NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems some people - namely pedophiles, what a fucking coincidence - like to justify pedophilia by saying its no different from homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality.

I call bullshit!

If that was the case, it would be impossible for a pedophile to be a heterosexual - or homosexual. Unless you maintain that someone could be one "sexuality" and another at the same time - like gosh, I'm heterosexual AND homosexual (but I'm not bisexual! ohno!).

There are also people who seem willing to justify ANY impulse as "just like homosexuality." This is just ultra-liberal sophistry. The intent is to say that no matter what you're attracted to, someone can't DARE to criticize your attraction because they'll be "just like homophobes."

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit.

I mean, is it wrong to say Hitler's desires (and you can take your "OMG GODWIN GODWIN LOL" and shove it right now before whipping it out, mmkay?) were wrong? That criticizing murderous anti-semitic megalomania is just as mean-spirited, bigoted as criticizing someone for being attracted to men?

Ugh.

The word is "consent." Pretty simple, really.

Ugh.

Spot on.

The word is "consent." Pretty simple, really.
Yes. It's an inborn or learned impulse (just like heterosexuality or homosexuality), and it's laid over top of your sexual preferences - you prefer kids).

But we frown on it because it's not consensual if we're talking about kids.

Having a desire to sleep with beings that aren't really capable of giving consent to sexual acts (such as small children and animals or drunk women with "virgin until marriage" pins) isn't in itself wrong. Acting on that is.

To say that this notion is "ultra-liberal" is actually a conservative ploy to get reg'lar folks to rise up against gay marriage on the slippery slope premise.

This notion is no more liberal than murder. The issue, as Bottle so succinctly put it, is consent. I'll put it succinctly as well. Is pedophilia another sexuality?

Not no, but HELL no.

Seems some people - namely pedophiles, what a fucking coincidence - like to justify pedophilia by saying its no different from homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality.

And they are right. The only differences being:
a. that the partner in this case cannot be considered capable to consent.
b. that the desired partner will not be a pedophile.

If that was the case, it would be impossible for a pedophile to be a heterosexual - or homosexual. Unless you maintain that someone could be one "sexuality" and another at the same time - like gosh, I'm heterosexual AND homosexual (but I'm not bisexual! ohno!).

So it is impossible for someone to be attracted to blondes AND brunettes ?

There are also people who seem willing to justify ANY impulse as "just like homosexuality." This is just ultra-liberal sophistry. The intent is to say that no matter what you're attracted to, someone can't DARE to criticize your attraction because they'll be "just like homophobes."

It is perfectly allright to criticize something if you can demonstrate that something causes harm.

Seems some people - namely pedophiles, what a fucking coincidence - like to justify pedophilia by saying its no different from homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality.

I call bullshit!

.....

Ugh.

Oooh!

Feel your rightous indignation.

Clearly it is perverse. However, did any of us choose not to be or not to be paedophiles? No.

We are fortunate that we are not, and sexual use of people who are in no position to understand and consent is clearly wrong, and for all your melodramatic yelling no-one is saying otherwise.

Get off your high horse.

I would say pedophilia is another sexuality, inborn and probably unchangeable. but that doesn't mean it's alright to act on those impulses. Humans naturally do a lot of crazy stuff like murder torture rape kidnapping etc., but that doesn't mean they're conducive to peaceful social living. Nature doesn't care about consent, but that doesn't mean human cultures/societies shouldn't. People who are unfortunate enough to have this orientation should be helped through counselling etc, so that they may live as "normal" a life as possible. It's unfortunate that nature has made them in such a way as to be opposed to the goals of most human culture, but we can't really change that.

Yes. It's an inborn or learned impulse (just like heterosexuality or homosexuality), and it's laid over top of your sexual preferences - you prefer kids).

But we frown on it because it's not consensual if we're talking about kids.

Thank you. Someone sensible here.

No matter how many times I specify that your desires are different from your actions, people hear that someone has an abnormal impusle an immediately label them with the term that implies they have acted on the impulse.

Tell me, Trostia, in all your fits of rage have you never felt the desire to kill your enemy? Oh dear, that makes you a f*cking murderer! Kill him! :sniper:

Pedophelia has very little to do with sex and sexuality. It stems from a desire for control and power, similar to rape.

Nobody is sexually attracted to children. The normal human condition is to protect children, not hump them. If you're humping them, or want to hump them, seek help. Now.

It is perfectly allright to criticize something if you can demonstrate that something causes harm.
Hell, it's alright to criticize something for any damn reason you please. It's just that you're apt to make yourself look like a nosey little dingbat if you choose to criticize private behaviors bewteen consenting adults. :)

The word is "consent." Pretty simple, really.
I would have said "informed consent," but meh.

Seems some people - namely pedophiles, what a fucking coincidence - like to justify pedophilia by saying its no different from homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality.

It's not, and I'm not a pedophile.

If that was the case, it would be impossible for a pedophile to be a heterosexual - or homosexual. Unless you maintain that someone could be one "sexuality" and another at the same time - like gosh, I'm heterosexual AND homosexual (but I'm not bisexual! ohno!).

Two different spheres, or explain the pedophiles who have not ever molested a child(and there are a lot of these). It may also be noted as proof for that that there are nonexclusive pedophiles, I.E people who are attracted to children and adults. Which would be the equivilent of bisexual.

There are also people who seem willing to justify ANY impulse as "just like homosexuality." This is just ultra-liberal sophistry. The intent is to say that no matter what you're attracted to, someone can't DARE to criticize your attraction because they'll be "just like homophobes."

Agree here, but should clarify that this means ignoring their position and/or feeding the troll

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit.

I mean, is it wrong to say Hitler's desires (and you can take your "OMG GODWIN GODWIN LOL" and shove it right now before whipping it out, mmkay?) were wrong? That criticizing murderous anti-semitic megalomania is just as mean-spirited, bigoted as criticizing someone for being attracted to men?
If he didn't actually kill all those people, and didn't intend to kill all those people, I see no reason why he couldn't be ignored. Unfortunatly for your argument, he did do it, not just want to do it, and so it's a bad analogy.

Won't let me post without something outside the quotes, so here it is.

However, did any of us choose not to be or not to be paedophiles?
Well, it does make one wonder. Perhaps the people who pose such questions are projecting their own feelings on to others.

I'm not saying this to be inflamatory, but it makes sense that if a person finds himself secretly struggling against the desire to have sex with children then perhaps he would assume that other people are experiencing the same struggle. If he feels that the only thing keeping him from acting on his desires is the laws that prohibit pedophilia, perhaps he assumes that all people would be likewise motivated to rape children if they could find some way to get away with it.

I would have said "informed consent," but meh.
Oh, I see how it is...I get all nit-picky with your language on one thread, so you come and nit-pick me right back! :)

Well, you better sleep with one eye open, pal, because when you least expect it...WHAM!!! I'm gonna nit-pick you like you've never had your nit picked before! MWA HA HA!!!

Pedophelia has very little to do with sex and sexuality. It stems from a desire for control and power, similar to rape.

Nobody is sexually attracted to children. The normal human condition is to protect children, not hump them. If you're humping them, or want to hump them, seek help. Now.
Confusing pedophilia with child molestation.
I assure you, the psychologists of the world agree that it is possible to be sexually attracted to children.

So it is impossible for someone to be attracted to blondes AND brunettes ?


Bullshit analogy. If as a man you are attracted to other men, you're homosexual. If women, heterosexual. If both, bisexual.

It is impossible therefore to be homosexual and heterosexual at the same time - you are just bisexual.

I'm not sure why that concept is so difficult for you to understand.


It is perfectly allright to criticize something if you can demonstrate that something causes harm.

Heh no, check this out - I can criticize whatever the fuck I want, for whatever fucking reasons I fucking decide. Mmkay? Good. Just because you disagree with my reasons doesn't mean its not "perfectly alright" and if you don't think that, then I can just shrug and say you're being no better than a homophobe - I mean I can't choose my aversion to childfuckers, can I? Therefore when you criticize my aversion you are being a bigot, no?

Won't let me post without something outside the quotes, so here it is.
Just so you know, you can block of parts of a person's post into separate quotes.

To start a quote block, use (quote=person's name), except use [ ] instead of ( ). To close that quote, put in (/quote), again with [ ] instead of ( ). You can then reply outside the quote block, and you can add another quote block by using the same tags.

Nobody is sexually attracted to children. The normal human condition is to protect children, not hump them. If you're humping them, or want to hump them, seek help. Now.

No, it would be better for all concerned if pedophiles would just leave the top floor of a skyscraper without using the stairs or elevator.

I know I can. I just didn't want to.
That was to Bottle, not to the post directly above me, just for clarification.
EDIT:Why do people want to murder all the pedophiles anyway? It's not like they did anything, so basically it's capital punishment for thought crime.

"However, did any of us choose not to be or not to be paedophiles? No."

Well, it does make one wonder. Perhaps the people who pose such questions are projecting their own feelings on to others.

I'm not saying this to be inflamatory, but it makes sense that if a person finds himself secretly struggling against the desire to have sex with children then perhaps he would assume that other people are experiencing the same struggle. If he feels that the only thing keeping him from acting on his desires is the laws that prohibit pedophilia, perhaps he assumes that all people would be likewise motivated to rape children if they could find some way to get away with it.

I see, I disagree so throw an accusation like that at me. You are fully aware that is an inflamatory post.

I am fortunate enough to only fancy grown ups, however as I did not choose, nor struggle with this, I have no reason to assume that anyone else would choose or struggle to form their own sexuality.

Your statement assumes that all paedophiles are psychopaths. Clearly many of those that perform terrible crimes on children are. Many may be horribly confused.

So what should society do with folks who feel the impulse (as part of an inclination they neither asked for nor wanted), and despite years of valiant defiance, wind up acting on it? If we're prepared to say it's another sexuality, are we prepared for the practical aspect of that decision?

As it stands, I'd repeat myself, not no, but HELL no. Jail doesn't do anything for pedopholes but get them killed, and while that's a popular result, if we're dealing with human nature, it isn't particularly fair or enlightened.

And when such non-incarcerative programs fail? Do we rent out Kaho'olawe to the incorrigible pedophiles as well as the lepers?

No, it would be better for all concerned if pedophiles would just leave the top floor of a skyscraper without using the stairs or elevator.

either:

a) pedophilia is an unchangable mental illness, an attraction they have no control over. In which case wishing them death is bigoted, they need help.
or b) pedophilia is possible for any human being, and a chosen action. Sexual attraction to, or even sexual acts with, children is something any human being could wish for. In which case wanting them death, I guess, is ok - but it implies that everyone has pedophilic tendencies.

so, which is it? are you a bigot, or do you believe everyone is secretly on the verge of being a pedophile?

No, it would be better for all concerned if pedophiles would just leave the top floor of a skyscraper without using the stairs or elevator.
Ah, the meant-and-potatoes nuance of Middle America. :rolleyes:

I'd say since that would be rape, just do whatever they do with normal rapists.
EDIT:Probably should use quote tags more, come to think of it.

Bullshit analogy. If as a man you are attracted to other men, you're homosexual. If women, heterosexual. If both, bisexual.

It is impossible therefore to be homosexual and heterosexual at the same time - you are just bisexual.

I'm not sure why that concept is so difficult for you to understand.

Actually MY analogy is valid for the point you wanted the make, while your own was factually correct but had nothing to do with the issue.

You claim a pedophile cannot be a homosexual at the same time.
I do not see why someone cannot be exclusively attracted to young children and men, while feeling nothing for women. Just like being attracted to blondes and brunettes, but not getting any vibe from the redhead.

Your comment about homo and hetero but not bi was completely irrelevant.

Heh no, check this out - I can criticize whatever the fuck I want, for whatever fucking reasons I fucking decide. Mmkay? Good.

Sure. It would just mean your criticsim is worthless.

Just because you disagree with my reasons doesn't mean its not "perfectly alright" and if you don't think that, then I can just shrug and say you're being no better than a homophobe - I mean I can't choose my aversion to childfuckers, can I? Therefore when you criticize my aversion you are being a bigot, no?

Not if I can back my claims up with objective reasoning, no.

No, it would be better for all concerned if pedophiles would just leave the top floor of a skyscraper without using the stairs or elevator.
Here's the problem with that.

My mother is a clinical psychologist who takes on some nightmarish cases, and one of the worst was the case of a teenage boy who was being molested, and who, in turn, began molesting his little sister while she was still in diapers.

I am not in any way implying that child molesters deserve to be let off the hook. I am not in any way defending what they do, or suggesting that we should excuse the abuse of children. I am simply saying that it is important to remember that the vast majority of child abusers are, themselves, the victims of such abuse. In some cases, an individual will be both victim and perpetrator at the same time.

I see, I disagree so throw an accusation like that at me. You are fully aware that is an inflamatory post.

I did not accuse you of anything, and I tried to make it clear that I was not trying to be inflamatory. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you.


I am fortunate enough to only fancy grown ups, however as I did not choose, nor struggle with this, I have no reason to assume that anyone else would choose or struggle to form their own sexuality.

Ok.


Your statement assumes that all paedophiles are psychopaths.

No it doesn't.


Clearly many of those that perform terrible crimes on children are. Many may be horribly confused.
Of course. And nowhere did I state otherwise.

Confusing pedophilia with child molestation.
I assure you, the psychologists of the world agree that it is possible to be sexually attracted to children.

Misguided sexual attraction is not sexual attraction at all, but stems from a deeper problem. I assure you, not all of the psychologists of the world agree.

Perhaps most of you aren't aware that there is a Pedophile movement in the Netherlands. Pedophiles have created their own party with the sole purpose of lowering the age of consent to 12 years, with the eventual goal of eliminating the age of consent alltogether.

Now, Nederlanden is the MOST liberal country on planet earth- and nearly 90% oppose this and want the pedophiles stopped at all costs.

That's saying something about the sick perverts- every last one of 'em out to hung on the nearest tree and shot, burned and have their ashes scattered across a landfill.:mad: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

Here's the problem with that.

My mother is a clinical psychologist who takes on some nightmarish cases, and one of the worst was the case of a teenage boy who was being molested, and who, in turn, began molesting his little sister while she was still in diapers.

I am not in any way implying that child molesters deserve to be let off the hook. I am not in any way defending what they do, or suggesting that we should excuse the abuse of children. I am simply saying that it is important to remember that the vast majority of child abusers are, themselves, the victims of such abuse. In some cases, an individual will be both victim and perpetrator at the same time.


I understand that. I just believe that pedophilia is not "curable".

I believe that we're kinder to dogs that go mad, than to humans who go mad.

So what should society do with folks who feel the impulse (as part of an inclination they neither asked for nor wanted), and despite years of valiant defiance, wind up acting on it? If we're prepared to say it's another sexuality, are we prepared for the practical aspect of that decision?

The ones who wind up acting on it, unlike adult homo and heterosexuals, are not having sex with someone who is of legal age to consent to it. Even if children consent, we have all agreed upon to make the law say that under a certain age they do not know what they're doing. Therein lies the difference between child molestors and the rest of us. So in response to your question, go ahead and throw 'em in jail if they act on it. I'm sure they'll get their due punishment.

Misguided sexual attraction is not sexual attraction at all, but stems from a deeper problem. I assure you, not all of the psychologists of the world agree.
Would homosexuality be misguided then?

I saw a programm on tv where 2 guys where interviewing pedo's. Those people didn't want to be pedo. Many of that pedo's also fancy adult wimen. But pedo's how abuse childeren need to be in prison........for a long time........:headbang:

Perhaps most of you aren't aware that there is a Pedophile movement in the Netherlands. Pedophiles have created their own party with the sole purpose of lowering the age of consent to 12 years, with the eventual goal of eliminating the age of consent alltogether.

In the US, we have NAMBLA.

I understand that. I just believe that pedophilia is not "curable".

I believe that we're kinder to dogs that go mad, than to humans who go mad.

It's curable until they've actually followed through and hurt a child- then they're beyond hope. They are forever more a child molester. Rehab those who haven't acted yet- but for those on the sex-offender registry, and all others after- either castrate them and deny any hormones that were lost with the "parts" (I really don't care if it messes up their bodies- they aren't worth anything) or shoot 'em dead.

You know what, since we know at least one of the resident board pedophiles will be here eventually, why don't we just wait till then? (Besides, the way the discussion goes will be heavily influenced by who it is. If it's DSN, OP will win, if it's South Niflheim he'll help our side but not that much, and if it's Five Castes he's done this argument enough to have it down to a science. Lucky for us the only active one is Five Castes.)

EDIT: I'm gonna ask you all to calm down the murderous rage here. You can't argue well if you want to kill the other guy.
Look at the anti gay rights people for that. Been generally argued that they have no logic at all.
What do they have?
People like Fred Phelpes who just hate gay people for no reason.

In the US, we have NAMBLA.

I know. Makes me sick. :mad:

Some points:
1) The OP specified pedophilia, not childfuckers. Thus anyone arguing about childfuckers is off topic.

2) Hetero- and homosexuality sure are mutually exclusive, whatever point you think you make by stateing that. But they certainly are not the only possible sexualities. There are potentially infinitely many factors that can go into a sexual orientation, so saying that this is not about [whatever] does not show that it is not sexuality.

3) Sure you have the right to critizise whatever you want. However, it helps if you know the words you use. For example, bigotry means "irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion". So critizising an argument never is bigotry, but hating a group of people for no good reason is.

I'll type more if I can be bothered to read the thread again.

I saw a programm on tv where 2 guys where interviewing pedo's. Those people didn't want to be pedo. Many of that pedo's also fancy adult wimen. But pedo's how abuse childeren need to be in prison........for a long time........:headbang:

No, they need a good blow to the head, as your :headbang: suggests.

I understand that. I just believe that pedophilia is not "curable".

I believe that we're kinder to dogs that go mad, than to humans who go mad.
To be perfectly honest, I don't know how I feel. Or, rather, how I feel will change from situation to situation.

My mother has an idealism that I envy. She refuses to give up on those she is trying to help, even when their actions are enough to turn one's stomach. I believe that she has single-handedly done more good than I could hope to do in ten lifetimes, and most of it is because she's willing to try to help the people who nobody else wants to help. I've seen her do things that I thought were impossible.

Yet, at the same time, I don't know that she has ever "fixed" a rapist or "cured" a pedophile. I know that she has helped to prevent the "birth" of a sex offender on more than one occasion, by helping abuse victims deal with their feelings in a better way, but I don't know if she has ever managed to "cure" somebody who has already committed such an act.

And, of course, on top of all of this is my visceral loathing for anybody who would violate another human being in this manner. Which really doesn't help me think any more clearly.

Perhaps most of you aren't aware that there is a Pedophile movement in the Netherlands. Pedophiles have created their own party with the sole purpose of lowering the age of consent to 12 years, with the eventual goal of eliminating the age of consent alltogether.

You mean at first return to the situation of 5 years ago, when sex between a 12 year old and an adult was frowned upon, but not acted against if no complaints were made by the parents or child itself.
I still find it surprising that 90% of the Dutch population was so vehemently against something which was considered acceptable for most of their lifes. Not that I disagree with the feeling, but still.

Some points:
1) The OP specified pedophilia, not childfuckers. Thus anyone arguing about childfuckers is off topic.

2) Hetero- and homosexuality sure are mutually exclusive, whatever point you think you make by stateing that. But they certainly are not the only possible sexualities. There are potentially infinitely many factors that can go into a sexual orientation, so saying that this is not about [whatever] does not show that it is not sexuality.

3) Sure you have the right to critizise whatever you want. However, it helps if you know the words you use. For example, bigotry means "irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion". So critizising an argument never is bigotry, but hating a group of people for no good reason is.

I'll type more if I can be bothered to read the thread again.


I'll let you know I have VERY GOOD REASON to detest child "lovers".

I did not accuse you of anything, and I tried to make it clear that I was not trying to be inflamatory. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you.

I considered retracting the post, considering that it may merely have been accidentally ambiguous. I am happy to accept that was the case. It was however offensive, regardless of whether or not that was intended which is why it was not clear enough for me.

It's curable until they've actually followed through and hurt a child- then they're beyond hope. They are forever more a child molester. Rehab those who haven't acted yet- but for those on the sex-offender registry, and all others after- either castrate them and deny any hormones that were lost with the "parts" (I really don't care if it messes up their bodies- they aren't worth anything) or shoot 'em dead.

This... doesn't make sense to me.

Either it's a curable condition or it isn't, regardless of whether they've acted on it or not.

So what should society do with folks who feel the impulse (as part of an inclination they neither asked for nor wanted), and despite years of valiant defiance, wind up acting on it? If we're prepared to say it's another sexuality, are we prepared for the practical aspect of that decision?

As it stands, I'd repeat myself, not no, but HELL no. Jail doesn't do anything for pedopholes but get them killed, and while that's a popular result, if we're dealing with human nature, it isn't particularly fair or enlightened.

And when such non-incarcerative programs fail? Do we rent out Kaho'olawe to the incorrigible pedophiles as well as the lepers?
As has been said a number of times: Pedophilia is not a crime. Rape is. Rapists need to be punished, and there is no reason for being compassionate to them. And that doesn't have anything to do with what pedophilia is. Though I guess that in the case of some pedophiles castration is quite humane, since it helps them fight the urges that they mustn't act on.

This... doesn't make sense to me.

Either it's a curable condition or it isn't, regardless of whether they've acted on it or not.

You asked- you got my answer.

If you want it more cut and dry- I'll err to the "Not Curable" side.

As has been said a number of times: Pedophilia is not a crime. Rape is. Rapists need to be punished, and there is no reason for being compassionate to them. And that doesn't have anything to do with what pedophilia is. Though I guess that in the case of some pedophiles castration is quite humane, since it helps them fight the urges that they mustn't act on.
Indeed. As sickening as it may seem, THINKING about abusing a child is not a crime. Just like thinking about punching somebody in the face isn't a crime, but acting on that thought is assault.

i think its more of paraphilia or fetish than it is "just another sexuality"

in a normal sexuality you relate to your partner as a human being. you develop a more or less equal, consentual relationship with them. this relationship often lasts for decades. it at least has a potential to.

in a fetish you are attracted to some aspect of a person, their feet, the clothing you have them wear, whatever. you are excited not by the person but by the fetish. what seperates it from innocent fun in a "normal" sexual relationship is the need for the fetish more than the need for the partner.

most fetishes are harmless or at worst pathetic. when the desired object is "child" rather than, say, "shoe" it becomes dangerous and, if acted on, should land the offender in jail for a good long time.

As has been said a number of times: Pedophilia is not a crime. Rape is. Rapists need to be punished, and there is no reason for being compassionate to them. And that doesn't have anything to do with what pedophilia is. Though I guess that in the case of some pedophiles castration is quite humane, since it helps them fight the urges that they mustn't act on.

No, Pedophilia is quite defined as a crime in the US, as it should be.

The problem with castration now, is that they still get their "daily hormones" "doctor reccomended". They shouldn't have any contact with testosterone or any other hormone they lost with their "special parts".

No, Pedophilia is quite defined as a crime in the US, as it should be.

No, it really isn't. Pedophilia is not a crime, or even a legal term. Pedophilia is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to pre-pubescent children. Many people who sexually abuse children do not fit the clinical definition of a pedophile, and many pedophiles do not molest children.

Confusing pedophilia with child molestation again.
Let me make this very very clear:
Pedophile is to child molester as heterosexual is to rapist.

i think its more of paraphilia or fetish than it is "just another sexuality"

in a normal sexuality you relate to your partner as a human being. you develop a more or less equal, consentual relationship with them. this relationship often lasts for decades. it at least has a potential to.

in a fetish you are attracted to some aspect of a person, their feet, the clothing you have them wear, whatever. you are excited not by the person but by the fetish. what seperates it from innocent fun in a "normal" sexual relationship is the need for the fetish more than the need for the partner.

most fetishes are harmless or at worst pathetic. when the desired object is "child" rather than, say, "shoe" it becomes dangerous and, if acted on, should land the offender in jail for a good long time.

So your saying that people who form fake friendships based on the 'above', are just fetish-ey?

No, Pedophilia is quite defined as a crime in the US, as it should be.

Yes. Because thoughtcrime is bad.

No, Pedophilia is quite defined as a crime in the US, as it should be.

Can someone confirm the U.S. government's official definition of pedophilia? Is it the action or the impulse that is the crime?

Just in case you didn't know, Krakatao0's definition of pedophilia is the impulse. Acting on the impulse of pedophilia is rape.

i think its more of paraphilia or fetish than it is "just another sexuality"

in a normal sexuality you relate to your partner as a human being. you develop a more or less equal, consentual relationship with them. this relationship often lasts for decades. it at least has a potential to.

in a fetish you are attracted to some aspect of a person, their feet, the clothing you have them wear, whatever. you are excited not by the person but by the fetish. what seperates it from innocent fun in a "normal" sexual relationship is the need for the fetish more than the need for the partner.

most fetishes are harmless or at worst pathetic. when the desired object is "child" rather than, say, "shoe" it becomes dangerous and, if acted on, should land the offender in jail for a good long time.
Only problem here is:
Does society really let it develop into anything more meaningful then a fetish?

No, it really isn't. Pedophilia is not a crime, or even a legal term. Pedophilia is the paraphilia of being sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to pre-pubescent children. Many people who sexually abuse children do not fit the clinical definition of a pedophile, and many pedophiles do not molest children.

I don't care- they can all rot in Hell. You harm a child, or are admittedly wanting, and working to make legal, the harming of a child- Hasta Lavista!

You asked- you got my answer.

If you want it more cut and dry- I'll err to the "Not Curable" side.

Actually, I didn't - that was my first post in this thread, so I'll just assume that was a general, non-specific 'you'.

But in regards to the matter of it being curable, well, I just damn well hope it is, y'know?

Case one:

*police officer walks in on a sexual act"

man: Oh, sorry officer, we're just having completely consentual sex in the privacy of our own home (don't mind that the officer is breaking and entering :rolleyes: )

woman: yes, he's completely right, it's consentual, not harming anyone else, and is something I want to do..

officer: very well, indeed....

--------------------------------------------------

Case two:

*police officer walks in on a sexual act"

man: Oh, sorry officer, we're just having completely consentual sex in the privacy of our own home (don't mind that the officer is breaking and entering :rolleyes: )

child: yes, he's completely right, it's consentual, not harming anyone else, and is something I want to do..

officer: HOLD ON HERE!!! THIS IS A CHILD!!!!!

man/child: so?

officer: YOUR NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN!!!!!

man/child: why not?

officer: Because.....well...they can't give consent...THATS WHY!

man: who are you to say they can't give consent. That's horrible, so you just disregard their opinions altogether? I'm sure there are plenty of 20, 30, and 40 year olds that are just as incapable of giving consent as your common child. To say that people under a certain age are completely incapable of giving consent to sex, and people above a certain age are completely capable of giving consent to sex is just plain idiotic. Some will be competent enough to give consent at age 6, some at age 14, some at age 70, does that mean we arbitrarily choose an age? No. We allow people their individuality and ability to choose. That is all.

officer: WRONG. It harms them psychologically!

man: who are you to say that all people above a certain age will not be psychologically harmed by sex and all people below a certain age will? I'm sure there are plenty of 20, 30, 40 year olds that will be harmed by consentual sex just as much as your average child. Some people will be mentally capable for sexuality at age 6, some at 14, some at 70, does that mean we artibrarily choose an age? No. We allow people their individuality and ability to choose. That is all.

officer: Whatever. Your being arrested.

Yes. Because thoughtcrime is bad.

No different than your "Hate Crimes".

i've seen people put 'consent is the word you're looking for' in regards to this issue, and i'd like to take the time to say that's not the answer at all... if a paedophile asks a 12 year old girl if he can have sex with her and she says ok, that does NOT make it justified.

according to JS Mill from his work 'On Liberty' (allowing me to paraphrase though) ''it's not a problem if there is given consent between two or more parties involved in any action, what does matter is that a child, by definition is not old enough to know what is best for them and such forth the law of the land can be despotic and treat them in an ''inferior'' manner... simply because it is in their best interests.

childhood is supposed to be the age of innocence, it may seem a slightly naive view, but that's what it is...it's the last time someone can be somewhat sheltered from the cold-harsh facts of this sick world. How anyone can claim it's legitimate for an adult (over 18) to have sexual relations with a child (under 16-uk) is a fallacy simply because...refering back to Mill, a child is unable to consent for itself.

paedophillia is not an alternative sexuality, it's not reducable to homosexuality or bisexuality, it's simply a perversion and a criminal act.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know how I feel. Or, rather, how I feel will change from situation to situation.

My mother has an idealism that I envy. She refuses to give up on those she is trying to help, even when their actions are enough to turn one's stomach. I believe that she has single-handedly done more good than I could hope to do in ten lifetimes, and most of it is because she's willing to try to help the people who nobody else wants to help. I've seen her do things that I thought were impossible.

Yet, at the same time, I don't know that she has ever "fixed" a rapist or "cured" a pedophile. I know that she has helped to prevent the "birth" of a sex offender on more than one occasion, by helping abuse victims deal with their feelings in a better way, but I don't know if she has ever managed to "cure" somebody who has already committed such an act.

And, of course, on top of all of this is my visceral loathing for anybody who would violate another human being in this manner. Which really doesn't help me think any more clearly.


Now, go back and read Of Mice and Men

As far as I know, the dutch pedophile party isn't trying to legalize child molestation, it's trying to remove the age of consent.
In other words, they're not trying to make raping a child legal, they're trying to make children legally able to have sex.

Actually, I didn't - that was my first post in this thread, so I'll just assume that was a general, non-specific 'you'.

But in regards to the matter of it being curable, well, I just damn well hope it is, y'know?

Why? Is it because you are merciful (which is good) or... (sorry for my cynicism) ...Is it because you ARE one?

No different than your "Hate Crimes".

*Is puzzled*
What are my hatecrimes ?

i've seen people put 'consent is the word you're looking for' in regards to this issue, and i'd like to take the time to say that's not the answer at all... if a paedophile asks a 12 year old girl if he can have sex with her and she says ok, that does NOT make it justified.

according to JS Mill from his work 'On Liberty' (allowing me to paraphrase though) ''it's not a problem if there is given consent between two or more parties involved in any action, what does matter is that a child, by definition is not old enough to know what is best for them and such forth the law of the land can be despotic and treat them in an ''inferior'' manner... simply because it is in their best interests.

childhood is supposed to be the age of innocence, it may seem a slightly naive view, but that's what it is...it's the last time someone can be somewhat sheltered from the cold-harsh facts of this sick world. How anyone can claim it's legitimate for an adult (over 18) to have sexual relations with a child (under 16-uk) is a fallacy simply because...refering back to Mill, a child is unable to consent for itself.

paedophillia is not an alternative sexuality, it's not reducable to homosexuality or bisexuality, it's simply a perversion and a criminal act.(Bolds mine)

You said it yourself. Consent is precisely the answer. Children under a certain age are not capable of giving adult consent. In recent years, we have begun to uncover the neurological basis for adult reasoning and judgment, and there is ample evidence showing that much of what we consider "adult consent" arrises from structures that have yet to completely form until after the onset of puberty.

In other words, it doesn't matter if a 7 year old says he/she consents. He/she does not have the ability to give adult consent.

Case one:

*police officer walks in on a sexual act"

man: Oh, sorry officer, we're just having completely consentual sex in the privacy of our own home (don't mind that the officer is breaking and entering :rolleyes: )

woman: yes, he's completely right, it's consentual, not harming anyone else, and is something I want to do..

officer: very well, indeed....

--------------------------------------------------

Case two:

*police officer walks in on a sexual act"

man: Oh, sorry officer, we're just having completely consentual sex in the privacy of our own home (don't mind that the officer is breaking and entering :rolleyes: )

child: yes, he's completely right, it's consentual, not harming anyone else, and is something I want to do..

officer: HOLD ON HERE!!! THIS IS A CHILD!!!!!

man/child: so?

officer: YOUR NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN!!!!!

man/child: why not?

officer: Because.....well...they can't give consent...THATS WHY!

man: who are you to say they can't give consent. That's horrible, so you just disregard their opinions altogether? I'm sure there are plenty of 20, 30, and 40 year olds that are just as incapable of giving consent as your common child. To say that people under a certain age are completely incapable of giving consent to sex, and people above a certain age are completely capable of giving consent to sex is just plain idiotic. Some will be competent enough to give consent at age 6, some at age 14, some at age 70, does that mean we arbitrarily choose an age? No. We allow people their individuality and ability to choose. That is all.

officer: WRONG. It harms them psychologically!

man: who are you to say that all people above a certain age will not be psychologically harmed by sex and all people below a certain age will? I'm sure there are plenty of 20, 30, 40 year olds that will be harmed by consentual sex just as much as your average child. Some people will be mentally capable for sexuality at age 6, some at 14, some at 70, does that mean we artibrarily choose an age? No. We allow people their individuality and ability to choose. That is all.

officer: Whatever. Your being arrested.


WEAK! Weak, you damn pedophile. :upyours:

*Is puzzled*
What are my hatecrimes ?

Never mind.... *too tired and lazy to explain*

(Bolds mine)

You said it yourself. Consent is precisely the answer. Children under a certain age are not capable of giving adult consent. In recent years, we have begun to uncover the neurological basis for adult reasoning and judgment, and there is ample evidence showing that much of what we consider "adult consent" arrises from structures that have yet to completely form until after the onset of puberty.

In other words, it doesn't matter if a 7 year old says he/she consents. He/she does not have the ability to give adult consent.


thats PRECISELY what i said...according to JS Mill, a child is by definiton incapable of consent and so despotism in the government of them is perfectly legitimate... you've not countered what i was saying, merely reiforced it

I don't care- they can all rot in Hell. You harm a child, or are admittedly wanting, and working to make legal, the harming of a child- Hasta Lavista!

I can't believe how many times we have to state this to make it clear:
Pedophilia is the attraction to children.
Acting on that attraction is rape.

Bottle, Sheni and I are not advocating the legalization of rape.

No different than your "Hate Crimes".

Hate crimes involve harming someone or their property based on hatred of their race, gender, sexuality, etc.

Having the hatred itself is not a crime.

As far as I know, the dutch pedophile party isn't trying to legalize child molestation, it's trying to remove the age of consent.
In other words, they're not trying to make raping a child legal, they're trying to make children legally able to have sex.

Keep going... :gundge:

i've seen people put 'consent is the word you're looking for' in regards to this issue, and i'd like to take the time to say that's not the answer at all... if a paedophile asks a 12 year old girl if he can have sex with her and she says ok, that does NOT make it justified.

according to JS Mill from his work 'On Liberty' (allowing me to paraphrase though) ''it's not a problem if there is given consent between two or more parties involved in any action, what does matter is that a child, by definition is not old enough to know what is best for them and such forth the law of the land can be despotic and treat them in an ''inferior'' manner... simply because it is in their best interests.

childhood is supposed to be the age of innocence, it may seem a slightly naive view, but that's what it is...it's the last time someone can be somewhat sheltered from the cold-harsh facts of this sick world. How anyone can claim it's legitimate for an adult (over 18) to have sexual relations with a child (under 16-uk) is a fallacy simply because...refering back to Mill, a child is unable to consent for itself.

paedophillia is not an alternative sexuality, it's not reducable to homosexuality or bisexuality, it's simply a perversion and a criminal act.

I think it is absolutely horrible that both you and the law assume that children are completely incapable of consenting to sexual acts. They may actually want to do it. Some over-18 year olds will be incapable of consenting. Some under-18 year olds will be capable of consenting. We're all different. Thus, I dont see the need for laws to accomodate an arbitrary age of consent. One size does not fit all.

I can't believe how many times we have to state this to make it clear:
Pedophilia is the attraction to children.
Acting on that attraction is rape.

Bottle, Sheni and I are not advocating the legalization of rape.

Goody! Neither should be legal.

i've seen people put 'consent is the word you're looking for' in regards to this issue, and i'd like to take the time to say that's not the answer at all... if a paedophile asks a 12 year old girl if he can have sex with her and she says ok, that does NOT make it justified.

according to JS Mill from his work 'On Liberty' (allowing me to paraphrase though) ''it's not a problem if there is given consent between two or more parties involved in any action, what does matter is that a child, by definition is not old enough to know what is best for them and such forth the law of the land can be despotic and treat them in an ''inferior'' manner... simply because it is in their best interests.

Ok.
So?
Still the same problem of consent here.

childhood is supposed to be the age of innocence, it may seem a slightly naive view, but that's what it is...it's the last time someone can be somewhat sheltered from the cold-harsh facts of this sick world. How anyone can claim it's legitimate for an adult (over 18) to have sexual relations with a child (under 16-uk) is a fallacy simply because...refering back to Mill, a child is unable to consent for itself.

That's a construct of western society, and not inherent.
Childhood is technically, supposed to be the age where you are a child.
Nothing else.

paedophillia is not an alternative sexuality, it's not reducable to homosexuality or bisexuality, it's simply a perversion and a criminal act.
The unfulfilability of pedophilia doesn't make it not a sexuality.
And again, pedophile is to child molester as heterosexual is to rapist.
Is that really so hard to understand?

Never mind.... *too tired and lazy to explain*

I see. Not too lazy and tired to make insulting accusations - just too lazy and tired to back them up.

I think it is absolutely horrible that both you and the law assume that children are completely incapable of consenting to sexual acts. They may actually want to do it. Some over-18 year olds will be incapable of consenting. Some under-18 year olds will be capable of consenting. We're all different. Thus, I dont see the need for laws to accomodate an arbitrary age of consent. One size does not fit all.

YOU MAKE ME SICK!! *barf*

Case one:

*police officer walks in on a sexual act"

man: Oh, sorry officer, we're just having completely consentual sex in the privacy of our own home (don't mind that the officer is breaking and entering :rolleyes: )

woman: yes, he's completely right, it's consentual, not harming anyone else, and is something I want to do..

officer: very well, indeed....

--------------------------------------------------

Case two:

*police officer walks in on a sexual act"

man: Oh, sorry officer, we're just having completely consentual sex in the privacy of our own home (don't mind that the officer is breaking and entering :rolleyes: )

child: yes, he's completely right, it's consentual, not harming anyone else, and is something I want to do..

officer: HOLD ON HERE!!! THIS IS A CHILD!!!!!

man/child: so?

officer: YOUR NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN!!!!!

man/child: why not?

officer: Because.....well...they can't give consent...THATS WHY!

man: who are you to say they can't give consent. That's horrible, so you just disregard their opinions altogether? I'm sure there are plenty of 20, 30, and 40 year olds that are just as incapable of giving consent as your common child. To say that people under a certain age are completely incapable of giving consent to sex, and people above a certain age are completely capable of giving consent to sex is just plain idiotic. Some will be competent enough to give consent at age 6, some at age 14, some at age 70, does that mean we arbitrarily choose an age? No. We allow people their individuality and ability to choose. That is all.

officer: WRONG. It harms them psychologically!

man: who are you to say that all people above a certain age will not be psychologically harmed by sex and all people below a certain age will? I'm sure there are plenty of 20, 30, 40 year olds that will be harmed by consentual sex just as much as your average child. Some people will be mentally capable for sexuality at age 6, some at 14, some at 70, does that mean we artibrarily choose an age? No. We allow people their individuality and ability to choose. That is all.

officer: Whatever. Your being arrested.

That officer should have been condemned for bothering to get into an argument at all - he walked in on a crime, no debate necessary or desired.

Its an entertaining little story though - I like how its the pedophile who does all the talking and justifying, and the child just sits there.

And do you really think someone is "mentally capable of sexuality at age 6?" are you retarded?

If you think its all so arbitrary, how about other things? Do you think children shouldnt have "legal guardians," but given the freedom to work and live completely on their own?

How about child prostitution? As long as you dont have anything against prostitution, it seems you're OK with that too. Hey I mean gotta let the kid make his/her own business decisions, right?

Or voting? Should newborns be able to vote? Arbitrarily setting a "suffrage" age is so close minded of us. I think Baby Joe should be able to have his say on who governs the USA.

Oh, and same with military service. 6 year olds can and should be allowed to join the military, to kill and die for our country. Right?

And fuck school - this namby pamby, condescending, arbitrary attitude we have where we assume children are not adults is just silly. Children should pay their own way through all school, beginning from kindergarten. Nah, pre-school. That way they can do something productive with the money they get whoring themselves on the street. What a wonderful world you'd have us all living in.

Fuck.

WEAK! Weak, you damn pedophile. :upyours:

Arguments, not slander, will be appreciated.

WEAK! Weak, you damn pedophile. :upyours:
Yeah, that was the worst play I've ever been to. I'm returning my internet for a refund.

I see. Not too lazy and tired to make insulting accusations - just too lazy and tired to back them up.

Yes. Don't take it too personal. I don't speak as cohesively or as rationally when I get frustrated. No hard feelings.

YOU MAKE ME SICK!! *barf*

Is that all you can say? Do you really think the moment you turn 18 a light is put on in your head? Your automatically capable of everything because...well your 18!

Arguments, not slander, will be appreciated.

I dont know if I've slandered anyone. You seem to be flashing the fact on your own.

Goody! Neither should be legal.

Ok Mr. Thought Police. What other impulses should we outlaw? Homosexuality? Admiration of Hitler? Beastiality? Liberal tendencies. Conservative tendencies?

That officer should have been condemned for bothering to get into an argument at all - he walked in on a crime, no debate necessary or desired.

Its an entertaining little story though - I like how its the pedophile who does all the talking and justifying, and the child just sits there.

And do you really think someone is "mentally capable of sexuality at age 6?" are you retarded?

If you think its all so arbitrary, how about other things? Do you think children shouldnt have "legal guardians," but given the freedom to work and live completely on their own?

How about child prostitution? As long as you dont have anything against prostitution, it seems you're OK with that too. Hey I mean gotta let the kid make his/her own business decisions, right?

Or voting? Should newborns be able to vote? Arbitrarily setting a "suffrage" age is so close minded of us. I think Baby Joe should be able to have his say on who governs the USA.

Oh, and same with military service. 6 year olds can and should be allowed to join the military, to kill and die for our country. Right?

And fuck school - this namby pamby, condescending, arbitrary attitude we have where we assume children are not adults is just silly. Children should pay their own way through all school, beginning from kindergarten. Nah, pre-school. That way they can do something productive with the money they get whoring themselves on the street. What a wonderful world you'd have us all living in.

Fuck.

Oh you'd be surprised by my liberalism. I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe upon the individual sovereignty of another.

Is that all you can say? Do you really think the moment you turn 18 a light is put on in your head? Your automatically capable of everything because...well your 18!

No. But you aren't going to use that as an excuse to hurt a child- not while I'm around.

I can't believe how many times we have to state this to make it clear:
Pedophilia is the attraction to children.
Acting on that attraction is rape.

Bottle, Sheni and I are not advocating the legalization of rape.



There is an important difference. A 'normal' rapist may be heterosexual, and it is possible for him to act on that sexual preference in a legal manner with a consenting partner. The impulse to have it with a nonconsenting partner is evil and wrong.

It is impossible for a pedophile to act on that preference in a legal manner with a consenting partner.

Sure, you don't advocate rape - you just advocate the impulse to commit rape. I bet you think thats an improvement.

I dont know if I've slandered anyone. You seem to be flashing the fact on your own.

? You called me a pedophile. I told you to stop. I did no such slandering.

I think it is absolutely horrible that both you and the law assume that children are completely incapable of consenting to sexual acts. They may actually want to do it. Some over-18 year olds will be incapable of consenting. Some under-18 year olds will be capable of consenting. We're all different. Thus, I dont see the need for laws to accomodate an arbitrary age of consent. One size does not fit all.
I'd say that the age of consent should be changed into a cognitive test.
Nothing hard, just to prove that you do know what you're consenting to and how it affects you.
If children really can't consent, this should make them unable to.
If they can, it should prove that they can.
And of course, it weeds out the exceptions to the age of consent(both sides).

Oh you'd be surprised by my liberalism. I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe upon the individual sovereignty of another.

Which means, you can't have sex with a child, even if it is consenting.
You loose.

Let me fix this for you:
Case two:

*police officer walks in on a sexual act"

man: Oh, sorry officer, we're just having completely consentual sex in the privacy of our own home (don't mind that the officer is breaking and entering :rolleyes: )

child: yes, he's completely right, it's consentual, not harming anyone else, and is something I want to do..

officer: HOLD ON HERE!!! THIS IS A CHILD!!!!!

man/child: so?

officer: YOUR NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE SEX WITH CHILDREN!!!!!

man/child: why not?

officer: Because children cannot give consent, and therefore any sexual activity you engage in with a child is rape.

man: who are you to say they can't give consent. That's horrible, so you just disregard their opinions altogether? I'm sure there are plenty of 20, 30, and 40 year olds that are just as incapable of giving consent as your common child. To say that people under a certain age are completely incapable of giving consent to sex, and people above a certain age are completely capable of giving consent to sex is just plain idiotic. Some will be competent enough to give consent at age 6, some at age 14, some at age 70, does that mean we arbitrarily choose an age? No. We allow people their individuality and ability to choose. That is all.

officer: Read a book before you spout off, dipshit. A 6 year old is not capable of giving adult consent.

man: who are you to say that all people above a certain age will not be psychologically harmed by sex and all people below a certain age will? I'm sure there are plenty of 20, 30, 40 year olds that will be harmed by consentual sex just as much as your average child. Some people will be mentally capable for sexuality at age 6, some at 14, some at 70, does that mean we artibrarily choose an age? No. We allow people their individuality and ability to choose. That is all.

officer: Who am I to say? Well, I'm not the one saying.

As a society, we recognize that children are not capable of the same reasoning and judgment as adults, which is why we do not legally regard them as adults.

We know that a 6 year old doesn't have the wherewithall to drive a car (even if you sized one down for her), which is why we have an age minimum for getting a driver's license.

Sure, there are some kids who might be ready to drive by age 12, but we pick an age where we can be certain that everybody (other than the mentally handicapped) will have the capacity to use adult judgment. If they choose to be a dipshit and NOT use their judgment, then we hold them responsible as the adult they are.

That's what this is about, man. The child you are fucking does not have the CAPACITY for adult judgment, and you're taking advantage of that. When that kid is neurologically capable of using adult judgment, then you can ask her out on a date and see if she says yes. But, frankly, I doubt any adult woman will be interested in laying the kind of coward who has to resort to picking on kids who don't know any better.
There, all better. :)

Oh you'd be surprised by my liberalism. I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe upon the individual sovereignty of another.

I KNOW liberals. I know EXTREME liberals- they'd have you in a headlock and break your neck for the crap you're spewing. You aren't a liberal- you're just sick and wrong. I'm not talking to you any more. Take your BS and go somewhere else.

Heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality are all to be considered legal on the basis that they are founded on the actions of consenting adults. Given that it is impossible for a child to properly consent to such an act (their views on life have yet to be fully developed to the point where such a decision could be properly made) the basis for the permission in the other forms does not exist.

No. But you aren't going to use that as an excuse to hurt a child- not while I'm around.

Of course, because sex automatically hurts children. Every single solitary time. They never use it to experiment. They never use it out of interest. Every single time it's harming the child in the worst way. Your right.

But a 19 year old?? Oh, they're just being silly little college students experimenting. It's OK for them.

Why? Is it because you are merciful (which is good) or... (sorry for my cynicism) ...Is it because you ARE one?

No need to apologise, it's a valid interpretation of my post, albeit an incorrect one.

It's because I'm merciful, I guess, but it's also because if it is indeed curable, then it's not something hard-wired into 'em and they can genuinely be cured, instead of them having to go through life resisting (or worse, acting on) it.

*snip*

Welcome back online :) Could you be so kind to respond to my post from a few pages back :) ?

thats PRECISELY what i said...according to JS Mill, a child is by definiton incapable of consent and so despotism in the government of them is perfectly legitimate... you've not countered what i was saying, merely reiforced it
Um, I know. You openned your post by insisting that my remark about consent "wasn't the answer," but then you proceeded to demonstrate exactly why it IS the answer. I was trying to clear that up.

Let me fix this for you:
There, all better. :)
That play was slightly better but I'd like it better if it had more explosions and maybe a thrown in guest appearance by Batman or the Harlem Globetrotters.

Of course, because sex automatically hurts children. Every single solitary time. They never use it to experiment. They never use it out of interest. Every single time it's harming the child in the worst way. Your right.

But a 19 year old?? Oh, they're just being silly little college students experimenting. It's OK for them.

No, not okay, but legally, they are in charge of themselves, and they are legally capable of making their own stupid decisions. When they leave childhood and adolescence (as in TURN 18), I wouldn't care if they jumped of a bridge.

There is an important difference. A 'normal' rapist may be heterosexual, and it is possible for him to act on that sexual preference in a legal manner with a consenting partner. The impulse to have it with a nonconsenting partner is evil and wrong.

It is impossible for a pedophile to act on that preference in a legal manner with a consenting partner.

Sure, you don't advocate rape - you just advocate the impulse to commit rape. I bet you think thats an improvement.
Again, there are non-exclusive pedophiles, who are also attracted to adults.
What is so wrong about wanting to have sex with a child? Large amounts of pedophiles never have, and large amounts of child molesters aren't pedophiles, they do it for the same reasons a lot of adult rapists do.(Power, mostly)

Which means, you can't have sex with a child, even if it is consenting.
You loose.

Because, obviously, a child cannot consent, right? Ok, that clears it up.

I'd say that the age of consent should be changed into a cognitive test.
Nothing hard, just to prove that you do know what you're consenting to and how it affects you.

Heh. How simple. And I can imagine many pedophile fathers will help their childrends "education" to pass this test. You know, just a little home studying session. But that aside...

How about the age of legal adulthood? Of being able to buy alcohol, cigarettes, guns? Of being able to drive? To vote? To serve in the military? To rent a car? Should we make tests for all of these too, and who gets to make these tests anyway? What makes us so certain that those people can design a test to gauge such things, when even simple "intelligence quotient" tests are flawed and unreliable?

I don't think it's as easy as you'd like it.

Again, there are non-exclusive pedophiles, who are also attracted to adults.
What is so wrong about wanting to have sex with a child? Large amounts of pedophiles never have, and large amounts of child molesters aren't pedophiles, they do it for the same reasons a lot of adult rapists do.(Power, mostly)

There is NO good reason to have sex with a minor. Not "love", not power, not control, NONE.

Sure, you don't advocate rape - you just advocate the impulse to commit rape. I bet you think thats an improvement.

It is. Imagine if all the people in the world who have ever wanted to kill someone else but restrained themselves instead did NOT restrain themselves. How many people would be left alive?

Imagine if every vulgar joke that went through your head came out through your mouth at a dinner party.

Imagine if every impulse everyone in the world has ever restrained themself from acting upon was instead actually acted upon.

Huge difference my friend.

I KNOW liberals. I know EXTREME liberals- they'd have you in a headlock and break your neck for the crap you're spewing. You aren't a liberal- you're just sick and wrong. I'm not talking to you any more. Take your BS and go somewhere else.
I'd say I'm an extreme liberal, and I agree with him.
As do a lot of random people on NS.
Given that NS is generally far left, I'd say I've proved you wrong.

No, not okay, but legally, they are in charge of themselves, and they are legally capable of making their own stupid decisions. When they leave childhood and adolescence (as in TURN 18), I wouldn't care if they jumped of a bridge.

Ok, because 18 is the magic number. 17 and 364 days? Oh, your the property of the law. You cant make decisions. Your an inferior. It doesn't matter whether your ready to have all the rights of adults. Too bad.

18? Your a complete adult. It doesn't matter whether your ready. Here's your rights.

There is NO good reason to have sex with a minor. Not "love", not power, not control, NONE.
Didn't say there was.
I said what was wrong with WANTING to.
I see the problems with actually doing it.

Of course, because sex automatically hurts children. Every single solitary time. They never use it to experiment. They never use it out of interest. Every single time it's harming the child in the worst way. Your right.

But a 19 year old?? Oh, they're just being silly little college students experimenting. It's OK for them.

No because it's impossible to consent if you are a child. The only affect this "experimentation" will have on the child is deep psycholigical pains.

This notion of experimentation is obsurd, no one does awkward things like that to experiment.

What is so wrong about wanting to have sex with a child?

If you really don't know, then maybe there's just no hope for Western Civilization, and maybe the terrorists are right in thinking we're a bunch of fucking perverted, decadent assholes.

Because, obviously, a child cannot consent, right? Ok, that clears it up.

Do you consider it likely that a 2 year old can consent ? Feel free to assume it is the brightest 2 year old ever.
A 5 year old ?
A teenager who just got his first shot of teenager hormones ?

Ok, because 18 is the magic number. 17 and 364 days? Oh, your the property of the law. You cant make decisions. Your an inferior. It doesn't matter whether your ready to have all the rights of adults. Too bad.

18? Your a complete adult. It doesn't matter whether your ready. Here's your rights.

I Hate you. I honestly sincerely hate you. You're the only person I have had any contact with that I can honestly say that. You, and the rest of your henchmen on this thread.

The law isn't perfect. But your way is flat out WRONG. No contest. No argument. You're sick and perverted, and that's it. That's all there is to it.

If you really don't know, then maybe there's just no hope for Western Civilization, and maybe the terrorists are right in thinking we're a bunch of fucking perverted, decadent assholes.

Interesting that you use the terrorists from the East as an example. Mohammed consummated his marriage with his wife Aisha when she was 9.

Heh. How simple. And I can imagine many pedophile fathers will help their childrends "education" to pass this test. You know, just a little home studying session. But that aside...

How about the age of legal adulthood? Of being able to buy alcohol, cigarettes, guns? Of being able to drive? To vote? To serve in the military? To rent a car? Should we make tests for all of these too, and who gets to make these tests anyway? What makes us so certain that those people can design a test to gauge such things, when even simple "intelligence quotient" tests are flawed and unreliable?

I don't think it's as easy as you'd like it.
Coginitive.
Measures brain power, not knowledge.
Not studyable for.
And go ahead with the rest of that.
The only thing right about your post is that it would be quite hard to make such a test.

No because it's impossible to consent if you are a child. The only affect this "experimentation" will have on the child is deep psycholigical pains.

This notion of experimentation is obsurd, no one does awkward things like that to experiment.

But a person of 18 years? Sure, no psychological harm. None at all. Under 18, LOADZ OF HARM LOLZ!!!!111!!!

Only problem here is:
Does society really let it develop into anything more meaningful then a fetish?
it cant.

pedophilia is a sexual attraction/obsession with prepubsecent children. in todays world that means children under 9 or 10 years old.

when they are no longer children, they are no longer desirable

just as *I* am no longer desirable to the shoe fetishist once i take off my shoes.

you cant have a consenting mutually beneficial sexual relationship with an 8 year old. once the child is old enough, s/he is no longer an object of desire.

Didn't say there was.
I said what was wrong with WANTING to.
I see the problems with actually doing it.

It's wrong to WANT to for the same reasons it is to actually DO it.

I Hate you. I honestly sincerely hate you. You're the only person I have had any contact with that I can honestly say that. You, and the rest of your henchmen on this thread.

The law isn't perfect. But your way is flat out WRONG. No contest. No argument. You're sick and perverted, and that's it. That's all there is to it.
If that's the best you can do, I'd say we won.

Is that all you can say? Do you really think the moment you turn 18 a light is put on in your head? Your automatically capable of everything because...well your 18!
Yes, the age of consent is set at an arbitrary uniform point, because it is not possible for us to administer the necessary cognitive evaluations to all children in order to figure out when they, individually, are capable of adult consent.

The idea behind the age of consent is that you pick an age by which everybody can be counted on to be capable of behaving as an adult. Some kids are going to be ready long before 18, of course, but if we've got to pick a uniform point then most people feel it is good to err on the side of caution. The whole point is to set the age such that anybody past that age can be expected to act as an adult, even though there are plenty of people who won't choose to behave like a grown-up for many years yet.

Now, granted, I think there is ample evidence that 18 is overly conservative. Current information about development and socialization suggests that 15 or 16 could be very reasonable cut-offs. An interesting variable is the fact that the age of onset for puberty appears to be dropping, and it is possible that this may influence maturation of the brain as well as the body.

I think it is absolutely horrible that both you and the law assume that children are completely incapable of consenting to sexual acts. They may actually want to do it. Some over-18 year olds will be incapable of consenting. Some under-18 year olds will be capable of consenting. We're all different. Thus, I dont see the need for laws to accomodate an arbitrary age of consent. One size does not fit all.



mate, your use of the term 'i think it's absolutely horrible' discredits your argument.... it's an appeal to emotions. Anyhow, the point is children DO NOT know what they want, they DO NOT know what's best for them, I remember my childhood and i can telly uo i did some bloody stupid things- matter at hand we have a legal age of consent and adulthood for exactly this reason, children tend to want one thing at one moment, and another the next.

It's wrong to WANT to for the same reasons it is to actually DO it.
Children have nightmares/stigma/etc. if someone THINKS about having sex with them?
Gee, all kids are telepathic now!

But a person of 18 years? Sure, no psychological harm. None at all. Under 18, LOADZ OF HARM LOLZ!!!!111!!!

You've obviously never understood an age old term in law, "it's the spirit of the law, not the word of the law"...

You have much to learn.

Why are you talking about this anyway, since when is a 17 year old a child.

Interesting that you use the terrorists from the East as an example. Mohammed consummated his marriage with his wife Aisha when she was 9.

There isn't a place on earth that isn't crawling with idiots and sick people. They currently permeate all religions, lifestyles, regions, nations, cultures, etc. But at least our overall society "stance" is still on track...mostly.:headbang:

Just because it's "prevalent" doesn't make it right.

mate, your use of the term 'i think it's absolutely horrible' discredits your argument.... it's an appeal to emotions. Anyhow, the point is children DO NOT know what they want, they DO NOT know what's best for them, I remember my childhood and i can telly uo i did some bloody stupid things- matter at hand we have a legal age of consent and adulthood for exactly this reason, children tend to want one thing at one moment, and another the next.
First of all, ADULTS don't do some bloody stupid things?
ADULTS don't tend to flip flop on decisions?
And the opening line wasn't an appeal to emotion as it wasn't trying to argue a position based on how Jay thinks it's horrible.
And if that does discredit Jay's argument, I'd think The Niamin would have proved you guys wrong ages ago.

Yes, the age of consent is set at an arbitrary uniform point, because it is not possible for us to administer the necessary cognitive evaluations to all children in order to figure out when they, individually, are capable of adult consent.

The idea behind the age of consent is that you pick an age by which everybody can be counted on to be capable of behaving as an adult. Some kids are going to be ready long before 18, of course, but if we've got to pick a uniform point then most people feel it is good to err on the side of caution. The whole point is to set the age such that anybody past that age can be expected to act as an adult, even though there are plenty of people who won't choose to behave like a grown-up for many years yet.

Now, granted, I think there is ample evidence that 18 is overly conservative. Current information about development and socialization suggests that 15 or 16 could be very reasonable cut-offs. An interesting variable is the fact that the age of onset for puberty appears to be dropping, and it is possible that this may influence maturation of the brain as well as the body.

This type of law just doesn't work, though. You cant find a "reasonable" age and just go with it. It's unfair to those who are under the age and ready, it's unfair to those who are over the age and not ready. You can't make laws to appeal to the majority while completely disregarding the minority. If alot of people were offended by the use of the word "apples", does that mean we outlaw it? No. It's just silly. If alot of people we incapable of consenting to sex at some age, do we outlaw it? No, because there are plenty of those who are ready, who won't develop psychological disorders, and outlawing their consentual sex would just be plain wrong and unfair to them.

Let me just pose a few questions to our pedophile advocates-

Why do you suppose most people are, and will forever be opposed to pedophilia and molestation of Children?

Why would we fight to the death in the defense of children?

Why do you think we call you perverse and disgusting?

Why do you really want to win? What's your TRUE motivation? What have you to gain by ultimately winning, if not to molest children w/o hinderence? Or at least have your sick fantasies of children?

There isn't a place on earth that isn't crawling with idiots and sick people. They currently permeate all religions, lifestyles, regions, nations, cultures, etc. But at least our overall society "stance" is still on track...mostly.:headbang:

Just because it's "prevalent" doesn't make it right.

I agree with you there that in matters of conscience, the rule of majority has no place (Gandhi). And I even admit that there are thoughts that go through other people's heads that make me sick. But if we're talking about law or public policy, I cannot turn my personal beliefs on what is a sick impulse into legislation.

This type of law just doesn't work, though. You cant find a "reasonable" age and just go with it. It's unfair to those who are under the age and ready, it's unfair to those who are over the age and not ready. You can't make laws to appeal to the majority while completely disregarding the minority. If alot of people were offended by the use of the word "apples", does that mean we outlaw it? No. It's just silly. If alot of people we incapable of consenting to sex at some age, do we outlaw it? No, because there are plenty of those who are ready, who won't develop psychological disorders, and outlawing their consentual sex would just be plain wrong and unfair to them.

Wanting to lower the age of consent is one thing, as long as it's with teenagers who have active hormones etc...

But allowing people to have sex with children is obsurd, they have no such hormones, and they do not understand whats happening to them.

Edit: 1000th post woooo! (shame it was on such a dark topic)

This type of law just doesn't work, though. You cant find a "reasonable" age and just go with it. It's unfair to those who are under the age and ready, it's unfair to those who are over the age and not ready. You can't make laws to appeal to the majority while completely disregarding the minority. If alot of people were offended by the use of the word "apples", does that mean we outlaw it? No. It's just silly. If alot of people we incapable of consenting to sex at some age, do we outlaw it? No, because there are plenty of those who are ready, who won't develop psychological disorders, and outlawing their consentual sex would just be plain wrong and unfair to them.

DON"T you talk to me about FAIR. LIFE ISN"T FAIR. IT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO AND IT NEVER HAS BEEN.

Let me just pose a few questions to our pedophile advocates-

Why do you suppose most people are, and will forever be opposed to pedophilia and molestation of Children?

I think it's probably a parental instinct to protect their children from things that our soceity maintains must be psycologically harmful, which can be the case for some, but definately not all.

Why would we fight to the death in the defense of children?

See above.

Why do you think we call you perverse and disgusting?

See above.

Why do you really want to win? What's your TRUE motivation? What have you to gain by ultimately winning, if not to molest children w/o hinderence? Or at least have your sick fantasies of children?

I'll answer the non-accustatory/defaming ones: The only motivation I have is to allow people the right to choose and live their own life individualistically. Sorry, for that. I know you want to decide for others when they are allowed to do things, but people can make decisions for themselves.

Let me just pose a few questions to our pedophile advocates-

Why do you suppose most people are, and will forever be opposed to pedophilia and molestation of Children?

Why would we fight to the death in the defense of children?

Why do you think we call you perverse and disgusting?

Why do you really want to win? What's your TRUE motivation? What have you to gain by ultimately winning, if not to molest children w/o hinderence? Or at least have your sick fantasies of children?

Again, specify which 'pedophile advocates' you're talking to. There are people in this thread who are simply saying that some people can be attracted to children without ever choosing to feel that way or acting on that attraction. There are other people in this thread who seem to actually want to allow sex with underage children. Don't dare mix me up with them.

This type of law just doesn't work, though. You cant find a "reasonable" age and just go with it. It's unfair to those who are under the age and ready, it's unfair to those who are over the age and not ready. You can't make laws to appeal to the majority while completely disregarding the minority. If alot of people were offended by the use of the word "apples", does that mean we outlaw it? No. It's just silly. If alot of people we incapable of consenting to sex at some age, do we outlaw it? No, because there are plenty of those who are ready, who won't develop psychological disorders, and outlawing their consentual sex would just be plain wrong and unfair to them.
That's a nifty little problem isn't it? Law has to be universal, not individual. That's the tradition that we've inherited from our forefathers. Even beyond that basis, if we had a system where we didn't set an age, abuse of the trust would run rampant.

First of all, ADULTS don't do some bloody stupid things?
ADULTS don't tend to flip flop on decisions?
And the opening line wasn't an appeal to emotion as it wasn't trying to argue a position based on how Jay thinks it's horrible.
And if that does discredit Jay's argument, I'd think The Niamin would have proved you guys wrong ages ago.


first off, i don't speak for the niamin, so don't group me with him.

secondly, i never denied the stupidity of adults either.

the point is, a child is not old enough to consent for itself by law- a law there for the portection of children. sex isn't something anyone should get invovled with too early, the risks of pregnancy and sti's are something no one should have to worry about in their respective 'youth'.

some of you keep refering to yourselves as liberals, and claiming 'we'd be suprised how liberal you can be' but what you are advocating isn't liberalism, it's closer to anarchism. one of the greatest liberals whose work i have kept refering to , JS Mill even stated that no one has the right to interfer in an action partaken by two consenting individuals, but even HE stressed the fact that children (however defined by law) are not able to consent for themselves in an act.

how can you claim liberalism when you don't heed the words of one of the greatest contributors to the ideology?

To the last question:
Preventing these discussions from being full of emotional fallacys.
I.E.
Not having everyone you ever met insist on murdering people for thought crime.

I think it's probably a parental instinct to protect their children from things that our soceity maintains must be psycologically harmful, which can be the case for some, but definately not all.



See above.



See above.

Why do you really want to win? What's your TRUE motivation? What have you to gain by ultimately winning, if not to molest children w/o hinderence? Or at least have your sick fantasies of children?

I'll answer the non-accustatory/defaming ones: The only motivation I have is to allow people the right to choose and live their own life individualistically. Sorry, for that. I know you want to decide for others when they are allowed to do things, but people can make decisions for themselves.[/QUOTE]


NOT when those decisions blatantly harm children. Those decisions should NEVER be made. When someone makes the decision, then they must deal with the consequences- and society gets payback.

Sad thing is, is the child must live with the consequences too- not even their fault (not fair) But they don't get anything- they only get robbed.

But allowing people to have sex with children is obsurd, they have no such hormones, and they do not understand whats happening to them.

But if they're completely capable to consent...ah screw it, its all about the HORMONES!!!!!11!!1111

NOT when those decisions blatantly harm children. Those decisions should NEVER be made. When someone makes the decision, then they must deal with the consequences- and society gets payback.

Sad thing is, is the child must live with the consequences too- not even their fault (not fair) But they don't get anything- they only get robbed.

SEX WITH CHILDREN != HARMING THEM

Yes, it can happen, but it doesn't have to happen. There can be consentual sex that doesn't harm people!! SHOCK!!

But if they're completely capable to consent...ah screw it, its all about the HORMONES!!!!!11!!1111

At age 12 ? Yes. It is.

At age 5 ? No. It isn't.
But do know many 5 yearolds with the mental development to understand and give consent ? Or a body that would not be seriously damaged in sexual intercourse with an adult ?

This type of law just doesn't work, though.

Sure it does. It's working right now.


You cant find a "reasonable" age and just go with it. It's unfair to those who are under the age and ready, it's unfair to those who are over the age and not ready.

The idea behind age of consent is that all persons will be ready by the time they reach that age (unless they have some type of handicap). Yes, it is rotten for those who mature more quickly, but laws are "unfair" like this quite often.

For instance, there are "no jaywalking" laws where I live, because some stupid jackasses run out in the middle of traffic and get themselves splattered. As a result, I'm not allowed to cross a street outside of the crosswalk, even if the street is totally empty. Is this fair to me? I know how to cross city streets, been doing it my whole life, but I am compelled to live by the same laws as the rubes who've never been to the big city and need to be taught to cross with the signals.

Believe me, I chafed at age of consent laws when I was under age. I still think many of them are stupid, like how Americans can be sent to die in war 3 years before they are considered responsible enough to purchase beer. But the principle is sound.


You can't make laws to appeal to the majority while completely disregarding the minority.

Sure you can. We do it all the time. A minority of people feel that it's totally OK for a man to rape a woman if she was wearing a short skirt. However, as a majority, we have created a system of law in which men do not have the right to rape women in short skirts.


If alot of people were offended by the use of the word "apples", does that mean we outlaw it? No.

Personal offense is not the grounds for these laws. We don't prohibit rape because some people are "offended" by rape, we prohibit it because it's a violation of the victim's fundamental rights.


It's just silly. If alot of people we incapable of consenting to sex at some age, do we outlaw it?

Yes.


No, because there are plenty of those who are ready, who won't develop psychological disorders, and outlawing their consentual sex would just be plain wrong and unfair to them.
We set an age of consent because we have no workable way of determining, on a case-by-case basis, when each young person becomes capable of adult consent.

Children are also not allowed to drive cars, vote, or sit on juries. We set age limits on these things because it would be unfair of us to expect adult judgment and adult behavior from a person who is simply not capable of it. Sex is no different.

But if they're completely capable to consent...ah screw it, its all about the HORMONES!!!!!11!!1111

Repeat after me:

It is biologically impossible for children to truly consent, therefor any child you have sex with is only "accepting orders" if you will.

SEX WITH CHILDREN != HARMING THEM

Yes, it can happen, but it doesn't have to happen. There can be consentual sex that doesn't harm people!! SHOCK!!
You are missing the point. Sex with a minor is, by definition, non-consentual.

some of you keep refering to yourselves as liberals, and claiming 'we'd be suprised how liberal you can be' but what you are advocating isn't liberalism, it's closer to anarchism. one of the greatest liberals whose work i have kept refering to , JS Mill even stated that no one has the right to interfer in an action partaken by two consenting individuals, but even HE stressed the fact that children (however defined by law) are not able to consent for themselves in an act.

how can you claim liberalism when you don't heed the words of one of the greatest contributors to the ideology?
Let me make this clear:
We aren't ignoring J.S Mill, at least I'm not, and I said that.
I said that there is nothing wrong with wanting to, even if it can't be acted on ever.
Also, there isn't that much research on this. Has anyone done any experiments on this, to see if children can consent to sex or not?
If they have, could you show me?
Specifically, what was the proof J.S. Mill had that children can't consent to sex?

You are missing the point. Sex with a minor is, by definition, non-consentual.

hear hear

Children are also not allowed to drive cars, vote, or sit on juries. We set age limits on these things because it would be unfair of us to expect adult judgment and adult behavior from a person who is simply not capable of it. Sex is no different.

Ah yes, but with your case with driving, you need to pass a test. I would welcome a law that children can do all these things with tests.

We are fortunate that we are not, and sexual use of people who are in no position to understand and consent is clearly wrong, and for all your melodramatic yelling no-one is saying otherwise.
Get off your high horse.
Apparently you haven't met the Dark Shadowy Nexus, who argued otherwise.

There are many paedophiles who reason away their actions by claiming that children are sexual beings and should be treated as such.

You are missing the point. Sex with a minor is, by definition, non-consentual.

Why.....

Coginitive.
Measures brain power, not knowledge.

Yeah. IQ tests test "intelligence" and not "knowledge" too. And we all know that IQ tests are so accurate one need only put ones IQ on a resume to get a job.


The only thing right about your post is that it would be quite hard to make such a test.

You're right. Therefore currently dividing people into age groups is the best solution. I'm glad you see the light.

The only motivation I have is to allow people the right to choose and live their own life individualistically. Sorry, for that. I know you want to decide for others when they are allowed to do things, but people can make decisions for themselves.

Ah yes... recognizing that children are not adults is "wanting to decide for others."

You know, I agree with individualism too. But as they say, your right to throw punches ends at my face.

Do you even know how many battered women and child abuse victims were taught or forced to "individualistically" give "consent?" Do you really think they gave consent because of that? If I can train a monkey - or raise my kid - to say "I give consent," is that actual consent? No it isn't.

But whatever, continue with your fallacious arguments in which you're the only libertarian fighting for the rights of individuals and everyone else is just a totalitarian oppressor. :rolleyes:

Ah yes, but with your case with driving, you need to pass a test. I would welcome a law that children can do all these things with tests.
You are not permitted to take that test until you reach a certain age. A 5 year old is not eligible for a driver's license, no matter what test she takes.

Ah yes, but with your case with driving, you need to pass a test. I would welcome a law that children can do all these things with tests.

Another clever way for you to get to have your way with the kids...:mad:

So your saying that people who form fake friendships based on the 'above', are just fetish-ey?
id respond to you but i dont know what you are asking.

Why.....
Because a minor is a person who is legally unable to give adult consent. Therefore, any sex with a minor is, by definition, sex with a non-consenting party.

*didn't read anybody elses response*

I figure that pedophilia is most often the result of the perpetrator having been molested as a child.

SEX WITH CHILDREN != HARMING THEM


Wrong. Thanks for playing.

I hope you don't think your huge-type font and your infantile asking "why" and just plain insisting that children can consent to being fucked by older men is convincing anyone. The only thing you're convincing me of is that you're either a troll, or a pedophile.

Because a minor is a person who is legally unable to give adult consent. Therefore, any sex with a minor is, by definition, sex with a non-consenting party.

Not just legally.
If a child has no hormones, how could it want to have sex.

*didn't read anybody elses response*

I figure that pedophilia is most often the result of the perpetrator having been molested as a child.

But how come most victims don't become molesters?

I'm sorry if something happened to them in their own experience but that doesn't give them the right to harm other children just because "it happened to me too".

Let me make this clear:
We aren't ignoring J.S Mill, at least I'm not, and I said that.
I said that there is nothing wrong with wanting to, even if it can't be acted on ever.
Also, there isn't that much research on this. Has anyone done any experiments on this, to see if children can consent to sex or not?
If they have, could you show me?
Specifically, what was the proof J.S. Mill had that children can't consent to sex?


regarding the problem of 'desire', i would stretch to say..if unacted on, then it is harmless...this however would have to include not a single display of such desire to remain harmless (it could cause discomfort if 'demonstrated')

your second point of 'if' a child can consent; a child can say yes or no, however legal ages of consent exist to protect the child- a suitable age at which, lets say a female can carry a child, while there have been ''young mothers'', there tends to be a higher chance of complications in underage pregnancies. i would also like to mention the 'realities' of the adult world again here ie, STI's.

lastly, your requests for 'proof'...you're asking for empirical evidence of mental capacities of others. Anyone who has studied the least of philosophy of mind would know this is a reuqest bordering on the impossible. you might as well ask me to find you a child prodigy just by looking at them.

But how come most victims don't become molesters?
That is one of the enduring questions of human psychology.


I'm sorry if something happened to them in their own experience but that doesn't give you the right to harm other children just because "it happened to me too".
I don't think anybody is suggesting that being a victim of abuse gives you a free pass to abuse others. I think, rather, that the point was that pedophilia doesn't just spring up randomly out of nothing. The hope would be that if we can identify some of the sources, then perhaps we can prevent some of the tragedies.

Wrong. Thanks for playing.

I hope you don't think your huge-type font and your infantile asking "why" and just plain insisting that children can consent to being fucked by older men is convincing anyone. The only thing you're convincing me of is that you're either a troll, or a pedophile.

Your unfounded assumption that

1) children CANNOT give consent NO MATTER WHAT!!!
2) sex ALWAYS hurts children
3) ALL adults are ready for sex

isn't convincing me either.

Your unfounded assumption that

1) child CANNOT give consent NO MATTER WHAT!!!

Below a certain age, that is a correct statement. Current evidence suggests that puberty plays an essential role in the maturation of the human brain. Before the onset of puberty, the brain simply CANNOT produce the same kind of reasoning that the adult brain produces.


2) sex ALWAYS hurts children

Non-consentual sex always hurts the victim.


3) ALL adults are ready for sex

Nobody is claiming that at all. What they are saying is that all adults are capable of consenting to sex. Whether or not the adult in question is emotionally/physically/spiritually ready to have sex is an entirely different subject.

Your unfounded assumption that

1) child CANNOT give consent NO MATTER WHAT!!!

This is an assumption that is supported by the definitions of the language we're currently using, the law, social conventions and psychology.


2) sex ALWAYS hurts children

2 stems from 1


3) ALL adults are ready for sex

Strawman. Being a child is not the only condition in which a person is not ready for sex. An adult can also be unready for sex, but not simply due to being an adult.

isn't convincing me either.

Clearly. I guess pedophiles and their supporters will believe whatever they fucking feel like believing.

Oh wait...didn't the DSN get DEATed? Jey must be his reincarnation. Sorry if I was slow on the uptake on that one, I'm sure it's occured to others already.

But how come most victims don't become molesters?

I'm sorry if something happened to them in their own experience but that doesn't give them the right to harm other children just because "it happened to me too".


It's probably the intensity of the childhood experience.

I am not saying that it makes it okay just because they were once victims. I think they should get psyciatric help though, while being kept out of the general population.

Your unfounded assumption that

1) child CANNOT give consent NO MATTER WHAT!!!
2) sex ALWAYS hurts children
3) ALL adults are ready for sex

isn't convincing me either.

It is no assumption that

1) child cannot (legally) give consent- at all- look at doctor visits, camping trips, school activities- all must recieve parental consent- not minor consent.

2) sex Alaways hurts children- tis a fact.


But three- nobody here thinks all adult are ready for sex. Many aren't. That was never an assumption in this argument.

Pedophile....:gundge:

Your unfounded assumption that

1) child CANNOT give consent NO MATTER WHAT!!!


That is true, so far you have given no evidence to show that they can.


2) sex ALWAYS hurts children


Even if it doesn't all of the time, (which it almost does), you will never know that it wont harm the child, so therefor you shouldn't.


3) ALL adults are ready for sex


Completely irrelivant.

It's probably the intensity of the childhood experience.

I am not saying that it makes it okay just because they were once victims. I think they should get psyciatric help though, while being kept out of the general population.

Okay, you and I are basically arguing for the same side- so lets not divide the ranks- and lets turn our attention back to the REAL enemy.

Welcome aboard.

God...pedophiles and nazis...what's happening to this forum lately?

Oh wait...didn't the DSN get DEATed? Jey must be his reincarnation. Sorry if I was slow on the uptake on that one, I'm sure it's occured to others already.

Fine, I give up. I dont want to be deleted. I guess I'm not convincing anyone that children have minds of their own.

On that last one:
Isn't that why we're preventing children from having sex, because they're not mentally able to consent?
Why aren't we applying that to adults then?

God...pedophiles and nazis...what's happening to this forum lately?

I don't know...:(

If you could help any in this debate- much appreciated.

Okay, you and I are basically arguing for the same side- so lets not divide the ranks- and lets turn our attention back to the REAL enemy.

Welcome aboard.


yeah I wasn't arguing with anyone - i was just stating my opinion on where the problem most likely arises.

I think everyone here is doing a fine job of demonizing the enemy

Fine, I give up. I dont want to be deleted. I guess I'm not convincing anyone that children have minds of their own.

It may be too late. I've gone to the authorites of this forum.

Your unfounded assumption that
1) children CANNOT give consent NO MATTER WHAT!!!
2) sex ALWAYS hurts children
3) ALL adults are ready for sex
isn't convincing me either.

1. That is true pre-puberty due to the brain being underdeveloped. It is true during the beginning of puberty due to the huge amount of changes and hormones in the body. Around 16 the person should become able. Some people of course never will.

2. True in some cases. Penetrate a baby and the baby will be hurt. I agree mental trauma is a bit less certain.

3. Of course not. But at least they have had the chance to be.

It may be too late. I've gone to the authorites of this forum.

Nice one. Because differing opinions is a cause for deletion? I guess you might as well report the 11 others who voted with the same option, too.

God...pedophiles and nazis...what's happening to this forum lately?

Where the Nazis at? I'll help you with them. ;)

It is no assumption that

1) child cannot (legally) give consent- at all- look at doctor visits, camping trips, school activities- all must recieve parental consent- not minor consent.

2) sex Alaways hurts children- tis a fact.


But three- nobody here thinks all adult are ready for sex. Many aren't. That was never an assumption in this argument.

Pedophile....:gundge:
We're not TALKING about legally. We're talking about physiologically.
I'd say if we've got the argument this far, we know that you can't have sex with children anywhere.

Why IS 2 a fact?

I'll acknoledge your three, though.

I guess I'm not convincing anyone that children have minds of their own.

Another strawman! No one is saying "children don't have minds of their own."

But to use your style,

having a mind =/= being able to consent to sexual activities

Otherwise there'd be no such thing as rape, since all rape victims have minds of their own.

It may be too late. I've gone to the authorites of this forum.
Won't work, there've been other threads on this.

Nice one. Because differing opinions is a cause for deletion? I guess you might as well report the 11 others who voted with the same option, too.

They voted that pedophilia is a sexual preference, not that you should allow people to have sex with children.

They voted that pedophilia is a sexual preference, not that you should allow people to have sex with children.

Again, differing opinions = deletion? No.

----------------

"I like George Bush."

"I DONT! YOUR BEING DELETED!!"

Another strawman! No one is saying "children don't have minds of their own."

But to use your style,

having a mind =/= being able to consent to sexual activities

Otherwise there'd be no such thing as rape, since all rape victims have minds of their own.
Bad analogy, as most rape victims CAN consent, and them NOT consenting makes it rape.
With children, they just can't legally consent,and so any sex with them is rape, even if somehow they did consent with full mental ability.

Again, differing opinions = deletion? No.

----------------

"I like George Bush."

"I DONT! YOUR BEING DELETED!!"

Maybe

That depends weather you are specifically trying to cause offence.

They voted that pedophilia is a sexual preference, not that you should allow people to have sex with children.

Welll.. no. It is unclear what they voted for, since the polls options are not answers to the question and topictitle, the content of the opening post does not correspond to the poll and the opening post itself seems to be confused as to what it is trying to say.

However, they indeed did not say that fucking children is good.

Maybe

That depends weather you are specifically trying to cause offence.

All I was doing is arguing (sometimes with big fonts).

It is your debate-partners who stooped to calling me a pedophile. That, to me, is offensive.

Nice one. Because differing opinions is a cause for deletion? I guess you might as well report the 11 others who voted with the same option, too.

I hope I'm not one of the 11. I'm defending the right of people to have impulses that they don't act on without getting nabbed by the Thought Police. As for sex with children, even consenting children, I don't think they are generally capable of making a responsible decision. And like others have pointed out, yes, there are exceptions, even adults who are not ready for sex, but in this case we have no way of knowing what the right age is for every child so it's best to leave it at a high, better-safe-than-sorry age.

Oh, now I see that the number 11 was referring to the votes. My bad.

It's pretty obvious(or at least I'd think it would be obvious) that WE'RE not trolling, and neither have been the people in all the other pedophile threads.

Bad analogy, as most rape victims CAN consent, and them NOT consenting makes it rape.
With children, they just can't legally consent,and so any sex with them is rape, even if somehow they did consent with full mental ability.

No, with children, they can't consent, and so any sex with them is rape, since their NOT consenting makes it rape. It's a fine analogy, and the fact remains that having a mind (something one can argue any living mammal does) doesn't automatically mean you can consent to having sex.

All I was doing is arguing (sometimes with big fonts).

It is your debate-partners who stooped to calling me a pedophile. That, to me, is offensive.

But the fact that your arguments are so retarded is suspicious.

No, with children, they can't consent, and so any sex with them is rape, since their NOT consenting makes it rape. It's a fine analogy, and the fact remains that having a mind (something one can argue any living mammal does) doesn't automatically mean you can consent to having sex.

Admittedly to Jey, the legal age of consent of 18, at least in New York, is an arbitrary number. But currently there is no way to practically determine which children are mentally mature enough to consent nor adults who are not mature enough to do so. That is why in this particular case, we must make the safe assumption that people below 18 are not ready.

But the fact that your arguments are so retarded is suspicious.

Ooh! Nice one again! Sorry if having the opinion that EVERYONE is entitled to thier own body and every ability to do whatever you want with it, except harm others, is retarded.

But the fact that your arguments are so retarded is suspicious.

His arguments are not retarted since all he does is asking his opponents to back their claims up.
His failing to respond to the responses with backup however is somewhat suspicious.

Ooh! Nice one again! Sorry if having the opinion that EVERYONE is entitled to thier own body and every ability to do whatever you want with it, except harm others, is retarded.

Theres an example of a retarded argument to allow sex with children.

Theres an example of a retarded argument to allow sex with children.

Please, enlighten me. How is this retarded? Flaming me or my arguments isn't going to change my views.

On topic:

Is pedophilia a sexuality in the sense that it is an impulse that is not chosen, whether acted upon or not? Yes. It is a rather unfortunate one, as a pedophile should never act upon said impulses, but I would hardly suggest that anyone chooses to be attracted to young children, any more than someone chooses to be attracted to certain types of adults.

Is pedophilia a sexuality just like homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality? No. All three of these sexualities involve sexual attractions with post-pubescent human beings. Although consent becomes a hairy issue between the onset of puberty and the beginning of adulthood, those who are post-pubescent are at least capable of sexual attraction, sexual relations, and even reproduction. Those who are pre-pubescent are not. Pedophila is really no different from a disorder in which a person fantasizes about sex only by fantasizing about rape (and there are those who can only sustain erections with the thought of rape).


As to some of the posts here, some people seem to be working off a flawed definition of pedophilia. Pedophilia is a disorder in which adult human beings are attracted to pre-pubescent children. We aren't talking about an adult who finds themselves attracted to a busty 16-year old (not that this impulse should be acted on either). We are talking about an adult who finds themselves attracted to children who have not yet entered puberty. Consent isn't a blurry issue at that point. You would be very hard-pressed to find an pre-pubescent child who understands what sex is, how it can affect them, and is mentally ready to consent.

Please, enlighten me. How is this retarded? Flaming me or my arguments isn't going to change my views.

I won't flame you. But what Hydes is referring to is the fact that we disagree with you that one can safely assume no harm is being done to a child even if he/she consents.

Ooh! Nice one again! Sorry if having the opinion that EVERYONE is entitled to thier own body and every ability to do whatever you want with it, except harm others, is retarded.

No, having the opinion that children can consent to having sex, that children having sex involves no harm, and that anyone who disagrees with you just wants to "control others" is retarded. Do keep up.

I won't flame you. But what Hydes is referring to is the fact that we disagree with you that one can safely assume no harm is being done to a child even if he/she consents.

Harm can be done in any sexual activity. I just don't buy that it has to happen in acts with children, no matter what.

No, having the opinion that children can consent to having sex, that children having sex involves no harm, and that anyone who disagrees with you just wants to "control others" is retarded. Do keep up.

No, having the opinion that children can never consent to having sex, that children having sex involves harm no matter what, and that anyone who disagrees with you is a pedophile, is. Do keep up.

Well, okay, let me put it this way. A sexual attraction to children IS "just another form of sexuality." BUT it is harmful to children. SO I don't approve of it, but I recognize that it is out there and I feel sorry for people who have these urges but they're not allowed to do it AND THAT IS GOOD. They shouldn't be. NAMBLA is freaking crazy. The end.

Harm can be done in any sexual activity. I just don't but that it has to happen in acts with children, no matter what.

Ok - then:
1. when does it do harm according to you ? Please include both physical and mental harm in your answer.
2. Do you agree that the minds and bodies of humans change quite severely during puberty ?

(Note: I read none of the prior responses to this thread, and since I'll be off to bed now, won't be able to view this topic again before it disappears into the abyss - please be gentle with my post)

I must be one of the few people to actually know someone whose desire is directed towards children, and needless to say it is not easy for him. At the time he found out, he was actually working as a teacher in a primary school, a position from which he promptly quit. He now writes books for the small public that reads them, and feels uncomfortable around everyone he meets. My wife, myself and a psychiatrist are the only persons that he's dared to tell so far.

To act upon these impulses would of course be unacceptable, but some people can't help having them. The example I mentioned doesn't actively wish for intercourse with minors, quite the contrary. People like him should be guided, not locked up for good (unless they go ahead and do things they shouldn't).

'An impulse to harm children' is a highly accurate term in my view, as it describes exactly what paedophilia is.

No, having the opinion that children can never consent to having sex, that children having sex involves harm no matter what.

I'll tell you what. You find me a five year old who is perfectly capable of consent to sex, who completely understands sex and its many implications.

Then we can talk.

No, having the opinion that children can never consent to having sex, that children having sex involves harm no matter what, and that anyone who disagrees with you is a pedophile, is. Do keep up.

So, show me a child who can consent to having sex and is not harmed by said sex. Show me psychological studies that refute the standing opinion that contradicts your assertions. Or are we just going to sit here calling each other retarded? I can do that pretty well. Probably better than you can, since you have much less wit than I do and you're just annoyed that you'd get thrown in prison for sticking your penis into little boys.

Pedophelia has very little to do with sex and sexuality. It stems from a desire for control and power, similar to rape.

Nobody is sexually attracted to children. The normal human condition is to protect children, not hump them. If you're humping them, or want to hump them, seek help. Now.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. I happen to know someone who is attracted to underagers, but none of it has to do with control or power as you put it. Is it possible to be born this way? Certainly, just as there are people who are born in such a way that they are only sexually attracted to goldfish. The real problem here is that sexuality is largely inborn, yes, but *can* be changed. Usually it changes because of some kind of brain damage or severe abuse. People who are abused sexually as childeren have a much higher chance of becoming child sex abusers themselves. Someone *can* be for all intents and purposes reprogrammed to be attracted to the same sex when they normally wouldn't be, and vice-verca. We as a people seriously need to learn to separate the act from the capability to act. Our laws currently allow people to be imprisoned for posessing written fictional accounts that happen to contain something that could be implied *in some way* to be remotely pedophiliac in nature. It dosn't even matter if they'd read it or they just hadn't tossed it out the car window yet. Is this a good thing?

Harm can be done in any sexual activity. I just don't buy that it has to happen in acts with children, no matter what.

Which is true, but like I said above, we have no practical way of reliably determing which children will be harmed and which won't, so in this case we must be safe rather than sorry. This is a utilitarian argument I'm making and while I don't make them often, sometimes we lack the means of ensuring that principles are always followed. Which is the worse outcome? To have many children grow up having had that done to them when they were too young and naive to make an intelligent decision or to have a few sexual deviants be forced to wait a little to satisfy their urges?

Ok - then:
1. when does it do harm according to you ? Please include both physical and mental harm in your answer.

If the act is done consentually, then both (or all) of the people included in the act should not be considered criminals. Other types of harm may happen at a later time, but there is no justification for considering those other people criminals for doing it.

2. Do you agree that the minds and bodies of humans change quite severely during puberty ?

Of course, but changes also happen throughout life, not just puberty. And, even if it didn't theres still no legal justification for its criminalization.

It is your debate-partners who stooped to calling me a pedophile. That, to me, is offensive.

Now why should that be offensive to you? If as you say, you believe children can consent to having sex with adults, why should being called a pedophile offend you any more than being called a heterosexual?

Now why should that be offensive to you? If as you say, you believe children can consent to having sex with adults, why should being called a pedophile offend you any more than being called a heterosexual?

Because I am not one? And it is usually considered a derogotory term.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. I happen to know someone who is attracted to underagers,


Underagers? Children right?


Our laws currently allow people to be imprisoned for posessing written fictional accounts that happen to contain something that could be implied *in some way* to be remotely pedophiliac in nature. It dosn't even matter if they'd read it or they just hadn't tossed it out the car window yet. Is this a good thing?

Unless you are doing psych research on something; why would you have them?

If the act is done consentually, then both (or all) of the people included in the act should not be considered criminals. Other types of harm may happen at a later time, but there is no justification for considering those other people criminals for doing it.

Next question: what is your definition of consent ?

Of course, but changes also happen throughout life, not just puberty. And, even if it didn't theres still no legal justification for its criminalization.

Actually it is if one bases part of the legal system on the concept of people with adult brains having more rights than people with child brains. One can argue if this is a good basis - but it is a valid one to use.

Because I am not one? And it is usually considered a derogotory term.

Heh well, sex with children is usually considered immoral, too. What people "usually consider" doesn't seem to fit in with your belief systems, and being called something you're not is merely incorrect. One wonders if you actually do see that pedophilia is immoral and harmful, and that is why you have an aversion to being labeled as a pedophile.

Next question: what is your definition of consent ?

That one wholefully and willingly partakes in the action in its entirety.

Actually it is if one bases part of the legal system on the concept of people with adult brains having more rights than people with child brains. One can argue if this is a good basis - but it is a valid one to use.

Obviously, I disagree. I do not think adults should be given more rights than children. There is no "one size fits all" age.

That one wholefully and willingly partakes in the action in its entirety.

What qualifications does one need to have to be able to give this consent ?

There is nothing wrong with it. I have been called one, and while I don't go parading it everywhere, it may well be true. The fact is, that if a different word was used, the poll might be less lopsided. The word pedophile has so much come to mean child molester in people's minds that they can't understand that it isn't. Hell, it's not necessarily even sexual. It is perfectly alright, as long as you don't go and rape kids.

What qualifications does one need to have to be able to give this consent ?

That's where things get shady. If I say that one needs a knowledge of what the action is, then that excludes the mentally retarded, who, by this law, would never be able to give consent to sex, ever. The law would, in essence, require celibacy from them forever. To be honest, it's an extremely tough question to answer.

Unless you are doing psych research on something; why would you have them?

Dunno. Would 'Lolita' count?

That's where things get shady. If I say that one needs a knowledge of what the action is, then that excludes the mentally retarded, who, by this law, would never be able to give consent to sex, ever. The law would, in essence, require celibacy from them forever. To be honest, it's an extremely tough question to answer.

But you dismiss the criterium "have an adult brain" offhand ? Why ?

There was a case out in California's Central Valley where this sick bastard was breeding up his own harem. He had his wife, and a few years later he had three daughters. Then he started screwing the daughters, and got babies on the older two. He was screwing the three-year-old girl, too.

It gets worse. When the police caught on to him, he forced the oldest girl to shoot her sisters and half-sisters/neices, and turn the gun on herself.

Now here's where I chime in on the "consent" issue. A child CANNOT consent because a child does not and CANNOT know what exactly they're consenting to. Physiology aside, a three-, five- or even nine-year-old child CANNOT accommodate a full-grown man's erect penis without sustaining some kind of internal injury. Some pedophiles have been caught screwing toddlers, can you imagine the pain that kid was in?

Due to our beef-rich diet in this country, girls are blooming younger and younger. Sure, they're hormonally capable of ovulation, oestrus and carrying a foetus, assuming they don't get ripped up by the act itself, the birth sure as hell will do a number on them. They'd HAVE to deliver by caesarean, which they're finding out does a lot of harm to the mother too. Childhood pregnancy and birth are incidentally how a lot of girls in the third world die.

To pedophilia, I have this much to say: :upyours: :sniper:

But you dismiss the criterium "have an adult brain" offhand ? Why ?

Because having an adult brain doesn't equal competence to consent, and having a child's brain doesnt equal incompetence to consent.

Because having an adult brain doesn't equal competence to consent, and having a child's brain doesnt equal incompetence to consent.

Admittedly but is it really worth putting all our children at risk for?

Because having an adult brain doesn't equal competence to consent, and having a child's brain doesnt equal incompetence to consent.

Perhaps not, but there has to be a line somewhere.

To me it is a question of law. Children do not have the legal ability to grant consent. The act of pedophilia by that definition is forced and not consensual. The state has a defined interest in the matter when it becomes sexual abuse, rape or statutory rape.

Sex between consenting adults, be it heterosexual or homosexual, in a private place, is unrelated in any way to the act of pedophilia.

Pedophilia is not a "sexual orientation" or "sexual identity," it is three things. Socially aberrent, a mental illness, and criminal behavior.

Pedophilia is not a "sexual orientation" or "sexual identity," it is three things. Socially aberrent, a mental illness, and criminal behavior.

What makes pedophilia a mental illness while homosexuality is not? Both are deviations from the norm.

Having a child's brain doesnt equal incompetence to consent.

Yes it does.

Because having an adult brain doesn't equal competence to consent, and having a child's brain doesnt equal incompetence to consent.

Why not - since you admit not having any criteria of your own ?

It matters not whether pedophillia is an innate preference or a learnt behaviour - it is not tolerable by society.

It is a little like asking whether being a psychopath is an option. It doesn't matter.

We are not going to leave psycopaths free in society and we should not leave pedophiles free in society on the same basis. They are dangerous to the members of that society.

Whether you treat them as criminals or as insane is optional, but removing them from circulation is not.

It matters not whether pedophillia is an innate preference or a learnt behaviour - it is not tolerable by society.

It is a little like asking whether being a psychopath is an option. It doesn't matter.

We are not going to leave psycopaths free in society and we should not leave pedophiles free in society on the same basis. They are dangerous to the members of that society.

Whether you treat them as criminals or as insane is optional, but removing them from circulation is not.

I mostly agree with you, but it depends on how you define a pedophile.
If by pedophile, you mean someone who wants to rape a child then of course these people are dangorous to society.

However if you mean someone who is attracted to children, that doesn't mean they wan't to rape them or harm them.

it is not tolerable by society.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming you're also talking about the thoughts here too? The problem is, who's going to say what thoughts are "not tolerable by society" in order for you to remove them from the general public. You might have people clamoring for you to remove homosexuals, capitalists, communists, muslims and christians too.

I think this says a lot:

"The Morality of Consent
Shouldn't children be permitted to engage in sex with adults if they so choose?

While the empirical findings of the harm caused by adult-child sex constitute a compelling argument that pedophilia should never be permitted in any society that values its children, there is yet another consideration that carries momentous weight. In a perceptive analysis, David Finkelhor, noted researcher of child sexual abuse, explores the moral issue of consent that lies at the heart of the societal prohibition of adult-child sex.60

The idea of consent is one of the fundamental notions governing social interaction. Even though the larger culture may no longer subscribe to what it considers a restrictive, "Victorian sexual morality, the idea of consent remains at the heart of what is considered permissible behavior. Consent involves more than a simple "yes : The individual and his or her circumstances must demonstrate the giving of informed consent.

In pre-Civil War America, some slaves felt that slavery was a positive economic benefit to them. After all, they received food and housing in exchange for their labor. Similarly, in the child sweatshops of the past century, there were perhaps many children who, if asked, would claim that they enjoyed their work and that it was good for them. Nevertheless, few would argue that such questionable self-evaluation warrants the conclusion that either slavery or child labor is justifiable.

There were occasions in the concentration camps of World War II when selected newly arriving women were given the choice of becoming the short-lived mistresses of SS guards or going directly to the gas chamber. Some chose the former option, though it meant only a temporary reprieve from certain death. Could it be claimed that these women truly "consented to having sexual relations with their guards?

The concept of informed consent is well established in law. Hence, a woman, even though she may not have struggled or called out for help and may even appear to have "cooperated with her rapist, is not assumed to have genuinely consented to the sexual act. That is because, as in the other described illustrations, the circumstances make it clear that the individual is either not giving, or is incapable of giving, true consent.

To these examples Finkelhor adds the situation of sexual relations between therapists and patients: "Many patients may benefit from sex with their therapist, but the argument that sex is wrong does not hinge on the positive or negative outcome that results. Rather, it lies in the fundamental asymmetry of the relationship. 61

According to Finkelhor, certain conditions must prevail for informed consent to occur. The person must understand what he or she is consenting to, and must have true freedom to say yes or no. Are children capable of fulfilling this condition in "consenting to sex with adults? Finkelhor denies that they can:

For one thing, children lack the information necessary to make an 'informed' decision about the matter. They are ignorant about sex and sexual relationships. More important, they are generally unaware of the social meanings of sexuality. For example, they are unlikely to be aware of the rules and regulations surrounding sexual intimacy - what it is supposed to signify. They are uninformed and inexperienced about what criteria to use in judging the acceptability of a sexual partner. ... [They cannot know] what likely consequences it will have for them in the future.62

Children may genuinely like the adult who is molesting them - or, more to the point, may have become emotionally or otherwise dependent upon the pedophile. They may willingly spend time with their molester, and may even find some enjoyment in the physical sensation of pleasure. But all this is not enough: The fundamental conditions of genuine consent are not present. Children "lack the knowledge the adult has about sex and about what they are undertaking. ... In this sense, a child cannot give informed consent to sex with an adult. 63

For their part, the advocates of pedophilia "do not acknowledge the enormous manipulativeness and callous lack of regard for children's well being that characterize the behavior of many persons who try to seduce children. Most children are not capable of protecting their own interests in the face of this power and this guile. 64 In truth, Finkelhor says, "Most of what we see as 'consensual' behavior among children is a response to the powerful incentives and authority that such adults hold. 65

The force of this argument is not lost on those who would argue for greater acceptance of pedophiles. British researchers Glenn D. Wilson and David N. Cox's study of pedophilia, The Child-Lovers, expressly attempts to view pedophiles in a more positive light than is generally accorded them. To accomplish this, Wilson and Cox drew their research subjects from a support group for pedophiles. Yet despite their efforts to present the self-understanding of "successful pedophiles, in the end the authors balk at legalizing non-coercive adult-child sexual relationships:

We are inclined to agree with the argument of Finkelhor (1979) that the issue of empirical harm needs to be separated from the more directly moral question of whether meaningful consent can ever be obtained from a child. Although modern society has moved towards a permissive stance with respect to any mutually consenting sexual activity that is harmless to the parties involved, we still regard sex as immoral if there is any suggestion that social power has been abused in obtaining it. This applies to doctor-patient relationships, boss-worker (e.g. the fabled 'casting couch' in the theatre) and teacher-pupil relationships, even if the pupil is above the age of consent. Adult-child relationships in general fall into this category. Children are trained to respect and obey all adults, not just their parents, and this results in such an imbalance of social power that legalizing sex between adults and children could quite easily result in exploitation.66

In the face of these weighty concerns leveled against pedophilia, the advocates of adult-child sex prefer to frame the argument as one of the "right of children to "control their own bodies. What such proponents are actually arguing for is for the "liberation of pedophiles to prey on children. And their professed crusade to "liberate children sexually has not thus far sparked a groundswell of popular opinion in their favor. Finkelhor observes that "it seems extremely doubtful that any large group of children are complaining that they are not 'allowed' to engage in sex with adults. If polled, we suspect that children would vote for better protection against adult sexual overtures, not more 'freedom.' 67"

http://radiance.m6.net/myrrh/doc-effect.html

What makes pedophilia a mental illness while homosexuality is not? Both are deviations from the norm.
because if one is attracted to people as people, if one forms true attachments to them as individuals, if these relationships can last for what currently passes for forver, if they are consentual, mutually beneficial and mutually satisfying, then it doesnt matter if the person is male or female ( or somewhere inbetween), it normal adult sane behavior.

pedophilia--the sexual attraction of an adult for a prepubescent child--isnt about any of those things, its the objectifying of a child as a sex object and the exploitation of that child for the sexual satisfaction and benefit of the pedophile alone. when the child is no longer a child, the pedophile is no longer interested in him/her. if a man "fell in love" with a 5 year old (*shudder*) then he could wait until that lovely child was 18 to start an adult relationship with her. that he can't wait shows that he doesnt have her interest at heart at all. all he wants is to get his sexual satisfaction out of his desired object, a child.

president of slovene national party suggested we do a registry of pedophiles, castrate them and stamp them a letter P on their heads in the same maner they stamp cows in texas, so parents will know to keep children away from them. as a party member i have to disaggre. by my opinion we should also break their libms or preferably rip them from their bodies to ensure that they never do anything again.

Pedophillia is not a sexuality, just like polygamy isn't (note: I don't give a damn about polygamy, but it isn't a sexuality because there isn't an innate need for polygamists to have sex with five women). Pedophillia is not an issue of consent: it is an issue of informed consent.

because if one is attracted to people as people, if one forms true attachments to them as individuals, if these relationships can last for what currently passes for forver, if they are consentual, mutually beneficial and mutually satisfying, then it doesnt matter if the person is male or female ( or somewhere inbetween), it normal adult sane behavior.

pedophilia--the sexual attraction of an adult for a prepubescent child--isnt about any of those things, its the objectifying of a child as a sex object and the exploitation of that child for the sexual satisfaction and benefit of the pedophile alone. when the child is no longer a child, the pedophile is no longer interested in him/her. if a man "fell in love" with a 5 year old (*shudder*) then he could wait until that lovely child was 18 to start an adult relationship with her. that he can't wait shows that he doesnt have her interest at heart at all. all he wants is to get his sexual satisfaction out of his desired object, a child.

So any attraction that is based upon temporary qualities constitutes a mental disorder? Any attraction that is solely sexually based (that is probably not true of all pedophiles) constitutes a mental disorder?

You have only shown why it is roundly considered immoral to act upon the attraction, you have not shown why the attraction is a mental disorder.

The only thing that seperates pedophilia from any other sexual attraction is our moral repulsion at its results.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming you're also talking about the thoughts here too? The problem is, who's going to say what thoughts are "not tolerable by society" in order for you to remove them from the general public. You might have people clamoring for you to remove homosexuals, capitalists, communists, muslims and christians too.

No. I am talking about the behaviour. We can not know what people think, and so long as they do not act on any such thought they are not a danger to the members of the society. Why complicate it?

So any attraction that is based upon temporary qualities constitutes a mental disorder?

Of course. Because the mental states and personalities of adults are fixed. They never change and become less appealing to people who once liked them.

Every aspect of one's personality is potentially a temporary quality.

(snip)
Although I realize how hard it is to get an unbiased source on this, couldn't you at least try Wikipedia or something? Do you really have to use a site that admits it is anti-pedophile as a source?

president of slovene national party suggested we do a registry of pedophiles, castrate them and stamp them a letter P on their heads in the same maner they stamp cows in texas, so parents will know to keep children away from them. as a party member i have to disaggre. by my opinion we should also break their libms or preferably rip them from their bodies to ensure that they never do anything again.
The again shows that you are also confusing child molester with pedophile.
Let me spell it out for you people in really big letters:
PEDOPHILE IS TO CHILD MOLESTER AS HETEROSEXUAL IS TO RAPIST

Because having an adult brain doesn't equal competence to consent, and having a child's brain doesnt equal incompetence to consent.
Yes it does. The study of human development has always noted that children do not and cannot reason the way an adult does.

Yes it does. The study of human development has always noted that children do not and cannot reason the way an adult does.
The frontal lobe (sp?) isn't fully developed in children. This affects their ability to make decisions.

Yes it does. The study of human development has always noted that children do not and cannot reason the way an adult does.

Well, I hate to play devil's advocate here but, doesn't that all depend on what your definition of "children" is? Peisandros brought up an intersting point about the frontal lobe which I was not aware of. Is there a certain age by which most people have a fully developed frontal lobe?

Well, I hate to play devil's advocate here but, doesn't that all depend on what your definition of "children" is? Peisandros brought up an intersting point about the frontal lobe which I was not aware of. Is there a certain age by which most people have a fully developed frontal lobe?
To be honest, I've got no idea. I've only heard a little bits about it. Good site. (http://www.sparknotes.com/psychology/neuro/brainanatomy/section3.rhtml)

So any attraction that is based upon temporary qualities constitutes a mental disorder? Any attraction that is solely sexually based (that is probably not true of all pedophiles) constitutes a mental disorder?

You have only shown why it is roundly considered immoral to act upon the attraction, you have not shown why the attraction is a mental disorder.

The only thing that seperates pedophilia from any other sexual attraction is our moral repulsion at its results.
no

its not the equivalent of being heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. (not that anyone in any of those categories cant have sexual disorders, just that they are not by themselves in any way psychologically damaging)

a pedophile who doesnt act on his obsession is no different from the person who is obsessed with shoes, animals, latex, balloons, or any of the other hundreds of possible fetishes. some, like shoes, are considered odd but not repulsive. some, like that pretending to be a baby thing, are considered fairly disgusting and definitely pathetic. some, like pedophilia, are considered pathetic, disgusting and dangerous.

a pedophile who is compelled to ACT on his desires is a criminal and needs to be in jail. a man who jerks off with balloons is breaking no law. big difference. no one is harmed in the molestation of balloons.

the definition of "mental disorder" isnt up to me. its up to the professional psychological community and they agree that pedophilia is a mental disorder.

pedophilia is in a different category from GAY because 2 men can have a close loving mutually beneficial sexual relationship (some do, some dont) a pedophile cannot have a close loving mutually beneficial sexual relationship with a child. all he can do is use the child then throw her/him away when s/he gets too old to satisfy his fetish.

Well, I hate to play devil's advocate here but, doesn't that all depend on what your definition of "children" is? Peisandros brought up an intersting point about the frontal lobe which I was not aware of. Is there a certain age by which most people have a fully developed frontal lobe?
Very good point. Ok, going back to my notes from classes, it depends upon whether you are asking about mental development or physical development.

Mentally, children reach abstract reasoning about the start of 8th grade (each child is different, some will reach start to get there around 6th, some take till high school). By the time they reach 16, all teens unless mentally retarded in some way, have fully adult reasoning facilities, but lack, er, seasoning. This explains why teens can reason with/as adults, but still do some very silly things. Final development stops somewhere around age 22, this is when you 'lock' in your personality unless heavy trama occures. It's not a matter of stopping growth, just that large changes have stopped for the time being. (Piaget, Skinner, and others)

Physically they're still working on that. There was a news article that pointed out that during the teen age years, all the way up to 17, teen brains are fireing in ways that adult brains do not as the brain streches itself out and around trying to reach final configuration. More nurons are going in larger numbers and it causes teens to use different parts of the brain in reasoning than and adult would. This rapid fire mode starts around the onset of puperty and seems to be tied in somehow. Average age is around 12 or 13ish.

So pretty much the gray area on if a child (defined here as being under 18, abritrary I know, but it works as a legal definition) can consent with the same facilities as an adult starts around age 12 or 13, from there it is quite possible that a child CAN reason as well as an adult. Before that would take a very special child who has hit that mark much earlier than his or her peers.

no

its not the equivalent of being heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual. (not that anyone in any of those categories cant have sexual disorders, just that they are not by themselves in any way psychologically damaging)

a pedophile who doesnt act on his obsession is no different from the person who is obsessed with shoes, animals, latex, balloons, or any of the other hundreds of possible fetishes. some, like shoes, are considered odd but not repulsive. some, like that pretending to be a baby thing, are considered fairly disgusting and definitely pathetic. some, like pedophilia, are considered pathetic, disgusting and dangerous.

a pedophile who is compelled to ACT on his desires is a criminal and needs to be in jail. a man who jerks off with balloons is breaking no law. big difference. no one is harmed in the molestation of balloons.

the definition of "mental disorder" isnt up to me. its up to the professional psychological community and they agree that pedophilia is a mental disorder.

And their classification of it as a mental disorder is hypocritical when compared to their classification of any sort of sexuality. It is morally reprehensible (at least to all Western Societies) and therefore it is treated as a deficiency.

Throw them in jail, give them the death penalty, for all I care, but for consistency, you cannot call them mentally deficient.

pedophilia is in a different category from GAY because 2 men can have a close loving mutually beneficial sexual relationship (some do, some dont) a pedophile cannot have a close loving mutually beneficial sexual relationship with a child. all he can do is use the child then throw her/him away when s/he gets too old to satisfy his fetish.

You make the assumption that a pedophile cannot find adults attractive, even those that they were "involved" with as children. That is probably untrue.

Here is the question I have. We observe that pedophilia tends to run in families as many pedophiles were at one time themselves the victim, usually a relative. My question is: Is the psychological connection masking a possible genetic connection? Anyone know of any studies that have tried to find the pedophile gene?

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about this issue, but its pretty hard to ignore when even in a small town, the number of "indecent liberties with a child" arrests appear in the news nearly daily.

I had a thought the other day that my 11 year old son has more freedom this summer, is on his bike alot, but not allowed to leave the neighborhood (which doesn't mean he won't). I just had this horrid thought that child molesters love that kind of thing. So I just said the boys, "Be careful...there might be child molesters in the bushes!" which brought cat calls and ribbing. It's a serious concern of mine, but I can't let my fears get out of control and become a burden to my son.

And yet, if something like that ever happened to one of the boys it would be almost as bad as if someone killed them. Ya know? That kind of thing rips a wound so deep and so vast that it never heals. I think it makes people fucking crazy. Any survivors care to comment on that?

Ok, now I have wander way off from my original question, so getting back around to that.... If we castrated convicted child molesters we would be killing two birds with one stone. Stone #1: we eliminate their sex drive, and Stone #2 They can't reproduce and pass that gene on....if there is one.

Is this just a nutso idea?

So pretty much the gray area on if a child (defined here as being under 18, abritrary I know, but it works as a legal definition) can consent with the same facilities as an adult starts around age 12 or 13, from there it is quite possible that a child CAN reason as well as an adult. Before that would take a very special child who has hit that mark much earlier than his or her peers.

Which confirms what I was leaning towards before which is, since it's a gray area, better for us to be safe than sorry. Most of us can agree on 18 as a safe legal age so anything below that, it's possible, but risky. Thanks for clearing that up!

These are pretty general because I'm new here and I don't want to get lost reading every single page.
---
1) Pedophilia = rape of child
In this case, pedophilia is wrong. No one should be raped, much less children. Of course, no one here is advocating the rape of children.
Notes: Statutory rape != rape rape.
---
2) Pedophilia = sex with a child
In this case, some of the more open-minded people might find this a murky area and some of the more strict people might find this just as bad as case 1. However, I ask this: if the sex is not harmful and never in the child's life will be harmful, why not? If it causes no adverse affects, what's the problem? Obviously, it will be highly unlikely that the child is perfectly fine and always will be find with it, but it is theoretically a possibility. Since the idea is pretty much not going to happen though, you may as well outlaw "pedophilia" on these grounds as well.
Notes: Minors != Children, for those of you who cannot tell the difference between a 12-year-old and a 17 1/2-year-old.
---
3) Pedophilia = desire to have sex with a child, cannot make a conscious choice to be a pedophile
This is where the real argument is. Everything above is common sense, but now we get to the allegations of thought-crime and oppression and all that good stuff.

Call me a pedophile :p , but I see no problem with people fantasizing or "consuming" non-sexual non-harmful photos of children in the same manner mainstream pornography is consumed. It isn't harmful to children or anyone else in society. Said pedophile restrains and fulfills their urges at the same time.
---
4) Pedophilia = desire to have sex with a child, can make a conscious choice to be a pedophile

This case is obviously not true, because people find themselves to be pedophiles in societies wherein the general vibe is very anti-pedophile. This does not hinge on the argument of "Genetic vs. Psychological Causes of Pedophilia". I'd use that argument too, but you people seem so set on attacking it.

Notes for 3,4: Mutilation of another human being for thinking something is generally viewed as being bad. Many people would argue that nothing at all justifies, say, the death penalty. Also, the argument for child molestation being caused by a desire for power is much stronger than the argument for pedophilia.
---
All of these cases only examine the morality of pedophilia from one angle. Some of the people out there who actually thought about what they said and then still said "pedophiles are sick" have rational (although, in my opinion, still wrong) opinions.

You may argue that pedophilia is a psychological condition rather than a sexual orientation. I think you're mistaking child molestation for an inherently sexual act. But let's hear your arguments for that. While you're at it, let's hear your questions, concerns, and needed clarifications about the four cases above if you really don't understand.

Good post there.
And welcome to NS while I'm at it.

Thank you. Also, I would make this a post scriptum (that's right you whores, I'm using fancy Latin phrases) but someone has already followed up. So:

If pedophilia is caused by a desire for control, you just alienated every S&M Dom (and by removing their other half, the Sub) and every couple where one partner is significantly older than the other. I have an uncle age 43 or thereabouts who married a woman age 23. Is he a pedophile? They had kids and he's poor, so I suspect she's in it for the love. Note that this has nothing to do with the age of consent. See bold.

Here is the question I have. We observe that pedophilia tends to run in families as many pedophiles were at one time themselves the victim, usually a relative. My question is: Is the psychological connection masking a possible genetic connection? Anyone know of any studies that have tried to find the pedophile gene?

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about this issue, but its pretty hard to ignore when even in a small town, the number of "indecent liberties with a child" arrests appear in the news nearly daily.

I had a thought the other day that my 11 year old son has more freedom this summer, is on his bike alot, but not allowed to leave the neighborhood (which doesn't mean he won't). I just had this horrid thought that child molesters love that kind of thing. So I just said the boys, "Be careful...there might be child molesters in the bushes!" which brought cat calls and ribbing. It's a serious concern of mine, but I can't let my fears get out of control and become a burden to my son.

And yet, if something like that ever happened to one of the boys it would be almost as bad as if someone killed them. Ya know? That kind of thing rips a wound so deep and so vast that it never heals. I think it makes people fucking crazy. Any survivors care to comment on that?

Ok, now I have wander way off from my original question, so getting back around to that.... If we castrated convicted child molesters we would be killing two birds with one stone. Stone #1: we eliminate their sex drive, and Stone #2 They can't reproduce and pass that gene on....if there is one.

Is this just a nutso idea?

read up on it, its a flawed idea. there is a hormonal aspect to it but there is also the domination and force aspect that isnt dependant on hormones. on the second aspect, too many are only caught after they already have all the children they want so IF there is a genetic aspect, it wont be eliminated.

what i told my son when he was that age is that in every group of people, there are some bad people. in every neighborhood there are some bad people, in every school there are some bad people, even a large group of MOMS would have at least one bad person.

so that he had to be careful no matter where he was. not paranoid, just careful. after all, its not the maniac in the bushes on the first day of school who does most of the damage, its grandpa or the nice man next door or your best friends mother. being aware that there is no kind of person for whom it is impossible that that person could hurt him.

that way i thought he would feel OK with ratting out some authority figure who tried to talk him into doing something he didnt want to do.

If pedophilia is caused by a desire for control, you just alienated every S&M Dom (and by removing their other half, the Sub) and every couple where one partner is significantly older than the other. I have an uncle age 43 or thereabouts who married a woman age 23. Is he a pedophile? They had kids and he's poor, so I suspect she's in it for the love. Note that this has nothing to do with the age of consent. See bold.
The difference here being that your uncle and aunt are both adults. If one submits that it their choice on the matter (as opposed to truely forced which is very, very different). Part of child molestation (seperating it out from pedophillia for a second) does indeed seem to be about the control issue. The ability to dominate another compleatly to your will. Children cannot fight back as well as an adult and are more easily dominated in such events.

Now pedophilliacs may or may not fall into the same as the above, from what I have read it's a split though I think those who claim they get no power thrill are ignoring the inherent unequal power relationship between adult and child, but that's another story.

Wow, a public poll, huh? Hoping to intimidate people into not voting "no" by declaring that their votes will be broadcast to the forum at large?

And I should point out that the number of negatives in the question part of your poll are really making it hard to read, to the point of skewing the results, I would say. Makes it hard to tell which option is which at first glance. At least it did for me.
Seems some people - namely pedophiles, what a fucking coincidence - like to justify pedophilia by saying its no different from homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality.

I call bullshit!

I see you did decide you wanted to debate this in the appropriate place rather than continue to hyjack the other thread. Good for you.

If that was the case, it would be impossible for a pedophile to be a heterosexual - or homosexual. Unless you maintain that someone could be one "sexuality" and another at the same time - like gosh, I'm heterosexual AND homosexual (but I'm not bisexual! ohno!).

So you're saying that if I want to call it a sexuality, the only grounds I can make that claim are the grounds of gender? In that case, the only sexualities left open are the ones classifying people who are attracted to genders that don't fit neatly into the male/female category. I have a friend like that. But that's beside the point.

If those are your criteria, then I can see why you refuse to consider pedophilia a sexuality, since pedophiles are indeed attracted to either girls, boys or both, making us straight, gay, or bi in addition to being pedophiles. I think your definition of sexuality is incorrect, but I can at least see why you would reject it as a sexuality.

There are also people who seem willing to justify ANY impulse as "just like homosexuality." This is just ultra-liberal sophistry. The intent is to say that no matter what you're attracted to, someone can't DARE to criticize your attraction because they'll be "just like homophobes."

You do have to admit, whether you agree with the orientation or not, the arguements do tend to follow the same lines of reason, especially if you talk about people like me who don't chose to have sex with children, but are merely "sick" and find the idea arrousing.

Bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit.

I mean, is it wrong to say Hitler's desires (and you can take your "OMG GODWIN GODWIN LOL" and shove it right now before whipping it out, mmkay?) were wrong? That criticizing murderous anti-semitic megalomania is just as mean-spirited, bigoted as criticizing someone for being attracted to men?

Ugh.
Let's not bring Godwin's law into this. I pointed it out earlier only to explain to you that you were weakening your arguement by invoking Hitler. No one takes a Nazi comparison seriously. That was the point of Godwin's law. The comparison has been so overdone that it's practically meaningless.

And I actually do think Hitler's desirs weren't wrong. I think he was wrong for acting on them, but that's the thing. Thought and action are very different things. Action can be a crime, thought (unless you're living in Oceana from 1984) can't be.
Pedophelia has very little to do with sex and sexuality. It stems from a desire for control and power, similar to rape.

I'm afraid that your comments actually have more to do with situationally offending child molesters than they have to do with pedophiles. That is how situational offenders and normal rapists operate, but pedophelia really does have a good deal to do with sex and sexuality.

Nobody is sexually attracted to children.

I offer myself as a counterexample.

The normal human condition is to protect children, not hump them. If you're humping them, or want to hump them, seek help. Now.
Could you please explain to me how "normal" became equivalent to "good" in your mind and "abnormal" "bad".

Regardless, what form of help do you reccomend? Avoidence therapy that proved so inefective at curing homosexuality? Castration which hasn't significantly diminished recidivism in child molesters? What exactly can you do to make me not attracted to children anymore?

I ask not for me (since I'd refuse such a treatment even if it existed) but because there are a lot of people using a lot of ineffective and harmful methods to try to change their own or someone else's sexual orientation, and this information would really help them.
Hell, it's alright to criticize something for any damn reason you please. It's just that you're apt to make yourself look like a nosey little dingbat if you choose to criticize private behaviors bewteen consenting adults. :)
Bottle's right. People can criticise eachother for any reason they please, regardless of how idiotic the reason. I fully support the rights of bigots to declare their bigotry in the public forum of their chosing.
Well, it does make one wonder. Perhaps the people who pose such questions are projecting their own feelings on to others.

I'm not saying this to be inflamatory, but it makes sense that if a person finds himself secretly struggling against the desire to have sex with children then perhaps he would assume that other people are experiencing the same struggle. If he feels that the only thing keeping him from acting on his desires is the laws that prohibit pedophilia, perhaps he assumes that all people would be likewise motivated to rape children if they could find some way to get away with it.
So, anyone who suggests pedophiles aren't evil must be a pedophile himself? You don't see the paralell to the homosexuality debate when you say things like this?

And yes, you did mean it to be inflamitory. No one here is under any illusions to the contrary.
Bullshit analogy. If as a man you are attracted to other men, you're homosexual. If women, heterosexual. If both, bisexual.

It is impossible therefore to be homosexual and heterosexual at the same time - you are just bisexual.

I'm not sure why that concept is so difficult for you to understand.

Perhaps because it falls under the logical falacy of the false choice.

Heh no, check this out - I can criticize whatever the fuck I want, for whatever fucking reasons I fucking decide. Mmkay? Good. Just because you disagree with my reasons doesn't mean its not "perfectly alright" and if you don't think that, then I can just shrug and say you're being no better than a homophobe - I mean I can't choose my aversion to childfuckers, can I? Therefore when you criticize my aversion you are being a bigot, no?
I should again reiterate that I fully support your right to declare your irrational hatrid for me and my kind. Just as I exersise my right to expose you as a bigot for saying such things.
So what should society do with folks who feel the impulse (as part of an inclination they neither asked for nor wanted), and despite years of valiant defiance, wind up acting on it? If we're prepared to say it's another sexuality, are we prepared for the practical aspect of that decision?

If we did declare it another sexuality, how would that change how the behavior of child molestation is handled? I mean just because you're a straight male doesn't mean you have a right to have sex with a woman whether or not she conscents, so why would you think people would be any softer on child molestation than they would be on adult rape?

As it stands, I'd repeat myself, not no, but HELL no. Jail doesn't do anything for pedopholes but get them killed, and while that's a popular result, if we're dealing with human nature, it isn't particularly fair or enlightened.

And when such non-incarcerative programs fail? Do we rent out Kaho'olawe to the incorrigible pedophiles as well as the lepers?
You know it has been suggested that we all be deported to an island somewhere so that the rest of society doesn't have to deal with our threat, but we aren't unduly persecuted by that society. I think that proposal ignores some basic things like practicality, sanity and common sense, but it has been suggested.
(If anyone needs me to point out the problems with that proposal, I will, but I figure you're all smart enough to know yourselves plenty of reasons it wouldn't work.)
Here's the problem with that.

My mother is a clinical psychologist who takes on some nightmarish cases, and one of the worst was the case of a teenage boy who was being molested, and who, in turn, began molesting his little sister while she was still in diapers.

I am not in any way implying that child molesters deserve to be let off the hook. I am not in any way defending what they do, or suggesting that we should excuse the abuse of children. I am simply saying that it is important to remember that the vast majority of child abusers are, themselves, the victims of such abuse. In some cases, an individual will be both victim and perpetrator at the same time.
Do you even know the difference between a pedophile and a child molester, Bottle?
Perhaps most of you aren't aware that there is a Pedophile movement in the Netherlands. Pedophiles have created their own party with the sole purpose of lowering the age of consent to 12 years, with the eventual goal of eliminating the age of consent alltogether.

You have misrepresented the party. It is not a one issue platform. It also advocates a platform of legalised bestiality, strict laws against the abuse of animals, making the eating of meat illegal, free train fare, and a lowered voting age. They aren't just there to lower the AoC.

Now, Nederlanden is the MOST liberal country on planet earth- and nearly 90% oppose this and want the pedophiles stopped at all costs.

Are you reffering to the over 80% who were surprised it was legal to even form the party? Please get your facts straight if you're going to use statistics.

That's saying something about the sick perverts- every last one of 'em out to hung on the nearest tree and shot, burned and have their ashes scattered across a landfill.:mad: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:
So, you advocate that a person's thoughts are equal to their actions. In that case, I suppose me killing you would be an act of self-defence from your attempts at the above?
The ones who wind up acting on it, unlike adult homo and heterosexuals, are not having sex with someone who is of legal age to consent to it. Even if children consent, we have all agreed upon to make the law say that under a certain age they do not know what they're doing. Therein lies the difference between child molestors and the rest of us. So in response to your question, go ahead and throw 'em in jail if they act on it. I'm sure they'll get their due punishment.

1) "We all" haven't agreed on anything. Society has made this rule, but not everyone agrees with it, as evidenced in this very thread apparently.
2) You can't use the existence of a law as your justification for not changing that law. The reasoning is circular.
3) I feel this is a good juncture to reiterate (as I must every time I enter one of these arguements) that I don't agree with having sex with children, even if they ask, because I believe that they would be traumatised by the social condemnation alone enough to scar them for life.
It's curable until they've actually followed through and hurt a child- then they're beyond hope. They are forever more a child molester.

It's not curable at any point. Do some real research. I have.

Rehab those who haven't acted yet- but for those on the sex-offender registry, and all others after- either castrate them and deny any hormones that were lost with the "parts" (I really don't care if it messes up their bodies- they aren't worth anything) or shoot 'em dead.
So you're suggesting cruel and unusual punishment? Isn't there something in the Constitution about that?
You know what, since we know at least one of the resident board pedophiles will be here eventually, why don't we just wait till then? (Besides, the way the discussion goes will be heavily influenced by who it is. If it's DSN, OP will win, if it's South Niflheim he'll help our side but not that much, and if it's Five Castes he's done this argument enough to have it down to a science. Lucky for us the only active one is Five Castes.)

Wow. I'm gratified that I'm thought of so highly. I'll try not to let you down.

EDIT: I'm gonna ask you all to calm down the murderous rage here. You can't argue well if you want to kill the other guy.
Look at the anti gay rights people for that. Been generally argued that they have no logic at all.
What do they have?
People like Fred Phelpes who just hate gay people for no reason.
The should really realise that you're trying to give them sound advice to improve their chances of winning here, but I get the impression that they'll just take it as another insult.
To be perfectly honest, I don't know how I feel. Or, rather, how I feel will change from situation to situation.

I suppose that's better than nothing.

My mother has an idealism that I envy. She refuses to give up on those she is trying to help, even when their actions are enough to turn one's stomach. I believe that she has single-handedly done more good than I could hope to do in ten lifetimes, and most of it is because she's willing to try to help the people who nobody else wants to help. I've seen her do things that I thought were impossible.

She sounds like an exceptional woman. You must be proud of her.

Yet, at the same time, I don't know that she has ever "fixed" a rapist or "cured" a pedophile. I know that she has helped to prevent the "birth" of a sex offender on more than one occasion, by helping abuse victims deal with their feelings in a better way, but I don't know if she has ever managed to "cure" somebody who has already committed such an act.

I should note that many of the child rapists out there aren't actually classified as pedophiles according to the DSM V. They don't have the attraction to children to put them in that category, but rather rape for the reasons ordinary rapists do so, power and whatnot. Pedophiles can't really be cured. For the same reason homosexuals can't, because their sexual attractions and orientations are locked in. As for rapists, I'm not sure what can be done for them, but prefenting recidivism is definately a plus, as is preventing an initial offense.

And, of course, on top of all of this is my visceral loathing for anybody who would violate another human being in this manner. Which really doesn't help me think any more clearly.
I know it's hard to think clearly on so emotional an issue. The only point I feel it is important to make is that pedophiles don't always act on their desires. I don't intend to.
I'll let you know I have VERY GOOD REASON to detest child "lovers".
You're the first and only person to have brought that term into this debate. It's unneccisary as no one has attempted to use child lover as a euphamism for pedophile this entire thread.

And what exactly is your reason? Because you suffered a rape as a child? Because someone close to you did?

In that case, I can understand where you're coming from, but I ask you to please not allow the trust issues common in such experiences to color your view of me and others like me. Rapists are monsters who should be dealt with harshly, child abusers most of all. Not all pedophiles are rapists. I don't support the actions of the people who harmed you or someone you cared about.
Indeed. As sickening as it may seem, THINKING about abusing a child is not a crime. Just like thinking about punching somebody in the face isn't a crime, but acting on that thought is assault.
And I do appreciate the fact that you agknowledge the difference.
i think its more of paraphilia or fetish than it is "just another sexuality"

in a normal sexuality you relate to your partner as a human being. you develop a more or less equal, consentual relationship with them. this relationship often lasts for decades. it at least has a potential to.

And I suppose you're suggesting that pedophiles are unable to relate to children as human beings? That we can't establish an equal, conscentual relatinship with them? Or that the relationships can't last for decades?

I need to know which part you object to before I tear it appart, because just tearing appart the whole thing would be time consuming, and I have more than ten pages left to sort through. Suffice it to say, I do have a response to each of those issues, but I'm not certain which of those responses you would already be aware of.

in a fetish you are attracted to some aspect of a person, their feet, the clothing you have them wear, whatever. you are excited not by the person but by the fetish. what seperates it from innocent fun in a "normal" sexual relationship is the need for the fetish more than the need for the partner.

So would it be true to say that straight women have a "penis fetish". After all, they aren't sexually interested in people without penises, so mustn't it be true that the need for the fetish outstrips the need for a parnter?

most fetishes are harmless or at worst pathetic. when the desired object is "child" rather than, say, "shoe" it becomes dangerous and, if acted on, should land the offender in jail for a good long time.
Pathetic? I've got to object on behalf of all perverts everywhere. Badmouth pedophelia all you want. I'm here to defend myself after all, but don't go calling perverts who aren't even here to defend themselves pathetic just because you don't share their interests. Okay?
Can someone confirm the U.S. government's official definition of pedophilia? Is it the action or the impulse that is the crime?

Fortunately they haven't made it quite to the point of classifying it as though-crime yet. Though the ever broadening definitions of child pornography do suggest that it isn't about protecting children from abuse as it is about sexually frustrating pedophiles.
i've seen people put 'consent is the word you're looking for' in regards to this issue, and i'd like to take the time to say that's not the answer at all... if a paedophile asks a 12 year old girl if he can have sex with her and she says ok, that does NOT make it justified.

Of course you're right. A moral pedophile would not expose the child to the abuses society would inflict on her both by condemning something she enjoyed and, if they were found out, by dragging her through the three ring circus of the court system and to psychologists who insist on making her feel like a victum regardless of her opinion.

according to JS Mill from his work 'On Liberty' (allowing me to paraphrase though) ''it's not a problem if there is given consent between two or more parties involved in any action, what does matter is that a child, by definition is not old enough to know what is best for them and such forth the law of the land can be despotic and treat them in an ''inferior'' manner... simply because it is in their best interests.

I should point out that the view of children as somehow inferior to adults and not merriting the same rights as adults is something which is often present in the situational offenders which make up about 90% of child molesters.

Forcing children to do things they don't want is okay because they're inferior people? Do you have any idea what that suggests about the concept of rape? This is blatent prejudice against children, and I'm not going to let you get it by unchallenged.

childhood is supposed to be the age of innocence, it may seem a slightly naive view, but that's what it is...it's the last time someone can be somewhat sheltered from the cold-harsh facts of this sick world. How anyone can claim it's legitimate for an adult (over 18) to have sexual relations with a child (under 16-uk) is a fallacy simply because...refering back to Mill, a child is unable to consent for itself.

Doesn't this suggest that the child's owners (that's right, your friend Mill has basicly defined them as property either of their parents or of society) should be able to provide that conscent if they felt it was in the child's best interest?

paedophillia is not an alternative sexuality, it's not reducable to homosexuality or bisexuality, it's simply a perversion and a criminal act.
Um, pedophelia isn't an act at all, criminal or otherwise. It's a pattern of thoughts. We don't criminalise thoughts...yet.
Why? Is it because you are merciful (which is good) or... (sorry for my cynicism) ...Is it because you ARE one?
Again with the bigoted "anyone who supports pedophiles must be one".

As far as what he actually said, don't you want it to be curable too? I mean that would mean that people like me could be made normal, and thus end our threat to your children, right?
(Bolds mine)

You said it yourself. Consent is precisely the answer. Children under a certain age are not capable of giving adult consent. In recent years, we have begun to uncover the neurological basis for adult reasoning and judgment, and there is ample evidence showing that much of what we consider "adult consent" arrises from structures that have yet to completely form until after the onset of puberty.

In other words, it doesn't matter if a 7 year old says he/she consents. He/she does not have the ability to give adult consent.
So...

We've abandoned the notion of informed conscent and instead gone over to this new fangled thing called "adult conscent" have we? Why is it that a person must think in precisely the same way as an adult to offer real conscent?

WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR REAL CONSCENT?

I'd sumbit the following list:
1) A demonstrable knowledge of the actions and potential consequences the person is conscenting to.
2) The demonstrable ability to understand causality, that one event can cause another, and the ability to predict future outcomes based on avalible information.
3) The demonstrable ability to base one's choices on predictions of the future based on the information at hand.

If you think anything needs to be added, let's not go with such trivial, and let's face it, prejudice notions such as "an adult brain". Let's just focus on the neccisary abilities, and if that happens to exclude children when all's said and done, then so be it.
WEAK! Weak, you damn pedophile. :upyours:
While the play is noably unrealistic (the cop actually hearing the man out for example), I don't see why you're attacking him and suggesting he's a pedophile. I mean if anything, doesn't it have a "happy ending" for those of you frothing at the mouth about pedophiles?
Goody! Neither should be legal.
Goody! You've actually stated undeniably that you support thought-crime. Now I'm free to ignore you from this point on.
That officer should have been condemned for bothering to get into an argument at all - he walked in on a crime, no debate necessary or desired.

It does seem a tad out of character. Perhaps he should have shot him then and there, his blood covering the child he's in bed with. That should protect the child from being traumatised, right?

Its an entertaining little story though - I like how its the pedophile who does all the talking and justifying, and the child just sits there.

You would. After all, you people seem to think of children as subhuman and rightly relegated to the category of property.

And do you really think someone is "mentally capable of sexuality at age 6?" are you retarded?

Actually, while not everyone is, given the sheer size of the human population and the variability among our experiences, I should think the probability of there existing such a six year old approaches 1.

We aren't even talking generalities anymore. One exceptional person invalidates your claims. Are you that sure of yourself?

If you think its all so arbitrary, how about other things? Do you think children shouldnt have "legal guardians," but given the freedom to work and live completely on their own?

And I suppose you support the current system which enslaves children to their "legal guardians" (meaning owners) until they reach their magic number and are finally free to leave.

How about child prostitution? As long as you dont have anything against prostitution, it seems you're OK with that too. Hey I mean gotta let the kid make his/her own business decisions, right?

You're just trying to provoke people, aren't you? Anyone who can conscent to sex can conscent to selling sex. Of course the real problem is that you must make certain other options for gainful employment, otherwise you essentially force people into prostitution.

Or voting? Should newborns be able to vote? Arbitrarily setting a "suffrage" age is so close minded of us. I think Baby Joe should be able to have his say on who governs the USA.

It is arbitrary and close minded. People should be able to express political opinions as soon as they are able to form them. Thus if someone can demonstrate they understand the platforms of the people in the election, they should be able to cast an equal vote.

Oh, and same with military service. 6 year olds can and should be allowed to join the military, to kill and die for our country. Right?

Well, obviously. Of course I somehow doubt the military would be intersted in children that young, as their fitness tests are rather rigorous. I mean carrying around a full field pack is something most adults have trouble with.

And fuck school - this namby pamby, condescending, arbitrary attitude we have where we assume children are not adults is just silly. Children should pay their own way through all school, beginning from kindergarten. Nah, pre-school.

I actually believe education should be freely avalible to anyone, regardless of the level of education or the age of the student. And yes, I don't agree with forcing children to go to school if they don't want to. All that does is make kids feel like prisoners, and teaches them not to value their freedom (since they aren't given any in schools), and they grow up as adults who hate education and don't value their freedom (since they never experienced it as children).

That way they can do something productive with the money they get whoring themselves on the street. What a wonderful world you'd have us all living in.

Fuck.
You're really doing everything you can to make an appeal to emotion aren't you?
I'd say that the age of consent should be changed into a cognitive test.
Nothing hard, just to prove that you do know what you're consenting to and how it affects you.
If children really can't consent, this should make them unable to.
If they can, it should prove that they can.
And of course, it weeds out the exceptions to the age of consent(both sides).
I agree completely. In fact, I've suggested a similar system in the past.
Let me fix this for you:

officer: Because children cannot give consent, and therefore any sexual activity you engage in with a child is rape.

man: who are you to say they can't give consent. That's horrible, so you just disregard their opinions altogether? I'm sure there are plenty of 20, 30, and 40 year olds that are just as incapable of giving consent as your common child. To say that people under a certain age are completely incapable of giving consent to sex, and people above a certain age are completely capable of giving consent to sex is just plain idiotic. Some will be competent enough to give consent at age 6, some at age 14, some at age 70, does that mean we arbitrarily choose an age? No. We allow people their individuality and ability to choose. That is all.

officer: Read a book before you spout off, dipshit. A 6 year old is not capable of giving adult consent.

Are you suggesting pedophiles are illiterate? What book, exactly, proves that six year olds can't give conscent? I should probably read it.

man: who are you to say that all people above a certain age will not be psychologically harmed by sex and all people below a certain age will? I'm sure there are plenty of 20, 30, 40 year olds that will be harmed by consentual sex just as much as your average child. Some people will be mentally capable for sexuality at age 6, some at 14, some at 70, does that mean we artibrarily choose an age? No. We allow people their individuality and ability to choose. That is all.

officer: Who am I to say? Well, I'm not the one saying.

As a society, we recognize that children are not capable of the same reasoning and judgment as adults, which is why we do not legally regard them as adults.

We know that a 6 year old doesn't have the wherewithall to drive a car (even if you sized one down for her), which is why we have an age minimum for getting a driver's license.

Actually, the driving age thing doesn't actually have to do with maturity. It has to do with physical capablity to move the pedals and see over the steering wheel. You see, most kids can't reach the pedals without aids like stilts, and that makes for dangerous driving conditions. Companies don't make cars with kid friendly controls because, quite frankly, no kid can afford to buy a car.

You see the test is what determines if a person can use a car responsibly, the age thing is just so you meet the physical prerequisites before a driver's ed person has to bother with testing you cognitively.

Sure, there are some kids who might be ready to drive by age 12, but we pick an age where we can be certain that everybody (other than the mentally handicapped) will have the capacity to use adult judgment. If they choose to be a dipshit and NOT use their judgment, then we hold them responsible as the adult they are.

I should point out that the age of crimial responsibility is, I believe, 10. At that age, they are considered responsible for their actions, and thus must pay the price for violating the law. For the age of conscent not to be in line with this is either a grave insult to the minors who want to have sex, or an unforgivable injustice to the minors who are going to jail.

That's what this is about, man. The child you are fucking does not have the CAPACITY for adult judgment, and you're taking advantage of that. When that kid is neurologically capable of using adult judgment, then you can ask her out on a date and see if she says yes. But, frankly, I doubt any adult woman will be interested in laying the kind of coward who has to resort to picking on kids who don't know any better.

And now we get to the real root of the problem. You consider pedophiles inferior people who are attracted to kids because we "can't get an adult". Your ignorance of the matter is most disapointing for a person so well respected on this forum.
No, not okay, but legally, they are in charge of themselves, and they are legally capable of making their own stupid decisions. When they leave childhood and adolescence (as in TURN 18), I wouldn't care if they jumped of a bridge.
You don't think it's okay for 19 year olds to havesex either? And you condider it a "stupid decision"? Are you just anti-sex?
Heh. How simple. And I can imagine many pedophile fathers will help their childrends "education" to pass this test. You know, just a little home studying session. But that aside...

Well, that would be reasonable, wouldn't it? Helping your kids learn the basic facts they need about sex before they're tested on it?

Oh, you're talking about parents raping their kids. How crass. You are aware that a majority of pedophiles consider incest taboo, don't you? Usually when a parent rapes their child, they're a situational offeder rather than a pedophile.

How about the age of legal adulthood? Of being able to buy alcohol, cigarettes, guns? Of being able to drive? To vote? To serve in the military? To rent a car? Should we make tests for all of these too, and who gets to make these tests anyway? What makes us so certain that those people can design a test to gauge such things, when even simple "intelligence quotient" tests are flawed and unreliable?

I don't think it's as easy as you'd like it.
You can't limit someone's freedom without cause. If you can't define the criteria well enough that it can be tested, then you should just give kids their rights without the test and move on. If you want to limit their rights because they're incompotent, it would be nice if you could prove that incompotence.
There is NO good reason to have sex with a minor. Not "love", not power, not control, NONE.
And of course wanting to share a pleasurable experience with a child is exactly as bad as wanting to exersise power and control over said child. :rolleyes: Even if you are against adult-child sex, are you saying you can't see a difference at least in the scale of the crime between a nominally conscentual experience and a violent rape?
No because it's impossible to consent if you are a child. The only affect this "experimentation" will have on the child is deep psycholigical pains.

This notion of experimentation is obsurd, no one does awkward things like that to experiment.
And yet, children, left on their own, do tend to experiment sexually. (When did you start masturbating? Did you know what you were doing at first?)

Most people in this arguement don't take the extreme stance that all sex involving children is bad, but rather the more popular stance that sex involving children and adults is bad and inherently harmful. Of course that stance is inconsistent (since it implies that kids can conscent to sex with other kids, just not adults for some reason), and I presume that's why the majority of the posters so far have shied away from advancing it.

Do you consider it likely that a 2 year old can consent ? Feel free to assume it is the brightest 2 year old ever.
A 5 year old ?
A teenager who just got his first shot of teenager hormones ?

Since no one can conscent to be tortured, and our society would torture a child who had engaged in sex by constantly reminding them that sex is a dirty, evil, harmful thing and that kids can't enjoy it, so if they do enjoy it that means they must be sick, I rather think the only one on that list who can conscent is the teenager only because the teenager wouldn't condemned and made to feel bad for enjoying it like the younger children would.

As for which I believe is capable of conscenting absent the social pressure, if the two year old can pass the conditions I layed out above, I think the two year old can conscent. I know for sure the five year old can meet those criteria, if we're still allowed to use the "brightest x year old ever" qualfier.

I Hate you. I honestly sincerely hate you. You're the only person I have had any contact with that I can honestly say that. You, and the rest of your henchmen on this thread.

The law isn't perfect. But your way is flat out WRONG. No contest. No argument. You're sick and perverted, and that's it. That's all there is to it.

If you really believe that, why are you bothering to involve yourself in this arguement? If it's so self-evident, then your presence isn't needed.

And you do know that by losing your cool, you're doing more damage to your own side of the arguement than you are to my side, right?

it cant.

pedophilia is a sexual attraction/obsession with prepubsecent children. in todays world that means children under 9 or 10 years old.

when they are no longer children, they are no longer desirable

just as *I* am no longer desirable to the shoe fetishist once i take off my shoes.

you cant have a consenting mutually beneficial sexual relationship with an 8 year old. once the child is old enough, s/he is no longer an object of desire.

So then, would you suggest that a person who is attracted to normal adult women, but isn't into "grannie porn" would lose interest in a long term relationship with his partner once they pass a certain age? That's kind of how you're painting my sexuality.

Yes, the age of consent is set at an arbitrary uniform point, because it is not possible for us to administer the necessary cognitive evaluations to all children in order to figure out when they, individually, are capable of adult consent.

If we can't determine when they're individually capable of adult concent, on what basis is the line drawn where it is? I mean you're basicly admiting that it's arbitrary and based on nothing more than "because I said so".

I mean, if it isn't possible to test people individually, then it shouldn't be possible to say with any real accuracy when "most people" are capable, since we can't even tell when one person is.

The idea behind the age of consent is that you pick an age by which everybody can be counted on to be capable of behaving as an adult. Some kids are going to be ready long before 18, of course, but if we've got to pick a uniform point then most people feel it is good to err on the side of caution. The whole point is to set the age such that anybody past that age can be expected to act as an adult, even though there are plenty of people who won't choose to behave like a grown-up for many years yet.

The trouble is that this uniform point was determined arbitrarily in the first place. Even these cutting edge neuroscience thingies you keep bringing up weren't around when society was deciding on their Age of Conscent. It has always been based on the completely subjective idea of when society feels someone is "ready" whatever that means.

Now, granted, I think there is ample evidence that 18 is overly conservative. Current information about development and socialization suggests that 15 or 16 could be very reasonable cut-offs. An interesting variable is the fact that the age of onset for puberty appears to be dropping, and it is possible that this may influence maturation of the brain as well as the body.

I think you're missing the point. If we could actually make the sorts of determinations you're talking about, then we could test people on an individual basis.

mate, your use of the term 'i think it's absolutely horrible' discredits your argument.... it's an appeal to emotions. Anyhow, the point is children DO NOT know what they want, they DO NOT know what's best for them, I remember my childhood and i can telly uo i did some bloody stupid things- matter at hand we have a legal age of consent and adulthood for exactly this reason, children tend to want one thing at one moment, and another the next.

Do you realise you accused him of an emotional appeal, then you moved right on to an emotional appeal of your own? Condesention is an emotion.

You've obviously never understood an age old term in law, "it's the spirit of the law, not the word of the law"...

You have much to learn.

Why are you talking about this anyway, since when is a 17 year old a child.

Since we're talking about sex, a child is defined as anyone below the age of conscent. A 17 year old and a 1 year old are legally identical in their rights about sex. Meaning, of course that they have none (in a localle where 18 is the age of conscent).
There isn't a place on earth that isn't crawling with idiots and sick people. They currently permeate all religions, lifestyles, regions, nations, cultures, etc. But at least our overall society "stance" is still on track...mostly.:headbang:

Just because it's "prevalent" doesn't make it right.
I couldn't agree more. Majoritarianism is not a valid ethical stance. Thus, it can't be a sound arguement that because a majority of people disaprove of pedophelia, that it must be wrong. ;)

Let me just pose a few questions to our pedophile advocates-

Can the actual pedophiles like me join in too?

Why do you suppose most people are, and will forever be opposed to pedophilia and molestation of Children?

Brainwashing. An unfortunate side effect of a society which considers sex to be something negative and pleasurable sensations from our bodies to be something to be ashamed of. I rather suspect that's why the current generation is so oposed, though I reject your notion that your camp will forever hold the majority on this issue.

Why would we fight to the death in the defense of children?

Because you care about them and don't wish harm to befall them. The same reason I would. (We just disagree about what they need to be defended against.)

Why do you think we call you perverse and disgusting?

The same reason you call homosexuals names like that, because you aren't into our fetish, and thus find it unpleasant to think about. It's the same for any fetish you don't share.

Why do you really want to win? What's your TRUE motivation? What have you to gain by ultimately winning, if not to molest children w/o hinderence? Or at least have your sick fantasies of children?
Well, I hope for a world where children aren't unneccisarily traumatised by an anti-sex culture, so that those who are raped aren't constantly having their experiences reinforced and aren't constantly put in the categroy of a perpetual victum, and those who are interested in sexual things don't feel ashmed and dirty for being human.

I also hope for a world where those children who are interested in sex, don't have to focus their attentions on their peers who may not be interested in sex yet. Such early bloomers shouldn't be forced to focus their sexual attentions on innocent children, should they? Of course not.
Wanting to lower the age of consent is one thing, as long as it's with teenagers who have active hormones etc...

But allowing people to have sex with children is obsurd, they have no such hormones, and they do not understand whats happening to them.

Edit: 1000th post woooo! (shame it was on such a dark topic)
I'm sorry? Homones make someone more able to see things in a responsible and forward thinking manner? I've seen quite the oposite argued basicly everywhere and on every subject.
DON"T you talk to me about FAIR. LIFE ISN"T FAIR. IT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO AND IT NEVER HAS BEEN.
I presume something happened to you when you were young, and that's why you have such strong feelings about this topic. I feel absolutely certain that whatever it was, would have counted as rape even if we ignored the Age of Conscent.
That's a nifty little problem isn't it? Law has to be universal, not individual. That's the tradition that we've inherited from our forefathers. Even beyond that basis, if we had a system where we didn't set an age, abuse of the trust would run rampant.
No one's advocating a free for all. We're suggesting that age isn't a good basis, not that there should be no basis. Intelectual maturity, rather than chronological maturity is what I think we can all agree is the best solution. The only point of disagreement, I think, is whether that can be accurately tested. I believe it can be, others disagree.
first off, i don't speak for the niamin, so don't group me with him.

I'm not going to group anyone together. Everyone's position is unique, but I will speak about your words as I read them. If I misread them and that offends you, clarify them.

secondly, i never denied the stupidity of adults either.

By saying children can't conscent because of their stupidity, you do suggest that children are uniquely stupid.

the point is, a child is not old enough to consent for itself by law- a law there for the portection of children. sex isn't something anyone should get invovled with too early, the risks of pregnancy and sti's are something no one should have to worry about in their respective 'youth'.

And they aren't something we should have to worry about in our adult lives either. That's why we have this thing called conscent. We don't have sex unless we're willing to take on those risks.

The question really is: At what point are you going to let a person decide for themselves, what is an acceptable risk? What qualifies them to make those decisions?

Being "an adult" doesn't cut it, as all that says is you're prejudiced against children. Give some sort of real qualification. Some sort of cognitive ability that is required, because otherwise you're just spouting cultural bias.

some of you keep refering to yourselves as liberals, and claiming 'we'd be suprised how liberal you can be' but what you are advocating isn't liberalism, it's closer to anarchism. one of the greatest liberals whose work i have kept refering to , JS Mill even stated that no one has the right to interfer in an action partaken by two consenting individuals, but even HE stressed the fact that children (however defined by law) are not able to consent for themselves in an act.

how can you claim liberalism when you don't heed the words of one of the greatest contributors to the ideology?
Because no one's perfect, and that particular person is able to justify enslaving an entire category of people because they're "inferior".

NOT when those decisions blatantly harm children. Those decisions should NEVER be made. When someone makes the decision, then they must deal with the consequences- and society gets payback.

Sad thing is, is the child must live with the consequences too- not even their fault (not fair) But they don't get anything- they only get robbed.
Um, he's not talking about the decisions of pedophiles. He's talking about the decisions of children.
At age 12 ? Yes. It is.

At age 5 ? No. It isn't.
But do know many 5 yearolds with the mental development to understand and give consent ?

How about six? I believe it was Einstein, one of the greatest thinkers of our time who said "If you can't explain something to a six year old child, you don't understand it yourself."

Or a body that would not be seriously damaged in sexual intercourse with an adult ?
I take it intercourse is just anal or vaginal penetration by the penis to you, huh? Where's the physical harm in oral sex, performed by the adult on the child? How about mutual masturbation? Where do any of these acts damage the child's body at all? Much less, seriously damage.
Sure it does. It's working right now.

Which is why sex ofender rates are on the rise? Because it's working so well?

The idea behind age of consent is that all persons will be ready by the time they reach that age (unless they have some type of handicap).

But why shouldn't we err on the side of caution, and wait for those mentally handicapped people to catch up? Surely it's worth your freedom being limited if we can prevent the exploitation of people who aren't ready to conscent to sex until they're 40.

Yes, it is rotten for those who mature more quickly, but laws are "unfair" like this quite often.

For instance, there are "no jaywalking" laws where I live, because some stupid jackasses run out in the middle of traffic and get themselves splattered. As a result, I'm not allowed to cross a street outside of the crosswalk, even if the street is totally empty. Is this fair to me? I know how to cross city streets, been doing it my whole life, but I am compelled to live by the same laws as the rubes who've never been to the big city and need to be taught to cross with the signals.

Thing is, people violate laws like jaywalking that they feel are unfair all the time. It's practically expected of people to jaywalk under the circumstances you mention.

Believe me, I chafed at age of consent laws when I was under age. I still think many of them are stupid, like how Americans can be sent to die in war 3 years before they are considered responsible enough to purchase beer. But the principle is sound.

So you thought it was unfair when you were being repressed, but now that you're no longer being unfairly held back, you think it's okay to hold others back? That's what's called a cycle of abuse.

Sure you can. We do it all the time. A minority of people feel that it's totally OK for a man to rape a woman if she was wearing a short skirt. However, as a majority, we have created a system of law in which men do not have the right to rape women in short skirts.

In that case, I suppose the Jim Crow South was hunkey dorey, because it was a majority making rules for a minority? Think before adopting this sick logic.

Personal offense is not the grounds for these laws. We don't prohibit rape because some people are "offended" by rape, we prohibit it because it's a violation of the victim's fundamental rights.

Yep, not least significant of those rights, the right to self-determination. The right to control one's own sex life. Oh wait, you're okay with violating that exact right, as long as it's violatd so that a person can't have sex rather than has to.

Yes.

So you're in favor of moving the AoC up to 40? That way we can be good and sure, right?

We set an age of consent because we have no workable way of determining, on a case-by-case basis, when each young person becomes capable of adult consent.

We have no workable way of determining when young people are ready as a group either. It's all based on cultural bias.

Children are also not allowed to drive cars, vote, or sit on juries. We set age limits on these things because it would be unfair of us to expect adult judgment and adult behavior from a person who is simply not capable of it. Sex is no different.
Again, children are subhuman and thus shouldn't be given full human rights. That's your stance?
Repeat after me:

It is biologically impossible for children to truly consent, therefor any child you have sex with is only "accepting orders" if you will.
Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth?

I should really ask you how well this works in practice. Does this magical cohersive power adults have work just as well convincing children to eat their vegtables? Because of course, children never refuse to obey an adult they care about, right? The very idea that kids are automotons that "accept orders" even when we are actually issuing them is absurd to anyone who's got any experience with kids at all.
You are missing the point. Sex with a minor is, by definition, non-consentual.
Only because the definition's fucked up. I mean the definition says that sex with a 16 year old is nonconscentual too, but you've already stated you don't believe it's right. Stop using circular reasoning. It only hurts your case.
Apparently you haven't met the Dark Shadowy Nexus, who argued otherwise.

There are many paedophiles who reason away their actions by claiming that children are sexual beings and should be treated as such.
Dark Shadowy Nexus is not a representative of me. One of the reasons I registered here in the first place was to tell him off and to prove not all pedophiles are like him.
Yeah. IQ tests test "intelligence" and not "knowledge" too. And we all know that IQ tests are so accurate one need only put ones IQ on a resume to get a job.

Because of course, the only thing employers want is someone with raw intelect, rather than knowledge of the field they're going to be working in, or maybe experience, possibly things like ability to work well with others, etc. Intelligence is the only thing employers care about. Right... :rolleyes:

You're right. Therefore currently dividing people into age groups is the best solution. I'm glad you see the light.

Wrong. Just because something is dificult does not mean it isn't worthwhile. What nonarbitrary qualifications would you add to my list? Let's hammer out what is needed for real conscent here and now.

Ah yes... recognizing that children are not adults is "wanting to decide for others."

Saying they should be enslaved to their parents or to "society" is.

You know, I agree with individualism too. But as they say, your right to throw punches ends at my face.

Tell me, are children a part of your body? The only ones who can even use that sort of analogy are pregnent women, but even they aren't agknowledged as having children inside them. Just fetuses. Please use an analogy that works. It wastes your time writing these things and my time reading them if you can't make your metaphores relevant.

Do you even know how many battered women and child abuse victims were taught or forced to "individualistically" give "consent?" Do you really think they gave consent because of that? If I can train a monkey - or raise my kid - to say "I give consent," is that actual consent? No it isn't.

Um, isn't it rape when social pressure is used too? I mean don't we think women who are similarly "taugh or forced to conscent" are raped just as much as the ones violently taken? I'll repeat, no one's advocating rape.

But whatever, continue with your fallacious arguments in which you're the only libertarian fighting for the rights of individuals and everyone else is just a totalitarian oppressor. :rolleyes:
Fix your arguements, then you can start talking about the arguements others bring to the table.
Another clever way for you to get to have your way with the kids...:mad:
He's repeatedly told you to stop calling him a pedophile. If you need to call someone that I've admited to it.
Because a minor is a person who is legally unable to give adult consent. Therefore, any sex with a minor is, by definition, sex with a non-consenting party.
And the circular definitions continue.
Not just legally.
If a child has no hormones, how could it want to have sex.
Stimulation of the genetals is a pleasurable sensation regardless of age. Freud even observed a phenomenon suspiciously similar to an orgasm in infant boys. It came up in the last thread I believe. Strangely one of the people arguing against me brought it up.

Point is that it's nerve endings rather than hormones which provide the pleasurable sensations involved in sex.
regarding the problem of 'desire', i would stretch to say..if unacted on, then it is harmless...this however would have to include not a single display of such desire to remain harmless (it could cause discomfort if 'demonstrated')

So now we aren't just protecting children from horrible, lasting, life shattering harm, but now we're protecting them from potential "discomfort"? Protecting them from being creaped out?

your second point of 'if' a child can consent; a child can say yes or no, however legal ages of consent exist to protect the child- a suitable age at which, lets say a female can carry a child, while there have been ''young mothers'', there tends to be a higher chance of complications in underage pregnancies. i would also like to mention the 'realities' of the adult world again here ie, STI's.

So we limit them to manual sexual activities then? I mean it's hard to get pregnant giving a hand job, and STIs aren't exactly known for their transmisability by that medum either. You'd be fine with that, presumably?

lastly, your requests for 'proof'...you're asking for empirical evidence of mental capacities of others. Anyone who has studied the least of philosophy of mind would know this is a reuqest bordering on the impossible. you might as well ask me to find you a child prodigy just by looking at them.
If you can't prove children are incompotent, you don't have grounds for denying their human rights.
Below a certain age, that is a correct statement. Current evidence suggests that puberty plays an essential role in the maturation of the human brain. Before the onset of puberty, the brain simply CANNOT produce the same kind of reasoning that the adult brain produces.

You really are intent on convincing people that kids are somehow no more consious than a dog, aren't you? Kids can and do make decisions all the time. Why does this one require a brain structure identical to an adult? What about that brain structure is superior in the first place? If I can prove children have the reasoning capacity you think is neccisary (which you've never defined by the way, just refferenced neuro-architecture), then will you conceed that childen can offer conscent?

Non-consentual sex always hurts the victim.

Dependent on the first assumption. If I invalidate that one, this assumption falls too. Give me the meat of your arguement for assumption one and let's see if it can stand up.

Nobody is claiming that at all. What they are saying is that all adults are capable of consenting to sex. Whether or not the adult in question is emotionally/physically/spiritually ready to have sex is an entirely different subject.
You're playing word games now. There are adults who aren't capable of conscenting to sex, and are just as vulnerable to manipulation as children. You're just playing around with legal definitions that are based on cultural bias in the first place.
Oh wait...didn't the DSN get DEATed? Jey must be his reincarnation. Sorry if I was slow on the uptake on that one, I'm sure it's occured to others already.
You know, you all were accusing me of being DSN a while back too. Not everyone who argues that children are human beings, or that pedophiles shouldn't be punished for thought-crime is DSN in disguise.
It is no assumption that

1) child cannot (legally) give consent- at all- look at doctor visits, camping trips, school activities- all must recieve parental consent- not minor consent.

Again, parental conscent is an option? You wouldn't object to underage sex with parental conscent?

2) sex Alaways hurts children- tis a fact.

Declaring it with confidence does not make it so. Provide proof of your "fact" or conceed you can't.

But three- nobody here thinks all adult are ready for sex. Many aren't. That was never an assumption in this argument.

Pedophile....:gundge:
The assumption that children can't conscent because they're children implies that adults can give conscent because they're not children.
yeah I wasn't arguing with anyone - i was just stating my opinion on where the problem most likely arises.

I think everyone here is doing a fine job of demonizing the enemy
You admit that your side is attempting to demonize us? That's very interesting. Usually I have to point that out myself.
It may be too late. I've gone to the authorites of this forum.
Don't waste their time, please. These debates have happened before, and even when things got less than civil (death threats thrown around like there was nothing wrong with that, and promises of torture and castration being a normal first post) the moderators didn't see fit to inervene to squelch debate.

Their policy on the topic, as I understand it, is to allow people to talk about their opinions on the matter in an open forum without interfearence, so their arguements can be torn appart by more intelligent and moral debaters. In this way, sick individuals can be exposed for what they are, rather than being shut out of the process and going to complain about how persecuted they are to an echo chamber of like minded individuals. It's a good policy, I think.
Another strawman! No one is saying "children don't have minds of their own."

But to use your style,

having a mind =/= being able to consent to sexual activities

It's annoying when he balloons up the size, and it's annoying when you do it. Both of you please stop it.

Otherwise there'd be no such thing as rape, since all rape victims have minds of their own.
Um, rape victums aren't generally unable to conscent. (Though there are exceptions.) They just chose not to conscent.

Children, with the ability to conscent agknowledged, would be similarly free to not have sex if that were their choice, and raping them would still be considered a crime.
No, with children, they can't consent, and so any sex with them is rape, since their NOT consenting makes it rape. It's a fine analogy, and the fact remains that having a mind (something one can argue any living mammal does) doesn't automatically mean you can consent to having sex.
Funny you bring up other mamals. You see, children, even as young as six, have a greater capacity to determine the outcomes of their actions and to relate them to their choices than any mamal ot there. Yet we don't consider dogs humping one another rape, nor do we consider rabbits to be raping one another either. We can accept that those animals have enough capacity to decide to have sex or not, but human chidren, even with their much greater cognitive ability, are somehow incompotent. Why is that?
But the fact that your arguments are so retarded is suspicious.
Can you please hold off on the personal attacks?
Admittedly to Jey, the legal age of consent of 18, at least in New York, is an arbitrary number. But currently there is no way to practically determine which children are mentally mature enough to consent nor adults who are not mature enough to do so. That is why in this particular case, we must make the safe assumption that people below 18 are not ready.
I keep hearing about this need to err on the side of caution, yet in spite of people suggesting how imature 18-25 year olds are, I don't see any major push to move the AoC up to 26 just to be on the safe side.
On topic:

Is pedophilia a sexuality in the sense that it is an impulse that is not chosen, whether acted upon or not? Yes. It is a rather unfortunate one, as a pedophile should never act upon said impulses, but I would hardly suggest that anyone chooses to be attracted to young children, any more than someone chooses to be attracted to certain types of adults.

I'm glad you have this reasonable view.

Is pedophilia a sexuality just like homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality? No. All three of these sexualities involve sexual attractions with post-pubescent human beings. Although consent becomes a hairy issue between the onset of puberty and the beginning of adulthood, those who are post-pubescent are at least capable of sexual attraction, sexual relations, and even reproduction. Those who are pre-pubescent are not.

Prove it. Need I bring up the fact that the youngest mother on record was 5 at the time she gave birth? That suggests at least the second and third of your three supposed impossibilities, and the first is subjective in the first place.

Pedophila is really no different from a disorder in which a person fantasizes about sex only by fantasizing about rape (and there are those who can only sustain erections with the thought of rape).

Interesting choice of disorders. Considering the question of "is it always rape" has been so hotly debated on this thread.

As to some of the posts here, some people seem to be working off a flawed definition of pedophilia. Pedophilia is a disorder in which adult human beings are attracted to pre-pubescent children. We aren't talking about an adult who finds themselves attracted to a busty 16-year old (not that this impulse should be acted on either). We are talking about an adult who finds themselves attracted to children who have not yet entered puberty. Consent isn't a blurry issue at that point. You would be very hard-pressed to find an pre-pubescent child who understands what sex is, how it can affect them, and is mentally ready to consent.
Hard-pressed, perhaps, but hard-pressed isn't the assertion. The assertion is impossibility.
Ok - then:
1. when does it do harm according to you ? Please include both physical and mental harm in your answer.

Physical harm occurs when injury is the result, obviously. This can occur with penetration with too small a child or when insuficient lubricant is used. Physical harm can also come in the form of disease, which people should really test for before engaging in sexual activity anyway. And of course, the risk of pregnancy can cause physical harm.

Mental harm occurs when the child's opinion is not respected regarding his/her sexual activitis. Rape (ignoring statutory concerns for the moment) is an emotionally traumatic event for anyone, and thus children would be harmed by being raped. Mental harm also occurs after an otherwise positive sexual experience by the secrecy required of any such encounter in this society, by the removal of the adult lover by the police when discovered, and by the constant psychological abuses of the psychiatric field, requiring a person to relive the encounter over and over, and training the child to hate their former lover.

I believe I've covered things well, but if I've missed anything, please feel free to let me know.

2. Do you agree that the minds and bodies of humans change quite severely during puberty ?
Bodies, sure, but not nearly as much as other animals. All the parts are there from day one, it's just the relative sizes that go all fun house mirror at that time.

Mentally, not nearly as severely as you seem to think.
I'll tell you what. You find me a five year old who is perfectly capable of consent to sex, who completely understands sex and its many implications.

Then we can talk.
I've got to tell you, if I find one, I'm not sharing you pervert. ;)
So, show me a child who can consent to having sex and is not harmed by said sex. Show me psychological studies that refute the standing opinion that contradicts your assertions.

Those studies exist. They've never been properly subjected to accurate peer review nor followed up on because of the hsyteria, but they do exist. Look up the word Rind.

Or are we just going to sit here calling each other retarded? I can do that pretty well. Probably better than you can, since you have much less wit than I do and you're just annoyed that you'd get thrown in prison for sticking your penis into little boys.
You really ought to stop calling him a pedophile. He's repeatedly asked you not to do so.

And if you do decide to have the decency to turn your attentions toward me and my pedophelia, I'm male and interested in girls from birth to ten. That way you can make your insults actually relevant to me.
Which is true, but like I said above, we have no practical way of reliably determing which children will be harmed and which won't, so in this case we must be safe rather than sorry. This is a utilitarian argument I'm making and while I don't make them often, sometimes we lack the means of ensuring that principles are always followed. Which is the worse outcome? To have many children grow up having had that done to them when they were too young and naive to make an intelligent decision or to have a few sexual deviants be forced to wait a little to satisfy their urges?
You're suggesting that those kids who are interested in sex at an abnormally early age would wait. Given our current sex driven teenage population, I submit that they aren't waiting. Since they can't have sex with adults, the sexual deviants have sex with other kids, regardless of whether those other kids are also "early bloomers". Do you not see what's wrong with that?
Now why should that be offensive to you? If as you say, you believe children can consent to having sex with adults, why should being called a pedophile offend you any more than being called a heterosexual?
Do you have a problem with gay people? You're gay. Offended? Why?

It's offensive because it's inaccurate, and you're using it specifically to be derogatory. You know full well why what you're doing is wrong, yet you keep doing it. I've got to tell you that you aren't exactly acting as a paragon of virtue here.
Underagers? Children right?



Unless you are doing psych research on something; why would you have them?
There were psych researchers taken in under these laws. It happened in Australia a few weeks back.
What qualifications does one need to have to be able to give this consent ?
Can you answer that question without resorting to a number? That is what I've been asking for.
That's where things get shady. If I say that one needs a knowledge of what the action is, then that excludes the mentally retarded, who, by this law, would never be able to give consent to sex, ever. The law would, in essence, require celibacy from them forever. To be honest, it's an extremely tough question to answer.
Actually, the (sufficiently) mentally retarded are treated as unable to give conscent according to the law. At least that's what I've read from other posters here. It was in one of the "Women provoke rape by wearing miniskirts" threads.
But you dismiss the criterium "have an adult brain" offhand ? Why ?
Because it's bigoted, arbitrary, and falls back to cultural bias.
There was a case out in California's Central Valley where this sick bastard was breeding up his own harem. He had his wife, and a few years later he had three daughters. Then he started screwing the daughters, and got babies on the older two. He was screwing the three-year-old girl, too.

It gets worse. When the police caught on to him, he forced the oldest girl to shoot her sisters and half-sisters/neices, and turn the gun on herself.

Because of course if full grown women had been used and brainwashed like that it would be hunkey dorey, right? :rolleyes:

Now here's where I chime in on the "consent" issue. A child CANNOT consent because a child does not and CANNOT know what exactly they're consenting to.

Does not know because of lack of education. Cannot know? I don't think so.

Physiology aside, a three-, five- or even nine-year-old child CANNOT accommodate a full-grown man's erect penis without sustaining some kind of internal injury.

And you have some sort of medical document to back up this assertion? What length and diameter are we talking about here?

Some pedophiles have been caught screwing toddlers, can you imagine the pain that kid was in?

Depends on the answers to my last question.

Due to our beef-rich diet in this country, girls are blooming younger and younger. Sure, they're hormonally capable of ovulation, oestrus and carrying a foetus, assuming they don't get ripped up by the act itself, the birth sure as hell will do a number on them. They'd HAVE to deliver by caesarean, which they're finding out does a lot of harm to the mother too. Childhood pregnancy and birth are incidentally how a lot of girls in the third world die.

Really? I and my brother were delivered that way. What are these health problems? I'd like to know about them so I can inform my mother.

To pedophilia, I have this much to say: :upyours: :sniper:
Will the eloquence of your arguements never cease?
Admittedly but is it really worth putting all our children at risk for?
You admit that children can conscent, but still advocate taking away their ability to make their own decisions about what happens to their own bodies. I just felt that needed to be reemphasised.
To me it is a question of law. Children do not have the legal ability to grant consent. The act of pedophilia by that definition is forced and not consensual. The state has a defined interest in the matter when it becomes sexual abuse, rape or statutory rape.

So if advocacy groups like NAMBLA could get the legal definitions changed, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

Sex between consenting adults, be it heterosexual or homosexual, in a private place, is unrelated in any way to the act of pedophilia.

Pedophilia is not a "sexual orientation" or "sexual identity," it is three things. Socially aberrent, a mental illness, and criminal behavior.
Can't it be all five?
It matters not whether pedophillia is an innate preference or a learnt behaviour - it is not tolerable by society.

It is a little like asking whether being a psychopath is an option. It doesn't matter.

We are not going to leave psycopaths free in society and we should not leave pedophiles free in society on the same basis. They are dangerous to the members of that society.

Whether you treat them as criminals or as insane is optional, but removing them from circulation is not.
Actually, we do leave psychopaths free in society. The APA estimated about 1 in 20 people fit the medical qualifications for sociopathy. They completely lack consiene. These people are restrained instead by religious or legal systems of reward and punishment rather than by an internal moral compass. That 5% of our population has not all been hospitolised or imprisoned. There are plenty of psychopaths out there leading productive lives because they're afraid of the law or of burning in hell.
I think this says a lot:

In spite of questions about the source's bias, I'll give it a once over.

"The Morality of Consent
Shouldn't children be permitted to engage in sex with adults if they so choose?

While the empirical findings of the harm caused by adult-child sex constitute a compelling argument that pedophilia should never be permitted in any society that values its children, there is yet another consideration that carries momentous weight.

So we've started by saying we've already done more than enough to prove our point, and this entire arguement is just icing on the cake. Could you maybe post the paper which gives those empirical findings of harm? I think it would be more valuable than this one.

In a perceptive analysis, David Finkelhor, noted researcher of child sexual abuse, explores the moral issue of consent that lies at the heart of the societal prohibition of adult-child sex.60

The idea of consent is one of the fundamental notions governing social interaction. Even though the larger culture may no longer subscribe to what it considers a restrictive, "Victorian sexual morality, the idea of consent remains at the heart of what is considered permissible behavior. Consent involves more than a simple "yes : The individual and his or her circumstances must demonstrate the giving of informed consent.

A term which is so rarely defined in any meaningful way. Or more accurately why educating children can't turn "mere conscent" into "informed conscent" is never explained.

In pre-Civil War America, some slaves felt that slavery was a positive economic benefit to them. After all, they received food and housing in exchange for their labor. Similarly, in the child sweatshops of the past century, there were perhaps many children who, if asked, would claim that they enjoyed their work and that it was good for them. Nevertheless, few would argue that such questionable self-evaluation warrants the conclusion that either slavery or child labor is justifiable.

I should point out that the statements made about slavery, if true, suggest that adults are just as succeptable to manipulation as children since presumably they were speaking of adult slaves.

There were occasions in the concentration camps of World War II when selected newly arriving women were given the choice of becoming the short-lived mistresses of SS guards or going directly to the gas chamber. Some chose the former option, though it meant only a temporary reprieve from certain death. Could it be claimed that these women truly "consented to having sexual relations with their guards?

This has nothing at all to do with informed conscent and everything to do with the threat of violence. The two are completely unrelated concepts, and the inclusion of this anecdote is nothing more than an attempt to cloud the issue.

The concept of informed consent is well established in law. Hence, a woman, even though she may not have struggled or called out for help and may even appear to have "cooperated with her rapist, is not assumed to have genuinely consented to the sexual act. That is because, as in the other described illustrations, the circumstances make it clear that the individual is either not giving, or is incapable of giving, true consent.

Again, nothing to do with informed conscent and everything to do with cohersive rape through threats of violence and social consequences. These women know if they want sex or not, but they're forced. It has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

To these examples Finkelhor adds the situation of sexual relations between therapists and patients: "Many patients may benefit from sex with their therapist, but the argument that sex is wrong does not hinge on the positive or negative outcome that results. Rather, it lies in the fundamental asymmetry of the relationship. 61

Wow! Positive or negative results have no meaning? So someone wants to fuck their therapist, and the result is positive in every way, then this is wrong? What twisted ethical system are you people running on.

Asymmetry in relationships happens all the time. Let's talk celebreties for a moment. Britney Spears' quickie marraige to that guy nobody'd heard of. She was clearly in a position of significant advantage in terms of social and financial power, but nobody cried rape there. Nobody cries rape when multimilionare CEOs get their trophie girlfirends. Asymetry is not the root of the problem. Abuse of power is a problem, but the existence of power asymetries is unavoidable in human relationships.

According to Finkelhor, certain conditions must prevail for informed consent to occur. The person must understand what he or she is consenting to, and must have true freedom to say yes or no.

All right. Those are some conditions I can work with.

Are children capable of fulfilling this condition in "consenting to sex with adults? Finkelhor denies that they can:

For one thing, children lack the information necessary to make an 'informed' decision about the matter. They are ignorant about sex and sexual relationships. More important, they are generally unaware of the social meanings of sexuality. For example, they are unlikely to be aware of the rules and regulations surrounding sexual intimacy - what it is supposed to signify. They are uninformed and inexperienced about what criteria to use in judging the acceptability of a sexual partner. ... [They cannot know] what likely consequences it will have for them in the future.62

They aren't ignorant because they're kids. They're ignorant because they lack a comprehensive and meaningful sex education. Once this is provided, this particular problem disapears.

Children may genuinely like the adult who is molesting them - or, more to the point, may have become emotionally or otherwise dependent upon the pedophile. They may willingly spend time with their molester, and may even find some enjoyment in the physical sensation of pleasure. But all this is not enough: The fundamental conditions of genuine consent are not present. Children "lack the knowledge the adult has about sex and about what they are undertaking. ... In this sense, a child cannot give informed consent to sex with an adult. 63

So they can enjoy sex. Does this article satisfy those of you who suggest kids can't enjoy or want sex?

As to the thrust of this section, I again state that if this is the problem, education is the answer.

For their part, the advocates of pedophilia "do not acknowledge the enormous manipulativeness and callous lack of regard for children's well being that characterize the behavior of many persons who try to seduce children. Most children are not capable of protecting their own interests in the face of this power and this guile. 64 In truth, Finkelhor says, "Most of what we see as 'consensual' behavior among children is a response to the powerful incentives and authority that such adults hold. 65

So in this one they're saying, essentially that it's still rape if a kid is involved because even if they look happy and say they want to do this, it must be because they're being manipulated and dominated by the adult. It justifies itself nicely since these arguements require no evidence, since the lack of evidence is explained away by the incredible cunning of the pedophiles in question.

The force of this argument is not lost on those who would argue for greater acceptance of pedophiles. British researchers Glenn D. Wilson and David N. Cox's study of pedophilia, The Child-Lovers, expressly attempts to view pedophiles in a more positive light than is generally accorded them. To accomplish this, Wilson and Cox drew their research subjects from a support group for pedophiles. Yet despite their efforts to present the self-understanding of "successful pedophiles, in the end the authors balk at legalizing non-coercive adult-child sexual relationships:

Every researcher balks at the idea. Even Rind, the paper that drew congressional censure because of it's findings that children aren't always permanenetly harmed by sexual encounters when they're underage, balked at the idea. If they don't balk, what happened to Rind would happen to them, only ten times worse.

We are inclined to agree with the argument of Finkelhor (1979) that the issue of empirical harm needs to be separated from the more directly moral question of whether meaningful consent can ever be obtained from a child.

Translation, you're afraid that your empirical harm arguement is going to be found invalid so you need to come up with something new to reinforce convention.

Although modern society has moved towards a permissive stance with respect to any mutually consenting sexual activity that is harmless to the parties involved, we still regard sex as immoral if there is any suggestion that social power has been abused in obtaining it.

I call bullshit. Doctors, actors, and singers all get more action precisely because of their social power and no one regards that as immoral.

Further, I'd like to point out the terminology of the paper when it uses the word "permisive". This suggests the authors aren't really on board with the idea that "any mutually conscentually sexual activity that is harmless to the parties involved" is something we should mind our own buisiness about.

This applies to doctor-patient relationships, boss-worker (e.g. the fabled 'casting couch' in the theatre) and teacher-pupil relationships, even if the pupil is above the age of consent. Adult-child relationships in general fall into this category. Children are trained to respect and obey all adults, not just their parents, and this results in such an imbalance of social power that legalizing sex between adults and children could quite easily result in exploitation.66

Then maybe we should be training children to think for themselves rather than training them to be good little slaves to their parents or teachers, huh?

In the face of these weighty concerns leveled against pedophilia, the advocates of adult-child sex prefer to frame the argument as one of the "right of children to "control their own bodies. What such proponents are actually arguing for is for the "liberation of pedophiles to prey on children. And their professed crusade to "liberate children sexually has not thus far sparked a groundswell of popular opinion in their favor. Finkelhor observes that "it seems extremely doubtful that any large group of children are complaining that they are not 'allowed' to engage in sex with adults. If polled, we suspect that children would vote for better protection against adult sexual overtures, not more 'freedom.' 67"

http://radiance.m6.net/myrrh/doc-effect.html
I should point out that this last part pointedly ignores the comments they made about slavery and sweat shop kids above, namely that people tend not to recognise their own repression if they've been taught something is "good for them". By explaining that first, then talking about how kids would probably ask for more "protections" (meaning removal of further freedom of choice) the authors assume the reader is too stupid to make the connection. I'm eliminating the uncertainty and pointing it out.
because if one is attracted to people as people, if one forms true attachments to them as individuals, if these relationships can last for what currently passes for forver, if they are consentual, mutually beneficial and mutually satisfying, then it doesnt matter if the person is male or female ( or somewhere inbetween), it normal adult sane behavior.

pedophilia--the sexual attraction of an adult for a prepubescent child--isnt about any of those things, its the objectifying of a child as a sex object and the exploitation of that child for the sexual satisfaction and benefit of the pedophile alone. when the child is no longer a child, the pedophile is no longer interested in him/her. if a man "fell in love" with a 5 year old (*shudder*) then he could wait until that lovely child was 18 to start an adult relationship with her. that he can't wait shows that he doesnt have her interest at heart at all. all he wants is to get his sexual satisfaction out of his desired object, a child.
Strange. I assume you aren't a pedophile, so I have to ask where you get strange ideas like these about us. Normal adult men aren't interested in 80 year old women, but once their prefered partner ages, they don't fall out of love.
Yes it does. The study of human development has always noted that children do not and cannot reason the way an adult does.
Considering it's been saying the same things since back when it was a "proven fact" that a black man does not and cannot reason the way a white man does, and that a woman does not and cannot reason the way a man does, I think we should try to use more evidence than the amount of time people have been saying things, shall we?
And their classification of it as a mental disorder is hypocritical when compared to their classification of any sort of sexuality. It is morally reprehensible (at least to all Western Societies) and therefore it is treated as a deficiency.

Throw them in jail, give them the death penalty, for all I care, but for consistency, you cannot call them mentally deficient.

I agree. That stance, at least, would be internally consistent.

You make the assumption that a pedophile cannot find adults attractive, even those that they were "involved" with as children. That is probably untrue.
Indeed. I do find adult women attractive, and some of the otherwise "exclusive pedophiles" have found children they've watched grow up still attract them once they're fully grown.