting gays that badly). It's scarry as hell the kinds of invasive interrogations people will accept to deal with pedophiles.

(Ultimately, I think the fifth amendment gives me the right to disallow my penis from testifying against me, but I doubt that would matter to anyone if I were actually in the situation.)