NationStates Jolt Archive

Isn't the official church doctrine that Christ remained celebate throughout his life?

The all caps really suggest emotion rather than logic.

I agree with that, but then you've made this so vague, I don't think anyone could disagree with that.

And I assume you consider natural and right to be one and the same?

Not a thing, why?

Well, yes, but I keep trying.

I really hope not.

Regardless, this statement rests on a false assumption, that pedophiles are all too lazy or incompotent to get adults and this "resort" to kids. Would you go after little kids if you weren't getting laid enough?

I don't know whether it's the death threat, the all caps, or the overuse of smilies, but I think somewhere along the line you lost the high ground.


so would you let your underage children sleep with a 40 yr old man then? this question not just to you, but to all supporters of pedoism.

Dude, have a cup of rationality. This thread has primarily (and surprisingly) remained a discussion. Based on your little icon-infested rant, you obviously haven't been reading any of the preceding posts.


NO! becuase pedoism inst rational ON ANY LEVELS AT ALL.

Damn right, I dont have children but if i did and one of them was being molested physically or even verbally consent or not, I would personally disembowel them and torture them to fucking death. Then I would kill thier family for allowing them to be such a fuck up.:sniper: :upyours:
The molester I (kinda) understand, but their family?

As for the torture and disembowling for conscentual (verbal?) exchanges, don't you think you're a tad out of proportion? Did I misread that? Are you actually saying you'd torture someone to death for talking to your kid?

I'm really relieved to hear you don't have children.

The molester I (kinda) understand, but their family?

As for the torture and disembowling for conscentual (verbal?) exchanges, don't you think you're a tad out of proportion? Did I misread that? Are you actually saying you'd torture someone to death for talking to your kid?

I'm really relieved to hear you don't have children.



thats an affirmative.



and by talking, do you mean verbally sexual harrasment.

It's total crap.

Technically, yes, it is defined as a sexuality, but defining something doesnt make it right or acceptable.

NO! becuase pedoism inst rational ON ANY LEVELS AT ALL.At least get the terminology correct. It's pedophilia (paedophilia, if you're a Brit) and sexual molestation. "Pedoism" isn't a freaking word. And one can have a rational discussion about anything, including the sheer number of 13-year-old twits online.

so would you let your underage children sleep with a 40 yr old man then? this question not just to you, but to all supporters of pedoism.
Let's start with the question of what you consider underage children. Do you simply mean below the age of conscent? Which age of conscent?

Let's go with 18 for the sake of me not needing to wait for a response. Please feel free to scale the ages involved to whatever you consider a good age of conscent.

If we use an AoC of 18, then you believe that an 18 year old should be allowed to sleep with that 40 year old man? But not the 17 year old one day before his/her birthday? That day does make a lot of difference, doesn't it? I mean we learn so much in that one day, right?

If you're talking younger children, I've previously stated that I don't think children should be sexually active because the social stygma that would follow them arround for the rest of their lives would ammount to enough trauma to put it on the level of a rape, even if that were the only thing that caused trauma.
NO! becuase pedoism inst rational ON ANY LEVELS AT ALL.
I'm sorry you feel that way. It is hard to talk to someone you consider irrational. I've tried to avoid falling into that trap myself, and I do sincerely hope you can find your way out of it.

thats an affirmative.



and by talking, do you mean verbally sexual harrasment.
Then I reafirm my heartfelt relief that you don't have children.
It's total crap.

Technically, yes, it is defined as a sexuality, but defining something doesnt make it right or acceptable.
I will agree that defining something as a sexuality doesn't inherently make it right or acceptable.

At least get the terminology correct. It's pedophilia (paedophilia, if you're a Brit) and sexual molestation. "Pedoism" isn't a freaking word. And one can have a rational discussion about anything, including the sheer number of 13-year-old twits online.


yes, pedoism will be a word when im dictator and all pedophiles are on the trains heading for the camps...:)

Let's start with the question of what you consider underage children. Do you simply mean below the age of conscent? Which age of conscent?

Let's go with 18 for the sake of me not needing to wait for a response. Please feel free to scale the ages involved to whatever you consider a good age of conscent.

If we use an AoC of 18, then you believe that an 18 year old should be allowed to sleep with that 40 year old man? But not the 17 year old one day before his/her birthday? That day does make a lot of difference, doesn't it? I mean we learn so much in that one day, right?

If you're talking younger children, I've previously stated that I don't think children should be sexually active because the social stygma that would follow them arround for the rest of their lives would ammount to enough trauma to put it on the level of a rape, even if that were the only thing that caused trauma.

I'm sorry you feel that way. It is hard to talk to someone you consider irrational. I've tried to avoid falling into that trap myself, and I do sincerely hope you can find your way out of it.



I dont agree with statutory rape laws at all. a 17 yr old sleep w/ and 18 is not pedoism. a 40 yr old going for a 10 yr old is. There is a very big difference between that and if you cannot understand it your brain is to fat to work properly.

yes, pedoism will be a word when im dictator and all pedophiles are on the trains heading for the camps...:)
I see someone's a little too proud of his nazi role models.
I dont agree with statutory rape laws at all. a 17 yr old sleep w/ and 18 is not pedoism. a 40 yr old going for a 10 yr old is. There is a very big difference between that and if you cannot understand it your brain is to fat to work properly.
So tell me, how should age of conscent work? I mean you've said 17 is fine, but ten isn't. That leaves 7 years ambiguous.

I see someone's a little too proud of his nazi role models.

AHAHAHHA! thats funny, really it is... but you know whats funnier, an flaming oven full of pedophilles.


So tell me, how should age of conscent work? I mean you've said 17 is fine, but ten isn't. That leaves 7 years ambiguous.


Im not talking about sex age limits here, im talking about forced/unwilling sex commited on children by molesters. thats what this forum is about, not legal age limits.

Im not talking about sex age limits here, im talking about forced/unwilling sex commited on children by molesters. thats what this forum is about, not legal age limits.

Actually, it's about pedophilia. Certainly, forced/unwilling sex is terrible, but does the thought, without action, terrible too?

AHAHAHHA! thats funny, really it is... but you know whats funnier, an flaming oven full of pedophilles.

Now THAT would smell

but i'd pay to see it if nose plugs were granted

... there was a story in the UK recently about man who sexually assaulted a 12 week old baby.. his punishment - 6 years - eligable for parole in 3

Justice?... pffft

Actually, it's about pedophilia. Certainly, forced/unwilling sex is terrible, but does the thought, without action, terrible too?

forced/unwilling sex commited on children by molesters

6 and 2 three's

Now THAT would smell

but i'd pay to see it if nose plugs were granted

... there was a story in the UK recently about man who sexually assaulted a 12 week old baby.. his punishment - 6 years - eligable for parole in 3

Justice?... pffft


Oh fuck that shit! *begins losing faith in humanity* you know, humans are so good at killing and torturing eachother, why cant we focus all that energy on piece's of shit like that who deserve it.

AHAHAHHA! thats funny, really it is... but you know whats funnier, an flaming oven full of pedophilles.

Um, you were the one who brought up the camps.

Im not talking about sex age limits here, im talking about forced/unwilling sex commited on children by molesters. thats what this forum is about, not legal age limits.
And you're okay with it if the children aren't forced or unwilling? I believe you used the words "conscent or not" in a previous post in regards to your conditions for torturing someone to death and murdering his family.

I saw someone say that an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old shouldn't be considered statutory rape. Well, I believe it isn't.

The law is just fine. The police, the judge, and the jury can use common sense to interpret the laws, so the 18 year old in this case does not go to jail. If I am wrong, please correct me.

forced/unwilling sex commited on children by molesters

6 and 2 three's

I caught that, but I'm broadening it anyway, since it's bad altogether.

6 and 2 three's? What?

Now THAT would smell

but i'd pay to see it if nose plugs were granted

... there was a story in the UK recently about man who sexually assaulted a 12 week old baby.. his punishment - 6 years - eligable for parole in 3

Justice?... pffft
And by contrast, another man was recently sentenced to 200 years on a pornography charge.

Am I the only one who finds something a little backwards about the scale of these two crimes and their punishments?

Um, you were the one who brought up the camps.

And you're okay with it if the children aren't forced or unwilling? I believe you used the words "conscent or not" in a previous post in regards to your conditions for torturing someone to death and murdering his family.


fuck no, im just to lazy to think about ages here. ANY form of pedophilism should be dealth with by punnishment of tourtre and death.

I saw someone say that an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old shouldn't be considered statutory rape. Well, I believe it isn't.

The law is just fine. The police, the judge, and the jury can use common sense to interpret the laws, so the 18 year old in this case does not go to jail. If I am wrong, please correct me.
It's called mandatory minimum sentencing. It removes miscarriages of justice like common sense from the equation.

fuck no, im just to lazy to think about ages here. ANY form of pedophilism should be dealth with by punnishment of tourtre and death.
But if you're advocating for torture and death, it would be helpful to know where you draw your line. After all, once you're dictator and sending us pedos to the gas chambers, you'll have to come up with those ages, so why not get a head start on all that dictator paperwork.

And by contrast, another man was recently sentenced to 200 years on a pornography charge.

Am I the only one who finds something a little backwards about the scale of these two crimes and their punishments?


Um... I agree with you?

But if you're advocating for torture and death, it would be helpful to know where you draw your line. After all, once you're dictator and sending us pedos to the gas chambers, you'll have to come up with those ages, so why not get a head start on all that dictator paperwork.


If I'm the dictator, OTHERS are doing my paper work, im to buisy formulating plots...duh.

I'm pretty sure the paedophilia is defined as a grown adult having a sexual attraction to a pre-pubescent child and acting upon it... so all this 'but if there 18 and sleep with a 16 year old shouldn’t count' stuff isn't really relevant.

This isn't an age debate - it's about abusing your position of trust over a child and forcing them, or manipulating them, into doing something that they don’t understand and shouldn’t be doing.

From what I understand, an adult doing the same thing to a teenager would still be consider abuse and molestation, but not necessarily paedophilia.

It's called mandatory minimum sentencing. It removes miscarriages of justice like common sense from the equation.

I would have to say I disagree with you. I don't know if that is what was intended (to removie common sense from the equation) but I promise you common sense certainly is present. When you have a jury that decides the outcome you have common sense as well.

In fact, that is the reason the 3 or so teachers caught having sex with their students didn't go to trial and simply got a plee bargain. While I personally disagree with that decision, as it sets a double standard for men and women, the jury would see it differently. Using their common sense they would realize, "wow, this teacher is hot, this boy probably was wishing he could do her. i know I would." You see, common sense is very much present.

I'm pretty sure the paedophilia is defined as a grown adult having a sexual attraction to a pre-pubescent child and acting upon it... so all this 'but if there 18 and sleep with a 16 year old shouldn’t count' stuff isn't really relevant.

This isn't an age debate - it's about abusing your position of trust over a child and forcing them, or manipulating them, into doing something that they don’t understand and shouldn’t be doing.

From what I understand, an adult doing the same thing to a teenager would still be consider abuse and molestation, but not necessarily paedophilia.



I'll shall grant you a medal. very impressive. very.

I'll shall grant you a medal. very impressive. very.

*takes a bow*

Um... I agree with you?
Scarry how in some ways the government is saying that if you're attracted to kids you're better off actually molesting a child than if you look at porn. The priorities are way screwed up.
If I'm the dictator, OTHERS are doing my paper work, im to buisy formulating plots...duh.
Part of being dictator is making decisions, and this is a big one, especially if you want your people sending pedophiles to gas chambers and all that. You have to decide how young is too young, otherwise, your underlings will probably pick a number you don't agree with.

Now THAT would smell

but i'd pay to see it if nose plugs were granted

... there was a story in the UK recently about man who sexually assaulted a 12 week old baby.. his punishment - 6 years - eligable for parole in 3

Justice?... pffft


Now that is disgusting and all... but it's not like the kid is going to remember it or be harmed by it (unless there was penetration). I'm not saying it's right. Not at all. I do comprehend that for some reason there are people and things in this world that are not understood by the masses. Maybe in another world, a past life, something or other, it was their manner of living... or maybe that will be the way of life in the next world we go to? Either way, I prefer not to judge, knowing that I am not a god or a ruler of fates.

This brings me to a question you probably have never thought about. What if someone overage fell in love with someone underage and they wanted to have a strong relationship without sex? What, is he a pedophile now?

People really shouldnt be looking at ages at that viewpoint anyways. Seriously, if someone is 18 and has sex with someone 16-17, he's a pedophile? What in the...that's a 2 year difference. People in their 30's date someone in their 20's or an 18 year old, but they're not called pedophiles, yet if an 18 year old dated a 15 year old, you would shun the person and call him a pedophile, when he just might be in love with that person.

You probably don't know this, but I know alot of mature young people. I'm not saying sex is okay with them, i'm saying that if they're mature and know how to build a relationship etc, they should go for it. Not every guy or girl who goes out with someone a little underage is some horrible man who wants to harm someone.

That's just my thoughts on the subject, and I bet i'll get flamed, as usual, in a reply.

Scarry how in some ways the government is saying that if you're attracted to kids you're better off actually molesting a child than if you look at porn. The priorities are way screwed up.

Part of being dictator is making decisions, and this is a big one, especially if you want your people sending pedophiles to gas chambers and all that. You have to decide how young is too young, otherwise, your underlings will probably pick a number you don't agree with.



this is getting quite cute, we could argue about me being dictator and all, which i would be awesome at, perhaps another time, I am tired....

*takes a bow*

It has been well comrade, but I must leave, thanks for your help.

Now that is disgusting and all... but it's not like the kid is going to remember it or be harmed by it (unless there was penetration). I'm not saying it's right. Not at all. I do comprehend that for some reason there are people and things in this world that are not understood by the masses. Maybe in another world, a past life, something or other, it was their manner of living... or maybe that will be the way of life in the next world we go to? Either way, I prefer not to judge, knowing that I am not a god or a ruler of fates.

I'm not surprised that someone brought up the 'but they wont remember' point of view.. that doesnt make the act any less serious or traumatic for the family.

I'm sure if it was your own child you'd be judge, jury & executioner

This brings me to a question you probably have never thought about. What if someone overage fell in love with someone underage and they wanted to have a strong relationship without sex? What, is he a pedophile now?

People really shouldnt be looking at ages at that viewpoint anyways. Seriously, if someone is 18 and has sex with someone 16-17, he's a pedophile? What in the...that's a 2 year difference. People in their 30's date someone in their 20's or an 18 year old, but they're not called pedophiles, yet if an 18 year old dated a 15 year old, you would shun the person and call him a pedophile, when he just might be in love with that person.

You probably don't know this, but I know alot of mature young people. I'm not saying sex is okay with them, i'm saying that if they're mature and know how to build a relationship etc, they should go for it. Not every guy or girl who goes out with someone a little underage is some horrible man who wants to harm someone.

That's just my thoughts on the subject, and I bet i'll get flamed, as usual, in a reply.

See post number 526

I'm pretty sure the paedophilia is defined as a grown adult having a sexual attraction to a pre-pubescent child and acting upon it... so all this 'but if there 18 and sleep with a 16 year old shouldn’t count' stuff isn't really relevant.

Actually, you don't need to act on it for it to count as pedophelia. Just being attracted is enough to throw you into that category.

This isn't an age debate - it's about abusing your position of trust over a child and forcing them, or manipulating them, into doing something that they don’t understand and shouldn’t be doing.

I would contend that the reason they don't understand it is because children are kept deliberately ignorant. Meaningful sex education at an early age would make it much more dificult ot manipulate a child into doing something the child didn't want to do. Of course then you'd have the problem of what to do if the child does want it, huh? I guess that's why people try so hard to keep them ignorant.

From what I understand, an adult doing the same thing to a teenager would still be consider abuse and molestation, but not necessarily paedophilia.
Pedophelia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It is not sexual abuse of those children. Please get your terms straight.
I would have to say I disagree with you. I don't know if that is what was intended (to removie common sense from the equation) but I promise you common sense certainly is present. When you have a jury that decides the outcome you have common sense as well.

The idea was to remove the ambiguety so that juries who didn't want to sentence someone harshly would have to. That looks a lot like trying to remove common sense to me.

In fact, that is the reason the 3 or so teachers caught having sex with their students didn't go to trial and simply got a plee bargain.

That doesn't mean the law was any less a hard line. The prosecutors didn't bring it to trial. There was no jury to decide things, because the hands of the jury are tied by things like mandatory minimum sentencing.

While I personally disagree with that decision, as it sets a double standard for men and women, the jury would see it differently.

It does piss me off when they put these double standards in place.

Using their common sense they would realize, "wow, this teacher is hot, this boy probably was wishing he could do her. i know I would." You see, common sense is very much present.
Actually, what you describe is the total lack of common sense. The entire point of having an age of conscent is to say that children below that age don't get to decide to have sex at all, and that it doesn't matter what they want. We have other laws in place for dealing with force and cohersion. Whether you agree with the idea or not, statutory rape laws are only about preventing kids from making their own sexual decisions.

I'm not surprised that someone brought up the 'but they wont remember' point of view.. that doesnt make the act any less serious or traumatic for the family.

I'm sure if it was your own child you'd be judge, jury & executioner
I see. It's not about the child at all. It's about the pain and suffering of the family now?

Mstreeted, the post you wanted me to read was somewhat biased. I said someone who was in love and didnt really want to have sex, but your post basically says that everyone who wants to be with someone a bit younger wants to rip their clothes off and have their way with them.

Pedophelia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children. It is not sexual abuse of those children. Please get your terms straight.
.

without the attraction they wouldnt act, so personally i dont differentiate

I see. It's not about the child at all. It's about the pain and suffering of the family now?

Of course primarily it's about the child - but you cant tell me that the family wouldnt suffer as a result.

Mstreeted, the post you wanted me to read was somewhat biased. I said someone who was in love and didnt really want to have sex, but your post basically says that everyone who wants to be with someone a bit younger wants to rip their clothes off and have their way with them.

erm, no that's not what the post says - what i hoped you'd get from the post what where i said it's not an age debate.

I personally don't see how I couldn't be. The topic is basically about a certain age not being able to have sex with someone at a lesser age, but it's not an age debate? I do respect that you have an opinion of your own, I really do, but it's just that I don't see that.

I personally don't see how I couldn't be. The topic is basically about a certain age not being able to have sex with someone at a lesser age, but it's not an age debate? I do respect that you have an opinion of your own, I really do, but it's just that I don't see that.

Fair enough, i see your point.. I guess my understanding of the debate is about adults being sexually attracted to pre-pubecent children.

Your comment, to me, suggested that, say a 30 year old and an 17 year old think their in love, but dont intend to sleep together because she's not old enough yet, or not ready or something like that etc etc. that situation may still be construde as wrong by many people, but to me it is more of an age debate as apposed to a grown-adult wanting to have sex with a young child who doesnt really know what they're doing.

I get your point, and respect your opinion, but that was where I was coming from, if ya get me :)

Meaningful sex education at an early age would make it much more dificult ot manipulate a child into doing something the child didn't want to do. Of course then you'd have the problem of what to do if the child does want it, huh? I guess that's why people try so hard to keep them ignorant.


I understand where youre going with this, but, is it possible that you are grossly overestimating the number of children who would want to, or were emotionally developed enough to fully comprehend sexual activity?

Even then, if a child did have a full knowledge of what sexual actions are, and the corresponding emotions entailed, children dont always make the best decisions for themselves do they?

A child can have a full knowledge of gravity, and still jump off a roof to see if he/she can fly.



Whether you agree with the idea or not, statutory rape laws are only about preventing kids from making their own sexual decisions.

Given the number of predators these days, perhaps thats for the best?

Most paedophiles are heterosexual. They are attracted to women, not other men or children, but they have an apparently uncontrollable urge to rape and murder children. As with rapsits of women, it is more about power and control than just the sexual urge.

The desire to have sexual intercourse with kids is just another sexuality. Of course, that doesn't make the acting out of you fantasies isn't immoral.

Pedophilia =/= Child Molestation

As long as the pedophile don't molest children this is a non-issue for me.

Rape is wrong, fantasy is not.

without the attraction they wouldnt act, so personally i dont differentiate
If you can't tell the difference between someone sitting in their home thinking, and someone raping a small child, I suppose there's nothing I can do to help you. The difference seems pretty obvious to me.
Of course primarily it's about the child - but you cant tell me that the family wouldnt suffer as a result.
The entire point of the post I replied to was suggesting that even if the child didn't suffer at all (in your case because of infantile amnesia) then the suffering of the family justified prosecution.

Forgive me, but I get the strong impression that the child isn't even on your list of priorities. It looks to me like the child is simply one of many excuses for addressing the real issue, the fact that you don't like perverts like me, and want us to be punished for being who we are.
I understand where youre going with this, but, is it possible that you are grossly overestimating the number of children who would want to, or were emotionally developed enough to fully comprehend sexual activity?

What percentage would you feel comfortable with? Does there need to be 50% ready? 70%? What? Since you want to measure maturity on steriotypes and demographics, what exactly is the percentage of any age group that must be reached before you stop repressing that group?

Even then, if a child did have a full knowledge of what sexual actions are, and the corresponding emotions entailed, children dont always make the best decisions for themselves do they?

A child can have a full knowledge of gravity, and still jump off a roof to see if he/she can fly.

If the child doesn't know he/she can't fly, in what sense does the child have a full knowledge of gravity?

Given the number of predators these days, perhaps thats for the best?
Given the number of rapists, then, would you say it would be a good idea to disallow adults to control their sex lives?
Most paedophiles are heterosexual. They are attracted to women, not other men or children, but they have an apparently uncontrollable urge to rape and murder children. As with rapsits of women, it is more about power and control than just the sexual urge.
Pedophiles are attracted to children by definition. The term you're thinking of is child molesters.

I
What percentage would you feel comfortable with? Does there need to be 50% ready? 70%? What? Since you want to measure maturity on steriotypes and demographics, what exactly is the percentage of any age group that must be reached before you stop repressing that group?


Ahh the Society is repressing the young argument?

The fact remains the young can't be taught to make an informed consent decision. That is why you can't have a legal contract with a minor.

Sex education isn't going to change this and you know it.

Pedophiles are attracted to children by definition. The term you're thinking of is child molesters.

Child molesters are not attacked to children?

Child molesters are not attacked to children?

Assuming you meant attracted: no, not necessarily.

Ahh the Society is repressing the young argument?

The fact remains the young can't be taught to make an informed consent decision. That is why you can't have a legal contract with a minor.

Sex education isn't going to change this and you know it.
What is "informed conscent"? What are the features of informed conscent? And just so you don't fall into the trap of a circular arguement, try to explain it without saying "because the law says so", because the entire point is to explore why the law is set up as it is.
Child molesters are not attracted to children?
Strangely no. FBI statistics say about 90% of child molesters aren't attracted to children. Much like for conventional rapists, it's more about power than it is about sexual attraction.

If the child doesn't know he/she can't fly, in what sense does the child have a full knowledge of gravity?

She could have full knowledge of gravity but incomplete knowledge of aerodynamics.

I think flight is too complex a process to make a proper analogy, here.

without the attraction they wouldnt act, so personally i dont differentiate

That's lousy reasoning. You've equated "if A then B" to "A = B", and that's simply fallacious. Even if I accept that they wouldn't act without the attraction, you haven't established that the attraction causes action in all cases. And as such, you should differentiate.

She could have full knowledge of gravity but incomplete knowledge of aerodynamics.

I think flight is too complex a process to make a proper analogy, here.

It wasn't my analogy.

That's lousy reasoning. You've equated "if A then B" to "A = B", and that's simply fallacious. Even if I accept that they wouldn't act without the attraction, you haven't established that the attraction causes action in all cases. And as such, you should differentiate.
Indeed, it's like saying some can't stab a person without a knife, thus people who own knives should all be treated as though they will stab people.

The original reasoning also fails to take into account that people who don't have the attraction actually do molest children, much like in the above statements fail to take into account that people can be stabbed with pens, pencils, rulers, and a plethora of other objects.

What is "informed conscent"? What are the features of informed conscent? And just so you don't fall into the trap of a circular argument, try to explain it without saying "because the law says so", because the entire point is to explore why the law is set up as it is.


The problem is not on us. You have to prove a majority can make it.

The fact is you can't and you know it. Claims of "ciruclar arguments" etc will not change the fact.


Strangely no. FBI statistics say about 90% of child molesters aren't attracted to children. Much like for conventional rapists, it's more about power than it is about sexual attraction.

Show your stats my boy. They aren't attracted and yet they hang out around them whenever possible.

lets go back to debating about how they should all die.:)

The problem is not on us. You have to prove a majority can make it.

Why does it need to be a majority? Why not just a significant minority?

lets go back to debating about how they should all die.:)

And we're back to advocating punishment for thought crimes, are we?

The problem is not on us. You have to prove a majority can make it.

The fact is you can't and you know it. Claims of "ciruclar arguments" etc will not change the fact.

You're right. I can't prove a majority can make informed conscent, because you people won't explain what informed conscent is.

Show your stats my boy. They aren't attracted and yet they hang out around them whenever possible.
I don't pretend to understand what goes on in the mind of a child molester, but those stats you asked for:

Lanning believes most child molesters fit neatly into two categories. About 90 percent are so-called "situational child molesters" who capitalize on opportunities to molest children but don't necessarily prefer sex with children. The situational molester sexually exploits children to satisfy a curiosity, for kicks or because he's simply morally indiscriminate.

source:
http://old.valleyadvocate.com/articles/pedophile.html

I'm still waiting for the other pages to load.

And I ain't your boy.

Why does it need to be a majority? Why not just a significant minority?


A majority would show there is a perception issue.

A significant minority? What exactly?

You're right. I can't prove a majority can make informed conscent, because you people won't explain what informed conscent is.

What is it about informed conscent you don't understand?

What about contract law? Why can't children enter into a legally binding contract?

I don't pretend to understand what goes on in the mind of a child molester, but those stats you asked for:

source:
http://old.valleyadvocate.com/articles/pedophile.html

I'm still waiting for the other pages to load.


Well the cases they have caught suggest a majority.


And I ain't your boy.

That's ok dear boy, you don't understand what it means.

A majority would show there is a perception issue.

A significant minority? What exactly?
What about, say, 49%? How about 30%? 10%? I think you understand the concept of a significant minority and are being deliberately obtuse.
What is it about informed conscent you don't understand?

What about contract law? Why can't children enter into a legally binding contract?

I believe I asked for a definition and a list of qualifications. Is that really so much to ask?

Well the cases they have caught suggest a majority.

Why didn't you tell me in the first place that you weren't willing to accept any answer I gave? It would have saved me the time of looking up sources.

That's ok dear boy, you don't understand what it means.
And to this I say :confused:

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.

I have a few things to say. First I have been away for a while so sorry for the late reaction. Second, I don't know if what I'm going to say is already been said, if so just let it be then.

The desire is on itself wrong. If you (or anybody reading this) has a desire to do anything that is considered immorale (by the general public) than you should think its wrong. Therefore not acting upon that desire. Sadly this is not the truth since there are enough cases around the globe indicating that parents still think they should have children for their sex lives. These people commiting these crimes should be tortured until death. (Figure of speech).

Next I live in the Netherlands. No I'm not from Amsterdam so don't ask. Here where pretty liberal and free to do and say what you want. A few weeks ago somebody had a GREAT idea, that pedophiles should have their own political party and that pedophilia should be legal. By the way if you agree on this, go to hell. Their programm consisted of making the legal age that you can have sex 12 and some other dumb ideas. (for that you have to know the political system in this country so never mind.) This is disturbing what, stunned me even more is the fact that 20% voted for this...!!!! Unbef*ckinglievable.

I believe I asked for a definition and a list of qualifications. Is that really so much to ask?


Again look to contract law. If a child can be trusted to enter into a legal contract then they can be trusted with matters of sex(well supposed to be even adults prove otherwise).

For fun, why don't you define it?

Why didn't you tell me in the first place that you weren't willing to accept any answer I gave? It would have saved me the time of looking up sources.

:D You are very good at trying to make it everybody elses problem and or fault.

Here are a couple of questions for every one here.

Where do you draw the line to pedophilia and just a big age difference?

Would you let a condemned but "cured" pedophile back into society,
if yes would you mind having him/her into your neighbourhood?

Again look to contract law. If a child can be trusted to enter into a legal contract then they can be trusted with matters of sex(well supposed to be even adults prove otherwise).

This argument isnt about what the law in its present state is. We all know that children aren't legally capable of entering into contracts, let alone consentual sexual relations. But that doesn't mean they are also both physically and mentally incapale of it. The law isn't perfect. The argument is, at least on your end, why is the law right? Why does the law say what it says? Why doesn't the law deem the opinion of a minor to have any value whatsoever? Etc.

A few weeks ago somebody had a GREAT idea, that pedophiles should have their own political party and that pedophilia should be legal. By the way if you agree on this, go to hell. Their programm consisted of making the legal age that you can have sex 12 and some other dumb ideas. (for that you have to know the political system in this country so never mind.) This is disturbing what, stunned me even more is the fact that 20% voted for this...!!!! Unbef*ckinglievable.

12 is fairly low, but it's not unheard of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Ages_of_consent_in_various_countries

The desire is on itself wrong. If you (or anybody reading this) has a desire to do anything that is considered immorale (by the general public) than you should think its wrong.

What? So if granting the right to vote for women, granting freedom to blacks, etc etc were all considered "immoral", I suppose if we have a desire to do those things, were wrong?

What? So if granting the right to vote for women, granting freedom to blacks, etc etc were all considered "immoral", I suppose if we have a desire to do those things, were wrong?


Ok where is the link with the desire to have sex with children?

Ok where is the link with the desire to have sex with children?

The argument was about a concept that anything that is considered "immoral" by soceity is wrong.

As for a link, I have no idea what your talking about.

This argument isnt about what the law in its present state is. We all know that children aren't legally capable of entering into contracts, let alone consensual sexual relations. But that doesn't mean they are also both physically and mentally incapale of it. The law isn't perfect. The argument is, at least on your end, why is the law right? Why does the law say what it says? Why doesn't the law deem the opinion of a minor to have any value whatsoever? Etc.

The point is if they had the capacity to make and informed decision to enter enter into legal contracts then there is little argument that they have the capacity to make an informed decision regarding consensual sex.

The fact some children might be ready doesn't not negate the rest.

Here are a couple of questions for every one here.

Where do you draw the line to pedophilia and just a big age difference?

Pedophiles, by definition, are attracted to prepubescent children. The age difference is irrelevant.

The fact some children might be ready doesn't not negate the rest.

Isn't that an argument against having a blanket age of consent?

Not unlike the rejection of a blanket age of majority raised in a different thread.

The argument was about a concept that anything that is considered "immoral" by soceity is wrong.

As for a link, I have no idea what your talking about.

Society considers murder and rape to be "immoral"

Is it wrong?

Society considers murder and rape to be "immoral"

Is it wrong?

If it isn't, does that mean it's always right?

The point is if they had the capacity to make and informed decision to enter enter into legal contracts then there is little argument that they have the capacity to make an informed decision regarding consensual sex.

The fact some children might be ready doesn't not negate the rest.

Yes, but all you are saying is basically "the law says children cannot enter into contract obligations, so little argument can be made as to their ability to consent to sex."

That's great. The law says children cannot enter into contracts, but that isn't an argument. Why does the law say they cannot? Don't just say the law says that. I would argue that children are able to enter into these types of obligations, for some children are very advanced for their ages.

As for "not negating the rest", why do you feel the need to remove the human rights of a whole group just because some members of the group may not be qualified for those rights? Many adults are not fully capable of the rights they receive at the age of majority, though no one is trying to take away their rights. Why? Because it isn't fair to them. They deserve those rights for many members of their group are capale of receiving them--the same goes for minors.

Isn't that an argument against having a blanket age of consent?

Not unlike the rejection of a blanket age of majority raised in a different thread.

Age of consent laws are meant to handled a "safe" age. Which I think is 16.

Society considers murder and rape to be "immoral"

Is it wrong?

Soceity can be right. Soceity can be wrong.

Just trying to refute the belief that soceity is always right.

As for "not negating the rest", why do you feel the need to remove the human rights of a whole group just because some members of the group may not be qualified for those rights? Many adults are not fully capable of the rights they receive at the age of majority, though no one is trying to take away their rights. Why? Because it isn't fair to them. They deserve those rights for many members of their group are capale of receiving them--the same goes for minors.

Find me a five year old or even an 8 year old capable of understanding and consenting to sexual relations. Find me one who is capable of understanding and meeting the obligations of a contract. Find me one responsible and capable enough to drive. Find me one that is well-informed and understands politics enough to be allowed a vote.

Then we can talk.

As for "not negating the rest", why do you feel the need to remove the human rights of a whole group just because some members of the group may not be qualified for those rights? Many adults are not fully capable of the rights they receive at the age of majority, though no one is trying to take away their rights. Why? Because it isn't fair to them. They deserve those rights for many members of their group are capale of receiving them--the same goes for minors.

Ahh a liberterian?

-edit-

There was to be more but I saw what Demp wrote.....

Ahh a liberterian?

Indeed.

I have a few things to say. First I have been away for a while so sorry for the late reaction. Second, I don't know if what I'm going to say is already been said, if so just let it be then.

It happens. In a 33+ page thread, things get repeated. I'll try not to hold it against you.

The desire is on itself wrong. If you (or anybody reading this) has a desire to do anything that is considered immorale (by the general public) than you should think its wrong. Therefore not acting upon that desire. Sadly this is not the truth since there are enough cases around the globe indicating that parents still think they should have children for their sex lives. These people commiting these crimes should be tortured until death. (Figure of speech).

I think you've confused two concepts:
"Desiring, something which is wrong" and "Desiring something, which is wrong"

Of course if I'm wrong about that, and you really do support the idea of thought-crime, I simply pity your small mindedness and pray your kind never become powerful enough to fulfill your sick desires.

Next I live in the Netherlands. No I'm not from Amsterdam so don't ask. Here where pretty liberal and free to do and say what you want. A few weeks ago somebody had a GREAT idea, that pedophiles should have their own political party and that pedophilia should be legal. By the way if you agree on this, go to hell. Their programm consisted of making the legal age that you can have sex 12 and some other dumb ideas. (for that you have to know the political system in this country so never mind.) This is disturbing what, stunned me even more is the fact that 20% voted for this...!!!! Unbef*ckinglievable.
Well, the age of conscent was 12 in the Netherlands some years ago, wasn't it? Isn't this just a conservative movement to return things to the way they once were?

And while I understand what's dumb about outlawing meat, I don't get what's dumb about subsidising public transportation.
Again look to contract law. If a child can be trusted to enter into a legal contract then they can be trusted with matters of sex(well supposed to be even adults prove otherwise).

So the only qualification for informed conscent is an arbitrary age line? You really can't come up with a good reason for why children are specifically disallowed self-determination on this issue except to point out that children are denied self-determination on other issues?

For fun, why don't you define it?

I have, more than once in this thread, defined what I considered a valid definition for informed conscent, and now I want to find out what the hell you people think is a valid definiton for informed conscent. You wave that term around like a magic wand at every pedophile debate, and it turns out you can't even define it.

:D You are very good at trying to make it everybody elses problem and or fault.
Let's try this again. The statistic I quoted originates in a 2001 FBI interview with "Kenneth V. Lanning, supervisory special agent at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Va., and one of the agency's top experts on sex offenders".

"One of the FBI's leading experts on child sexual abuse, the recently retired Lanning is an alumni of both the Behavioral Science Unit that was creepily immortalized in Silence of the Lambs and the elite Missing and Exploited Children Task Force. In more than three decades tracking society's most monstrous predators, Lanning had witnessed the "worst of the worst." He understands perpetrators' basic motives and methods; he knows their mind games."

This is all from that source I gave you and you dismissed.

Find me a five year old or even an 8 year old capable of understanding and consenting to sexual relations. Find me one who is capable of understanding and meeting the obligations of a contract. Find me one responsible and capable enough to drive. Find me one that is well-informed and understands politics enough to be allowed a vote.

Then we can talk.

Find me all the 5 year olds and 8 year olds in the entire world, slap a test in front of them regarding sex, the dangers of it, and contracts, and grade each and every one of them, and find that all of them fail, for that is what you are saying, is it not?

Here are a couple of questions for every one here.

Where do you draw the line to pedophilia and just a big age difference?

Age difference has nothing to do with it. Pedophilia is defined by the sexual development of the child. A pedophile is attracted to a pre-pubescent child - one that has not yet begun to sexually mature and gain secondary sex traits.

Would you let a condemned but "cured" pedophile back into society,
if yes would you mind having him/her into your neighbourhood?

Are you talking about a pedophile or a child molestor? A pedophile who has never committed a crime need not be "let back into society" as they never would have left it. A condemned child molestor would eventually finish serving time and be let back out, probably on strict parole.

And the idea of whether or not I would mind having such a person in my neighboorhood is irrelevant. They are human beings and have just as much right to live there as I do. What I wouldn't do is leave a child alone with such a person.

Find me all the 5 year olds and 8 year olds in the entire world, slap a test in front of them regarding sex, the dangers of it, and contracts, and grade each and every one of them, and find that all of them fail, for that is what you are saying, is it not?

Considering that they haven't yet developed the neural capabilities to fully understand these things, yes, I'm fairly certain that all of them would fail.

*snip*
This is all from that source I gave you and you dismissed.

:D

We aren't going to convince each other so why not leave it at that.

Find me one who is capable of understanding and meeting the obligations of a contract. Find me one responsible and capable enough to drive.

On a farm, 50 years ago.

A farm kid would certainly understand responsibility and obligation, and probably drove both horses and tractors with considerable skill. Yes, at 8.

Find me one that is well-informed and understands politics enough to be allowed a vote.

I don't think most adults satisfy that criterion.

The point is if they had the capacity to make and informed decision to enter enter into legal contracts then there is little argument that they have the capacity to make an informed decision regarding consensual sex.

All that's saying is that the same quafilications are requied for sex as are requied for signing a contract. That doesn't say what those qualificaitons are.

The fact some children might be ready doesn't not negate the rest.
So if I can find an adult who can't meet these criteria, we should remove the rights of adults to sign contracts and conscent to sex? After all, the fact that some adults might be ready doesn't negate the rest.
Age of consent laws are meant to handled a "safe" age. Which I think is 16.
And I think 26 would be safer. After all, we want to catch all those late bloomers, right? Who gives a shit if there are people who are ready sooner? If it protects even one person from being exploited sexually, it's worth opressing hundereds of thousands of people, right?
Find me a five year old or even an 8 year old capable of understanding and consenting to sexual relations. Find me one who is capable of understanding and meeting the obligations of a contract. Find me one responsible and capable enough to drive. Find me one that is well-informed and understands politics enough to be allowed a vote.

Then we can talk.
Give me the qualifications, and then I can find you such a child. Unless of course your qualification is "must be 18 or older".

On a farm, 50 years ago.

A farm kid would certainly understand responsibility and obligation, and probably drove both horses and tractors with considerable skill. Yes, at 8.

So? I could drive a bulldozer and a tractor(my grandfather farmed), that didn't make me qualified to work a construction site or run the equipment in a gravel pit.

-edit-

Skill is also questionable. A great many children have farming accidents.....

I don't think most adults satisfy that criterion.

Doesn't negate her comment.

On a farm, 50 years ago.

A farm kid would certainly understand responsibility and obligation,

To a point, yes. But I doubt that kid would enter into a contract without first having his father look at it.

and probably drove both horses and tractors with considerable skill. Yes, at 8.

Horses and tractors. Would you put that kid on the freeway driving 70 mph?

I don't think most adults satisfy that criterion.

So remove the "well-informed". Most adults can understand the political process and what they are voting for. Whether or not they take the time to do so is really another question.


Age of consent laws are meant to handled a "safe" age. Which I think is 16.
And I think 26 would be safer. After all, we want to catch all those late bloomers, right? Who gives a shit if there are people who are ready sooner? If it protects even one person from being exploited sexually, it's worth opressing hundereds of thousands of people, right?

Do you really think that someone who has not even yet begun to sexually mature can be used sexually without being exploited?

Give me the qualifications, and then I can find you such a child. Unless of course your qualification is "must be 18 or older".

You can find me an pre-pubescent child who fully understands sex and all of its implications and who, independent of any adult asking for it, desires sex (despite not yet having the hormonal mechanisms to cause such desires)?

So? I could drive a bulldozer and a tractor(my grandfather farmed), that didn't make me qualified to work a construction site or run the equipment or a gravel pit.

I might if you grew up at one.

Doesn't negate her comment.

Sure it does. If age doesn't grant political competance, then it's an irrelevant comparison.

Sure it does. If age doesn't grant political competance, then it's an irrelevant comparison.

Of course, it is interesting that you ignored the most relevant comment - that which was actually related to sex. Afraid that you can't find a way to suggest that a five year old is capable of understanding and perfectly ready for sexual relations?

:D

We aren't going to convince each other so why not leave it at that.
Exactly, you are prepared to reject any actual evidence I give you.
So? I could drive a bulldozer and a tractor(my grandfather farmed), that didn't make me qualified to work a construction site or run the equipment or a gravel pit.

Those are skilled trades. What do they have to do with the ability to understand and sign contracts?

Doesn't negate her comment.
True, but it does suggest that this age of conscent thing should be significantly higher. Maybe in the range of 60?

Ahh societies fault again.

If you snip my arguements, how am I supposed to know which parts you're dismissing?

She just did. Go for it.

No she didn't. She said to find one that qualified, but never provided the neccisary conditions they would have to meet to pass such qualification.

To a point, yes. But I doubt that kid would enter into a contract without first having his father look at it.

Much as an adult would consult an attorney when presented with a contract he doesn't understand.

Horses and tractors. Would you put that kid on the freeway driving 70 mph?

No, because he hasn't learned that skill. But he has learned a skill of similar complexity.

So remove the "well-informed". Most adults can understand the political process and what they are voting for. Whether or not they take the time to do so is really another question.

I think we can just disagree on that one.

I might if you grew up at one.

Actually no it doesn't. Driving around an open field doesn't require much ability.


Sure it does. If age doesn't grant political competance, then it's an irrelevant comparison.

-edit-

I defer to demps reply....

Exactly, you are prepared to reject any actual evidence I give you.


:D ahh my fault again.


Those are skilled trades. What do they have to do with the ability to understand and sign contracts?

Re-read the comments.

Of course, it is interesting that you ignored the most relevant comment - that which was actually related to sex. Afraid that you can't find a way to suggest that a five year old is capable of understanding and perfectly ready for sexual relations?

I didn't have an answer for that one.

I'm not on either side, here. I just like discussions to stay entirely reasonable.

Much as an adult would consult an attorney when presented with a contract he doesn't understand.

The difference, of course, being that the adult has the neural capability to understand it, whether explained or learned on his own.

No, because he hasn't learned that skill. But he has learned a skill of similar complexity.


Do you honestly believe that riding a horse is of similar complexity or - more importantly - of similar danger to self and others as driving a car on the freeway? Or that driving a tractor in an open field is?


I didn't have an answer for that one.

I'm not on either side, here. I just like discussions to stay entirely reasonable.

It was the poster I was responding to who seems to want to grant adulthood, with all things that go along with it, to five year olds. I was simply responding. The main discussion here is, unless the thread drastically changes, pedophilia - so the question of sexual maturity and the understanding of sex and its implications is the most important one. And since, by definition, pedophilia describes an attraction to sexually immature children, it would seem that there is no way one can suggest that it can be safely acted upon.

To a point, yes. But I doubt that kid would enter into a contract without first having his father look at it.

And would you enter into a contract without at least having a lawier look at it? I don't see how this is significantly different.

Horses and tractors. Would you put that kid on the freeway driving 70 mph?

The kid passes a driver's ed course, what's the problem?

So remove the "well-informed". Most adults can understand the political process and what they are voting for. Whether or not they take the time to do so is really another question.

The same can be said for most children. I believe it was Einstein who said "If you cannot explain something to a six year old child, then you don't understand it yourself."

Do you really think that someone who has not even yet begun to sexually mature can be used sexually without being exploited?

Wow, you've really outdone yourself trying to make this out to be a one-sided, evil thing, haven't you? "Used sexually"? You can't even use simple, neutral terminology, can you?

You can find me an pre-pubescent child who fully understands sex and all of its implications and who, independent of any adult asking for it, desires sex (despite not yet having the hormonal mechanisms to cause such desires)?
You just keep moving the goal. Now the person must be silmotaneously uninformed about sex, yet desire it? After all, once the child is informed "sex feels good", that would constitute an adult asking for it and would undermine the child's independence of action, wouldn't it?

The kid passes a driver's ed course, what's the problem?

So could a 90+ year old man.

It doesn't declare him fit to drive.


You just keep moving the goal. Now the person must be silmotaneously uninformed about sex, yet desire it? After all, once the child is informed "sex feels good", that would constitute an adult asking for it and would undermine the child's independence of action, wouldn't it?

Let's hear your definition. I'd rather not have to look through 40 pages of posts to find it again......

And would you enter into a contract without at least having a lawier look at it? I don't see how this is significantly different.

Sure. I do it all the time.

The same can be said for most children. I believe it was Einstein who said "If you cannot explain something to a six year old child, then you don't understand it yourself."

Explaining something to a six year old and having them truly understand it are two different things. I can explain stem cells to a 6 year old - or at least a 13-year old (the youngest I have yet tried). However, I have to "dumb it down" to explain it to them. Thus, they can get the basics, but do not have a full understanding of the concept - and won't, without a great deal more learning ahead of them.

Wow, you've really outdone yourself trying to make this out to be a one-sided, evil thing, haven't you? "Used sexually"? You can't even use simple, neutral terminology, can you?

"Have sex with" and "use sexually" are, in this case, the exact same thing.

You just keep moving the goal. Now the person must be silmotaneously uninformed about sex, yet desire it?

I never said anything about uninformed, now did I? I think children should be informed about sex as soon as they are able to ask the questions. I said the child cannot have been propositioned for sex. In other words, they have to desire it on their own - not because an adult they want to please has asked them to do it.

The point is that a prepubescent child has not yet gone through the hormonal changes that would lead to desiring sex, no matter how much they know, clinically, about it. The only way a prepubescent child would desire sex is if someone else - someone they wish to please - has asked them to do it.

After all, once the child is informed "sex feels good", that would constitute an adult asking for it and would undermine the child's independence of action, wouldn't it?

No. Describing sex does not constitute asking for it. That is an idiotic statement - I expect better from you. My parents told me "sex feels good" from the moment I asked questions about sex.

It was the poster I was responding to who seems to want to grant adulthood, with all things that go along with it, to five year olds. I was simply responding. The main discussion here is, unless the thread drastically changes, pedophilia - so the question of sexual maturity and the understanding of sex and its implications is the most important one. And since, by definition, pedophilia describes an attraction to sexually immature children, it would seem that there is no way one can suggest that it can be safely acted upon.
I think it's deeply offensive to suggest, as many people have, that puberty somehow grants a person greater psychological maturity. The only thing that changes is physiological, reproductive capability, and a hormonal imperitive to engage in sexual acts. Mental maturity (the ability to understand the consequences of your actions) is not something magically granted at puberty.

I think it's deeply offensive to suggest, as many people have, that puberty somehow grants a person greater psychological maturity. The only thing that changes is physiological, reproductive capability, and a hormonal imperitive to engage in sexual acts. Mental maturity (the ability to understand the consequences of your actions) is not something magically granted at puberty.

No, but it does develop further at and during puberty. I find it interesting that you make such a big distinction between psychological developement and physiological development - clearly disregarding the fact that much psychological development is driven by physiological development. Considering that a prepubescent child has not yet physiologically developed the neural capabilities fully develop mental maturity, we can pretty much assume that they aren't *gasp* mentally mature.

Meanwhile, you even note that the hormonal imperative - the desire - to engage in sexual acts begins with puberty. So why would a pre-pubescent child ever express a desire to have sex? Could it be that such a child would be doing so to please a sexually mature human being who asked them to do so?

Meanwhile, you even note that the hormonal imperative - the desire - to engage in sexual acts begins with puberty. So why would a pre-pubescent child ever express a desire to have sex? Could it be that such a child would be doing so to please a sexually mature human being who asked them to do so?

Ouch!

The difference, of course, being that the adult has the neural capability to understand it, whether explained or learned on his own.

You've just defined the question such that your answer is the only available one.

Do you honestly believe that riding a horse is of similar complexity or - more importantly - of similar danger to self and others as driving a car on the freeway? Or that driving a tractor in an open field is?

I wasn't referring simply to riding a horse or driving a tractor in an open field. I was referring to detailed manipulation of large equiment (sometimes with animals attached) to do productive work. There's danger of physical harm to self and others, plus risk of significant property damage if attention is not paid. If he knocks down a fence and lets the boar out, where it proceeds to gore the milk cow and then run away, that's a big deal. That's half the farm's assets he just destroyed. The kid wouldn't be allowed to do the work if there were significant risk of that.

It was the poster I was responding to who seems to want to grant adulthood, with all things that go along with it, to five year olds. I was simply responding. The main discussion here is, unless the thread drastically changes, pedophilia - so the question of sexual maturity and the understanding of sex and its implications is the most important one. And since, by definition, pedophilia describes an attraction to sexually immature children, it would seem that there is no way one can suggest that it can be safely acted upon.

I know what the topic is; I've been weighing in throughout.

These discussions are especally prone to irrationality because one side (yours)is so emotionally wed to its position. Five Castes can't afford to be emotional. He knows that his opponents often view him as a monster, so he can't afford to project that image. As such, he's very careful and reasonable.

Your arguments by analogy can be quite effective, but arguments by analogy are also often prone to being not quite applicable. I'm really good at spotting that.

Incidentally, I don't think he does want to grant the trappings of adulthood to all five year olds. I think he wants to judge each child on its merits.

You've just defined the question such that your answer is the only available one.


So she is wrong then?


These discussions are especally prone to irrationality because one side (yours)is so emotionally wed to its position. Five Castes can't afford to be emotional.


Actually he is emotionally wed to his position as well.


Your arguments by analogy can be quite effective, but arguments by analogy are also often prone to being not quite applicable. I'm really good at spotting that.

Actually your comments tend to go from left field some times. She talks about Neural development and you bring up farming.

Incidentally, I don't think he does want to grant the trappings of adulthood to all five year olds. I think he wants to judge each child on its merits.
Ok. How do you do that?

So could a 90+ year old man.

It doesn't declare him fit to drive.

Yes it does. That's the entire point of these road tests.

Let's hear your definition. I'd rather not have to look through 40 pages of posts to find it again......
I stated that the requirements would be:
1. A demonstrable knowledge of sex, how it is done, the associated risks and dangers.
and
2. The demonstrable ability to analyse information, and use it to make decisions based on the presented information.

I also invited anyone to add to the definition if they feel I've missed something.
Sure. I do it all the time.

So then, you enter legally binding contracts, which you can scarcely read because they are not written in plain english, without reffering to an expert for translation? You're a braver man than I.

Explaining something to a six year old and having them truly understand it are two different things. I can explain stem cells to a 6 year old - or at least a 13-year old (the youngest I have yet tried). However, I have to "dumb it down" to explain it to them. Thus, they can get the basics, but do not have a full understanding of the concept - and won't, without a great deal more learning ahead of them.

I have to do the same "dumbing down" with adults, unless of course you happen to be an expert in the field of machine learning. The point is you aren't suggesting that children are ill informed. You've suggested that children are incapable of being informed.

"Have sex with" and "use sexually" are, in this case, the exact same thing.

Then kindly use the former term. By implying one sided relationships, you're prejudging the nature of such a relationship even as you ask about people meeting the conditions.

I never said anything about uninformed, now did I? I think children should be informed about sex as soon as they are able to ask the questions. I said the child cannot have been propositioned for sex. In other words, they have to desire it on their own - not because an adult they want to please has asked them to do it.

The point is that a prepubescent child has not yet gone through the hormonal changes that would lead to desiring sex, no matter how much they know, clinically, about it. The only way a prepubescent child would desire sex is if someone else - someone they wish to please - has asked them to do it.

I'm afraid that because of the degree to which children are sheltered from sexual knowledge, you're basing your assumptions on observations of a very ignorant group. Hormones aren't what makes sex feel good. Hormones are what suggests an imperitive to the lizard brain.

Now, on to providing your requested example:

In a case several years ago, a county prosecutor attempted to charge and try two boys, ages 9 and 6, for sexual assault on a 6-year-old girl [State in the Interests of C. P. & R. D., 212 NJ Super 222 (1986)]. The judge in the case ruled that there was nothing in the NJ Criminal Statutes which prevented the prosecution of the children based on their age.

source:
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume11/j11_1_2.htm

If a nine year old can be a rapist, I think we can safely assume he's capable of asking for sex.

No. Describing sex does not constitute asking for it. That is an idiotic statement - I expect better from you. My parents told me "sex feels good" from the moment I asked questions about sex.
I think I'll get over your disapointement. I honestly believed that was where you were going with this. It could be viewed as prejudicing the child, thus taking away their ability to form their own decisions. I've seen that suggested before.

Yes it does. That's the entire point of these road tests.

Actually no.

My 89 year old grand mother passed the driving test and exam.

We had to go to formally request her driving be pulled.

The rest? I will let demp have fun with you.

No, but it does develop further at and during puberty.

Much as it develops further both before and after puberty. Cognitive capacity is changing at every point in life. Why do you assume puberty is the point where this specific compotency is gained, rather than some developmental point before or after? What are the cognitive qualifications you subscribe to? I've provided my suggestion.

I find it interesting that you make such a big distinction between psychological developement and physiological development - clearly disregarding the fact that much psychological development is driven by physiological development.

Perhaps it's because mental maturity is invisible, and physical maturity can be measured on a simple scale. Perhaps it's because mental development can take place in the absence of physical changes to the body. Perhaps it's because people gain mental maturity at different rates on a far greater scale than people gain physiological maturity at different rates.

Considering that a prepubescent child has not yet physiologically developed the neural capabilities fully develop mental maturity, we can pretty much assume that they aren't *gasp* mentally mature.

In other words, "children are incompotent because they're children"?

You see, this is the kind of circular reasoning I was hoping to help you avoid when I asked for qualifications.

Meanwhile, you even note that the hormonal imperative - the desire - to engage in sexual acts begins with puberty. So why would a pre-pubescent child ever express a desire to have sex? Could it be that such a child would be doing so to please a sexually mature human being who asked them to do so?
Are you suggesting that our hormones are the only thing that control what we desire? That people have hormonal imperatives to gain money? Hormonal imperatives to own big cars? Hormonal imperatives to play board games?

While it is possible that a child might engage in sex to please an interested adult, why do you assume this to be the only possible reason they would? I can suggest curiosity as one possible alternative explaination, and I can also suggest the age old reason of "because it feels good" as another.
So she is wrong then?

Right or wrong, it was a criticism of her debating style.

Actually he is emotionally wed to his position as well.

I'm more than open to being proven wrong. The fact of the matter is that I haven't been provided with much in the way of arguements supporting your way of thinking.

Still, even if I do accept that I'm emotionally wed to my position, the fact of the matter is that I have to keep that emotion under control more than you guys do, simply because I'm arguing in a hostile environment.

Actually your comments tend to go from left field some times. She talks about Neural development and you bring up farming.

I believe the relevance has been more than demonstrated.

Ok. How do you do that?
I gave my answer. What's yours?

Right or wrong, it was a criticism of her debating style.

And it serves no purpose to the data offered. But that is debate. If you can't argue the data; attack the person on a different topic.


I'm more than open to being proven wrong. The fact of the matter is that I haven't been provided with much in the way of arguements supporting your way of thinking.

Our discussion on primates didn't give me that impression.

The fact you once offered "can you blame me for the way I am" (or to some effect) doesn't exactly suggest you could be wrong.

Still, even if I do accept that I'm emotionally wed to my position, the fact of the matter is that I have to keep that emotion under control more than you guys do, simply because I'm arguing in a hostile environment.

Show me where Demp or I for that matter have threatened you?

I believe the relevance has been more than demonstrated.
Actually no it hasn't.

I gave my answer. What's yours?

As said before. Give me an example of pedophilia in nature......

And it serves no purpose to the data offered. But that is debate. If you can't argue the data; attack the person on a different topic.

If you really believe that, then I hope you'll jump to my defence when people say "he's just trying to justify his condition" since they should be attacking my arguements rather than my assumed bias.

Will you do that?

Our discussion on primates didn't give me that impression.

I remember our discussion on primates. You told me, essentially, that the behavior of the bonobo, adult bonobos engaging in sexual activities with young bonobos who weren't yet sexually mature, didn't count as pedophelia because there weren't long term pairings of this type. I was open to being convinced. Your arugement simply failed to be convincing.

The fact you once offered "can you blame me for the way I am" (or to some effect) doesn't exactly suggest you could be wrong.

I don't think I'm wrong. If I did, I would hold different opinions, wouldn't I? I could be wrong about the capabilities of children, but all the arguements that children are incompotent are either circular, or just razzle dazzle like this supposed brain development data that "proves" children are incompotent.

Show me where Demp or I for that matter have threatened you?

Did I say you had? If so, I apologise sincerely, but I am quite certain I didn't.

Actually no it hasn't.

I'm not sure how to explain it better than post 605.

As said before. Give me an example of pedophilia in nature......
The last time I did that, you told me my example didn't count because you moved the line from adults engaging in sexaul activities with children to adults forming lasting mating bonds with children.

You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical of your likely response.

If you really believe that, then I hope you'll jump to my defence when people say "he's just trying to justify his condition" since they should be attacking my arguments rather than my assumed bias.

Will you do that?


You have already heard me say you can't have thought crime law. YOu have heard me say the rule of law comes into play for the offenders.


I remember our discussion on primates. You told me, essentially, that the behavior of the bonobo, adult bonobos engaging in sexual activities with young bonobos who weren't yet sexually mature, didn't count as pedophelia because there weren't long term pairings of this type. I was open to being convinced. Your arugement simply failed to be convincing.

Actually I told you that there hasn't be a perceived preference of an adult for the young.

There is no way to gage their sexual fantasies.

Pedophilia has been likened to homosexuality, but there are obvious cases of it.

When there is observations of certain individuals to having predilictions for the younger members, then you have something to argue.


Did I say you had? If so, I apologise sincerely, but I am quite certain I didn't.

I don't think you meant it. Just the way it read.

I'm not sure how to explain it better than post 605.
Well I called him on it as having driven a tractor and a bulldozer. His response was it might be different if I lived on the farm.

Demp has a point the fact you can work equipment in the country doesn't make you competant in any setting.


The last time I did that, you told me my example didn't count because you moved the line from adults engaging in sexaul activities with children to adults forming lasting mating bonds with children.

You'll forgive me if I'm skeptical of your likely response.

Again. It was a preference of an adult for the young.

You have already heard me say you can't have thought crime law. YOu have heard me say the rule of law comes into play for the offenders.

That isn't what I asked.

Actually I told you that there hasn't be a perceived preference of an adult for the young.

There is no way to gage their sexual fantasies.

Pedophilia has been likened to homosexuality, but there are obvious cases of it.

When there is observations of certain individuals to having predilictions for the younger members, then you have something to argue.

So you admit that you've demanded the impossible of me in terms of proof.

I don't think you meant it. Just the way it read.

I can't even imagine what part of my posts you were reading to get that impression.

Well I called him on it as having driven a tractor and a bulldozer. His response was it might be different if I lived on the farm.

Demp has a point the fact you can work equipment in the country doesn't make you competant in any setting.

Why am I even trying to explain this to you? I swear, you're as dense as Dark Shadowy Nexus sometimes. The point was that they're being trusted to behave responsibly with the farm equipment. If they can do this, it is not unreasonable to assume that they can behave responsibly with a car. The example could be further extended to the idea that given sufficient information (like with tractor driving lessons or drivers ed) they could be similarly trusted with their own bodies.

Again. It was a preference of an adult for the young.
Which you defined as a lasting mating bond as I recall.

Regardless, you continue to dismiss the fact that adult Bonobos will engage in sexual activities with imature Bonobos. This is hardly irrelavent.

That isn't what I asked.

So you admit that you've demanded the impossible of me in terms of proof.


:rolleyes: Try calming down.

How do we prove sexual fantasies in a non-human primate?

I have spelled it out for you. Let's try it once again!

If there are observations that show an adult has a preference for physical contac with the young, then you have a reasonable arguement for an example in nature.

There hasn't been an example noted as of late.


Why am I even trying to explain this to you? I swear, you're as dense as Dark Shadowy Nexus sometimes.


:rolleyes: Likening me to him. My what a gentlemen you are.

Regardless, you continue to dismiss the fact that adult Bonobos will engage in sexual activities with imature Bonobos. This is hardly irrelavent.

See you have your emotional attachment to the issue.

Read up on the Bonobo and we can talk more. If I remember I gave you an author and or a list....

Now I am done.

Fire away all you want as I won't visit this thread or topic anymore.

If you want to talk primates, then start a thread on it.

:rolleyes: Try calming down.

I'll see what I can do. I'll admit that since I've been reading DSN's posts in the other topic, I've been a tad hot under the collar.

How do we prove sexual fantasies in a non-human primate?

I have spelled it out for you. Let's try it once again!

If there are observations that show an adult has a preference for physical contac with the young, then you have a reasonable arguement for an example in nature.

There hasn't been an example noted as of late.

So, again, you're saying that them actually engaging in sexual activities with imature members of their species is irrelevant because they have more sex with adults?

I just want that publicly agknowledged.

:rolleyes: Likening me to him. My what a gentlemen you are.

Let's be clear. I'm no gentleman. I don't care (or know) if you are a woman, I'm not going to pull punches. (Just as I wouldn't if we were in a literal fight. That would be consistent with the feminist agenda, no?)

You really have been as annoying as DSN to me. It's a subjective opinion, but an honest one.

I have been overly flustered though, and I'll admit that I probably shouldn't have made that statement, not because it isn't true, but because, as I said, I have to hold myself to a higher standard if I'm to expect anyone to listen to what I have to say.

See you have your emotional attachment to the issue.

Read up on the Bonobo and we can talk more. If I remember I gave you an author and or a list....
I should think the relevance of animals engaging in sexual activities with sexually imature members of their species would be self-evident.

So she is wrong then?

No, we just don't have reason to believe that she's right.

Actually he is emotionally wed to his position as well.

But he appears less likely to let that influence his arguments.

Actually your comments tend to go from left field some times. She talks about Neural development and you bring up farming.

The farming was in response to the assertion that children were never competent to drive cars.

Ok. How do you do that?

That's a different issue. But once you agree that we should, Five Castes wins the argument.

12 is fairly low, but it's not unheard of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Ages_of_consent_in_various_countries

I know but when youre twelve you have no idea what your doing. Sixteen is the norm I think and by the time you fully grown up, you can decide what to do with your body. But that children twelve years old can play in pornographic videos and films is outragious.

[QUOTE=The Five Castes]It happens. In a 33+ page thread, things get repeated. I'll try not to hold it against you.

I think you've confused two concepts:
"Desiring, something which is wrong" and "Desiring something, which is wrong"

Of course if I'm wrong about that, and you really do support the idea of thought-crime, I simply pity your small mindedness and pray your kind never become powerful enough to fulfill your sick desires.

You know what, I'm not saying I believe in thought crime. I said that the thought to have sex with scildren is per definition wrong, and should you find yourself having these thoughts you should know and find them wrong! If you don't agree to that, why don't we go back to ancient Greek times. Where having sex with young boys was a sign of power and wealth...

Well, the age of conscent was 12 in the Netherlands some years ago, wasn't it? Isn't this just a conservative movement to return things to the way they once were?

No the age to have legally sex is and has always been 16. Otherwise why would somebody make a political party with on the agenda that the age should be 12 and that they should play in pornographic films if they so wish.

So then, you enter legally binding contracts, which you can scarcely read because they are not written in plain english, without reffering to an expert for translation? You're a braver man than I.

Who said I can scarcely read them?

Meanwhile, how many people do you know who consult a lawyer on every contract? Do you consult a lawyer every time you install software? Do you consult a lawyer every time you enter into a lease agreement? Do you consult a lawyer every time you get a credit card, cell phone, etc.? Those are all contracts - and very, very few people consult lawyers about them.

I have to do the same "dumbing down" with adults, unless of course you happen to be an expert in the field of machine learning. The point is you aren't suggesting that children are ill informed. You've suggested that children are incapable of being informed.

No, I'm not suggesting that at all. But being informed is not the same thing as understanding or being ready for a given action. I was really well-informed about sex well before I ever got my period. That isn't the same thing as understanding all implications of it or being ready for it.

Then kindly use the former term. By implying one sided relationships, you're prejudging the nature of such a relationship even as you ask about people meeting the conditions.[/qutoe]

I am talking about situations in which the conditions cannot be met. In that instance, as I pointed out, the two statements are equivalent. Your objection is like saying, "Please don't call it rape. Call it sex. Otherwise, you are prejudging the act of forced sex."

[quote]I'm afraid that because of the degree to which children are sheltered from sexual knowledge, you're basing your assumptions on observations of a very ignorant group. Hormones aren't what makes sex feel good. Hormones are what suggests an imperitive to the lizard brain.

Hormones, to a point, are what makes sex feel good. Once a child goes through puberty, their body is ready for sex. Before it is ready for sex, sex isn't going to feel good. Hell, even after puberty, if you try to have sex before your body is good and ready, it probably won't feel good.

Now, on to providing your requested example:

You haven't demonstrated that this child actually understood sex and all its implications. You have proven that a child can rape someone. Of course, rape has precious little to do with sexual attraction. It has to do with power - and harming another person. What you have demonstrated is that a child figured out a way to hurt someone, and used it.

If a nine year old can be a rapist, I think we can safely assume he's capable of asking for sex.

Sure, if we ignore the fact that rape is about power, and not about sex.

Much as it develops further both before and after puberty. Cognitive capacity is changing at every point in life. Why do you assume puberty is the point where this specific compotency is gained, rather than some developmental point before or after?[/qutoe]

I don't. I have never even come close to suggesting that having begun puberty automatically means that a person is emotionally and mentally ready for sex. But you have fun with that strawman.

I have confined my discussion to that of pre-pubescent children because we are discussing pedophilia - a disorder that is, by definition, sexual attraction to pre-pubescent - sexually immature - children.

[quote]Perhaps it's because mental maturity is invisible, and physical maturity can be measured on a simple scale. Perhaps it's because mental development can take place in the absence of physical changes to the body.[q/utoe]

Incorrect. Mental changes are signs of physiological changes. While it is perfectly possible to have physiological changes that do not involve mental ones, it is impossible to have mental changes that do not involve physiological ones.

[quote]In other words, "children are incompotent because they're children"?

No. Children are incompetent because they have not yet developed the capability to be competent.

Why are the mentally disabled declared incompetent? It is because they do not have the capability to be competent.

Are you suggesting that our hormones are the only thing that control what we desire? That people have hormonal imperatives to gain money? Hormonal imperatives to own big cars? Hormonal imperatives to play board games?

Wow, you are just full of the strawman arguments today, aren't you? After all, a specific desire that is controlled by hormonal impulses must mean that all desires are controlled by hormonal impulses, right?

::rolleyes::

Can you actually attempt to argue with what I am saying, instead of your strawman versions?

While it is possible that a child might engage in sex to please an interested adult, why do you assume this to be the only possible reason they would?

Because they have not yet developed the physical capacity that leads to a desire (or even full physical competency) in sex.


If there are observations that show an adult has a preference for physical contac with the young, then you have a reasonable arguement for an example in nature.

Actually, it couldn't even just be a preference for "the young." Older male elephants will often pair-bond and have sex with younger elephants, but those younger elephants are still sexually mature. I have yet to see any examples of animals engaging in sexual activity with sexually immature members of the species. Never heard of any adult birds attempting to copulate with chicks still in the nest, or anything of the sort.

No, we just don't have reason to believe that she's right.



But he appears less likely to let that influence his arguments.



The farming was in response to the assertion that children were never competent to drive cars.



That's a different issue. But once you agree that we should, Five Castes wins the argument.
Um, The Black Forrest stormed off a couple of posts back. Claimed she'd never read this thread again.

Still, I appreciate the support.
I know but when youre twelve you have no idea what your doing. Sixteen is the norm I think and by the time you fully grown up, you can decide what to do with your body. But that children twelve years old can play in pornographic videos and films is outragious.
Actually, the statement of opening the doors to porn stardom to 12 year olds was an error in the initial press release. Their actual platform is for allowing 16 year olds (16 being the current age of consent) to act in pornography, as it is now illegal.

As for the rest, there is a reason you don't know what you're doing at 12. You don't know because you've never been taught. Comprehensive sex education is also part of the party's platform.

You know what, I'm not saying I believe in thought crime. I said that the thought to have sex with scildren is per definition wrong, and should you find yourself having these thoughts you should know and find them wrong! If you don't agree to that, why don't we go back to ancient Greek times. Where having sex with young boys was a sign of power and wealth...

You seem to have a problem distinguishing fantasy from reality. Are you, by chance, one of those people who plays violent video games, then goes on killing sprees because of it?

The fact of the matter is that I do recognise having sex with kids would be wrong, just as you no doubt recognise that killing people is wrong. In both cases, we recognise that there isn't any harm imagining it, so long as we can draw a clear boundry between thought and action.

No the age to have legally sex is and has always been 16. Otherwise why would somebody make a political party with on the agenda that the age should be 12 and that they should play in pornographic films if they so wish.
I've corrected you on the amended statement on the initial press release, but as for the rest, I'm certain I saw an article somewhere that stated the Netherlands had an age of consent of 12 several years ago, though I'll admit it could have been as much as 20 years ago, that still means there are people now living who lived under this proposed age of consent. It isn't ancient history.

Um, The Black Forrest stormed off a couple of posts back. Claimed she'd never read this thread again.

That's okay. I'm happy with my final responses.

Who said I can scarcely read them?

Meanwhile, how many people do you know who consult a lawyer on every contract? Do you consult a lawyer every time you install software? Do you consult a lawyer every time you enter into a lease agreement? Do you consult a lawyer every time you get a credit card, cell phone, etc.? Those are all contracts - and very, very few people consult lawyers about them.

Children have installed pieces of software too, without consulting with their parents. I'm surprised you brought this one up.

Regardless, the point of this aspect of our discussion (which has somehow become side tracked) was that children have, in the past, been deemed compotent to enter into legal contracts.

No, I'm not suggesting that at all. But being informed is not the same thing as understanding or being ready for a given action. I was really well-informed about sex well before I ever got my period. That isn't the same thing as understanding all implications of it or being ready for it.

If you didn't understand all the implications, in what sense were you well-informed?

I am talking about situations in which the conditions cannot be met. In that instance, as I pointed out, the two statements are equivalent. Your objection is like saying, "Please don't call it rape. Call it sex. Otherwise, you are prejudging the act of forced sex."

You're the one who said the two terms were equivalent. I simply asked you to favor one of your two supposedly equal options.

Hormones, to a point, are what makes sex feel good. Once a child goes through puberty, their body is ready for sex. Before it is ready for sex, sex isn't going to feel good. Hell, even after puberty, if you try to have sex before your body is good and ready, it probably won't feel good.

Speaking from experience? I suspect not. I think you're defining sex too narrowly, likely only anal or vaginal penetrations, which are likely to hurt if you're dealing with too great a size difference. You seem to have ignored less intrusive acts like manual stimulation, though why you have done so, I can't imagine.

The fact that children touch themselves before the hormonal rush of puberty, suggests that they get pleasurable sensations from their genetals even in the absence of these hormones which you claim are the source of sexual pleasure. How do you reconcile this?

You haven't demonstrated that this child actually understood sex and all its implications. You have proven that a child can rape someone. Of course, rape has precious little to do with sexual attraction. It has to do with power - and harming another person. What you have demonstrated is that a child figured out a way to hurt someone, and used it.

The point, and I believe I was quite explicit about my intent, was not to use that example to prove a child could understand all the implications. The point was to prove a child could desire sexual activity even without an adult suggesting it.

Sure, if we ignore the fact that rape is about power, and not about sex.

I think you've missed the point. If he's engaging in sexual acts on his own, for whatever reason, then he's capable of wanting to engage in sexual acts. Is this really so much of a stretch?

I don't. I have never even come close to suggesting that having begun puberty automatically means that a person is emotionally and mentally ready for sex. But you have fun with that strawman.

I believe I've seen plenty of statements about how puberty is the point where children supposedly begin to develop "an adult ability to consent" or somesuch. If it wasn't you making these rather bizare statements, I apologise, but make no mistake, those statements were made.

I have confined my discussion to that of pre-pubescent children because we are discussing pedophilia - a disorder that is, by definition, sexual attraction to pre-pubescent - sexually immature - children.

Disorder, eh? I thought the point of this thread was to establish whether it was in fact a disorder, a sexual orientation, or something else.

Incorrect. Mental changes are signs of physiological changes. While it is perfectly possible to have physiological changes that do not involve mental ones, it is impossible to have mental changes that do not involve physiological ones.

By stating in such terms that the mind is wholely dependent on the body for its ability to change, you reject a sizable number of well respected schools of philosophy. While there may be some validity to your assertion if one assumes human beings are nothing more than biochemical machines, since under that theory human consiousness really can't change without a structural or chemical change in the brain, it's still a rather trivial, nit picky point.

No. Children are incompetent because they have not yet developed the capability to be competent.

I see. That makes so much more sense. :rolleyes:

You've still failed to address what exactly is required for a person to be compotent. You've said kids are incompotent, but you've failed to say why.

Why are the mentally disabled declared incompetent? It is because they do not have the capability to be competent.

And again, what defines that capability? You've spent a lot of time grouping people into who is and isn't compotent, but you haven't given me the tools I need to do this grouping myself. You must have some standard, so why not share it with the rest of the class?

Wow, you are just full of the strawman arguments today, aren't you? After all, a specific desire that is controlled by hormonal impulses must mean that all desires are controlled by hormonal impulses, right?

::rolleyes::

Can you actually attempt to argue with what I am saying, instead of your strawman versions?

Oh come on. You can't honestly believe that rubish. My point (since you apparently couldn't figure it out for yourself) was that there are reasons people desire things besides hormonal imperatives, and thus it is not inconceevable that such a reason could modivate a child to desire sex even without the hormonal imperative.

Because they have not yet developed the physical capacity that leads to a desire (or even full physical competency) in sex.

Again, you seem to think that desire can only come from hormonal imperatives. This is incorrect, as I demonstrated in the section of my post you dismissed as "straw man". If you dismissed it without reading or considering it, I encourage you to do so. It will help clarify that not every desire a human being has must stem from hormonal imperatives.

Actually, it couldn't even just be a preference for "the young." Older male elephants will often pair-bond and have sex with younger elephants, but those younger elephants are still sexually mature. I have yet to see any examples of animals engaging in sexual activity with sexually immature members of the species. Never heard of any adult birds attempting to copulate with chicks still in the nest, or anything of the sort.
Actually, with the bonobo chimpanzee, which is the animal we were discussing, the adults do engage in sexual activities with sexually imature bonobos.

Regardless, the point of this aspect of our discussion (which has somehow become side tracked) was that children have, in the past, been deemed compotent to enter into legal contracts.

And children have, in the past, been deemed competent to be legally viewed as adults. Any child can petition the court to emancipate them - and it has been done.

If you didn't understand all the implications, in what sense were you well-informed?

Well-informed does not imply full understanding. I knew what sex was. I knew what was involved. I knew people do it for various reasons. There are implications, however, that you can only understand when you are ready to make that decision.

Speaking from experience? I suspect not.

What experience exactly do you assume I don't have? I know how my own body works - and I know how it used to work.

I think you're defining sex too narrowly, likely only anal or vaginal penetrations, which are likely to hurt if you're dealing with too great a size difference. You seem to have ignored less intrusive acts like manual stimulation, though why you have done so, I can't imagine.

Even manual stimulation - for a girl anyways - can be painful if the body isn't ready for it.

The point, and I believe I was quite explicit about my intent, was not to use that example to prove a child could understand all the implications. The point was to prove a child could desire sexual activity even without an adult suggesting it.

Never mind that the child in question was found to have no understanding that what he was doing even *was* sexual. I noticed that you left that little tidbit out. The court found that there was nothing in the law to keep a child from being charged with sexual assault, and then found that the child in question was not competent to be charged with it.

I think you've missed the point. If he's engaging in sexual acts on his own, for whatever reason, then he's capable of wanting to engage in sexual acts. Is this really so much of a stretch?

You referred to it as rape. Rape is not a sexual act - it is not about sex. It is a violent act. Of course, reading further, it wasn't rape, nor was it really necessarily a sexual act. They don't give details, but there is no reason to believe that sexual pleasure was being derived.

Disorder, eh? I thought the point of this thread was to establish whether it was in fact a disorder, a sexual orientation, or something else.

Actually, the question asked was whether or not it is a sexuality like other sexualities. The obvious answer is that no, it is not.

By stating in such terms that the mind is wholely dependent on the body for its ability to change, you reject a sizable number of well respected schools of philosophy.

By stating the contrary, you ignore this thing called biology. Forgive me if I go with biology instead.

While there may be some validity to your assertion if one assumes human beings are nothing more than biochemical machines, since under that theory human consiousness really can't change without a structural or chemical change in the brain, it's still a rather trivial, nit picky point.

Not really. If mental development is dependent upon physiological development - and they are, unless biology is to be disbelieved - then your argument that mental development is going to vastly outrace physiological development can be disregarded.

You've still failed to address what exactly is required for a person to be compotent. You've said kids are incompotent, but you've failed to say why.

No, I didn't. I pointed out what is necessary for competence.

Oh come on. You can't honestly believe that rubish.

Wow, you do have a difficulty with comprehension today, don't you? Of course I don't believe it - but it was your implication. You basically said, "If sexual desire is controlled by hormones, that means all desires are controlled by hormones." All desires are not controlled by hormones - and I never suggested that they are. Sexual desires, however, are. In fact, that is the very basis of sexual orientation.

Again, you seem to think that desire can only come from hormonal imperatives.

Sexual desire? Yes, that is exactly where it comes from.

It will help clarify that not every desire a human being has must stem from hormonal imperatives.

Luckily, I never claimed that every human desire stems from hormonal imperatives - simply sexual ones.

Actually, with the bonobo chimpanzee, which is the animal we were discussing, the adults do engage in sexual activities with sexually imature bonobos.

Evidence?

And children have, in the past, been deemed competent to be legally viewed as adults. Any child can petition the court to emancipate them - and it has been done.

And yet, if they are incapable of being mentally compotent because of their age and physical development, why in the world would a court do something stupid like emancipating minors? Unless, you agree, that not all children are incapable of being mentally compotent.

Well-informed does not imply full understanding. I knew what sex was. I knew what was involved. I knew people do it for various reasons. There are implications, however, that you can only understand when you are ready to make that decision.

Pray tell, what understanding did you lack?

What experience exactly do you assume I don't have? I know how my own body works - and I know how it used to work.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the experience of having sex with someone when you were young. I could be wrong about that, of course, but assuming you didn't have this experience, I question where this knowledge of how painful it would be comes from.

Even manual stimulation - for a girl anyways - can be painful if the body isn't ready for it.

Okay, I'm not really up on what's implied with female masturbation, but it must be much more different for females than it is for males. I assumed it was possible without inserting objects. Perhaps I was wrong about that?

Never mind that the child in question was found to have no understanding that what he was doing even *was* sexual. I noticed that you left that little tidbit out. The court found that there was nothing in the law to keep a child from being charged with sexual assault, and then found that the child in question was not competent to be charged with it.

What the court found was that the child lacked the knowledge that his acts implied something sexual, yes. I'm glad you seem to have taken the time to read my source. Anyway, what that means was, as I understand it, that the child in question didn't know "this is what sex is", and engaged in some form of sexual act without the knowledge that it was a sexual act.

You referred to it as rape. Rape is not a sexual act - it is not about sex. It is a violent act.

Regardless of the underlying modivations involved, the acts neccisary to perform rape are, by definition, sexual acts. If they weren't, it wouldn't be rape, but rather simply assault.

Of course, reading further, it wasn't rape, nor was it really necessarily a sexual act. They don't give details, but there is no reason to believe that sexual pleasure was being derived.

No reason to believe it wasn't either. The point is that this child desired to perform some sexual act. Since there weren't adult levels of sex hormones involved, clearly there must have been some modivation aside from hormones which would make someone desire to perform sexual activities, no?

Actually, the question asked was whether or not it is a sexuality like other sexualities. The obvious answer is that no, it is not.

If it were so obvious, you wouldn't have so many people who selected the other option on the poll.

By stating the contrary, you ignore this thing called biology. Forgive me if I go with biology instead.

You'd be surprised what I can forgive. Ignorance is most certainly on that list. That doesn't mean I'm going to accept your claims of the biological dependence of every aspect of mental development.

Not really. If mental development is dependent upon physiological development - and they are, unless biology is to be disbelieved - then your argument that mental development is going to vastly outrace physiological development can be disregarded.

You're trying to make me say I disbelieve in biology, but I know better. Biology says no such thing about the development of the human mind. It can say a hell of a lot about the brain, but we don't understand the brain well enough to make statements about the operation of a mind given brain architecture. If it were that simple, we wouldn't need psychiatrists, but would just see a neurologist.

No, I didn't. I pointed out what is necessary for competence.

You keep saying that, but either you're lying, or I keep missing it. Please, for the sake of poor, ignorant me, would you please repeate these qualifications you've outlined. I know I should be able to find them myself, but I've looked through the entire thread and haven't found them myself.

Wow, you do have a difficulty with comprehension today, don't you? Of course I don't believe it - but it was your implication. You basically said, "If sexual desire is controlled by hormones, that means all desires are controlled by hormones." All desires are not controlled by hormones - and I never suggested that they are. Sexual desires, however, are. In fact, that is the very basis of sexual orientation.



Sexual desire? Yes, that is exactly where it comes from.

Actually, my point was that desire for something can emerge independent of hormonal imperatives. Thus, if we can desire something like a car, that is so far divorced from our biological imperatives, then it should be reasonable that, in the absence of sex hormones, there could be reasons to desire sexual activities as well. Are we both writing in english?

Luckily, I never claimed that every human desire stems from hormonal imperatives - simply sexual ones.

Actually, you contradicted that statement too. By defining rape as an act which is not based in the hormonally driven sex drive, you admit that there are reasons a person could engage wish to in sexual activities even without those hormones.

Evidence?
Of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

It isn't that hard to find this information. The arguement between me and The Black Forrest (who claimed to be a primatology expert) wasn't about the accuracy of this information, but rather its interpretation.

To repeat, sexually mature, adult bonobos engage in sexual activities with sexually imature, child bonobos.

And yet, if they are incapable of being mentally compotent because of their age and physical development, why in the world would a court do something stupid like emancipating minors? Unless, you agree, that not all children are incapable of being mentally compotent.

Wow, there goes the strawman again. "Minors" include more than prepubescent children.

Pray tell, what understanding did you lack?

I didn't understand the emotional aspects of a sexual relationship, not yet having the emotional machinery to get there. I didn't understand what it meant to be sexually attracted to someone, except on the most clinical of levels. I didn't understand all of the implications of the possibility of pregnancy, again, except on the clinical level.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the experience of having sex with someone when you were young.

Define sex.

Okay, I'm not really up on what's implied with female masturbation, but it must be much more different for females than it is for males. I assumed it was possible without inserting objects. Perhaps I was wrong about that?

Of course it is. But even manual stimulation is painful if the body is not ready. This is true even of post-pubescent women. At the risk of getting too graphic, without the proper level of arousal and lubrication, clitoral stimulation can feel like someone rubbing sandpaper there.

What the court found was that the child lacked the knowledge that his acts implied something sexual, yes. I'm glad you seem to have taken the time to read my source. Anyway, what that means was, as I understand it, that the child in question didn't know "this is what sex is", and engaged in some form of sexual act without the knowledge that it was a sexual act.

Actually, what the source said was that he engaged in genital touching, which may not have had anything to do with sexual gratification - whether he knew what that was or not. It could have been (and I have seen this type of behavior in children), something more along the lines of comparing genitals - along the lines of, "Johnny said girl peepees are really different. Can I touch yours?"

Regardless of the underlying modivations involved, the acts neccisary to perform rape are, by definition, sexual acts. If they weren't, it wouldn't be rape, but rather simply assault.

Irrelevant, as motivations is exactly what we were discussing.

No reason to believe it wasn't either.

Except, maybe, for the hairy little issue of a lack of physical sexual desire.

The point is that this child desired to perform some sexual act.

That has not been demonstrated. All we know is that the child engaged in "genital touching", which is often assumed to be a sexual act. Of course, genital touching can occur without there being anything sexual about it.

You're trying to make me say I disbelieve in biology, but I know better. Biology says no such thing about the development of the human mind. It can say a hell of a lot about the brain, but we don't understand the brain well enough to make statements about the operation of a mind given brain architecture. If it were that simple, we wouldn't need psychiatrists, but would just see a neurologist.

The mind, my dear, is a word used to describe the information stored within the brain. Of course, a change in information requires a physical change....

You keep saying that, but either you're lying, or I keep missing it. Please, for the sake of poor, ignorant me, would you please repeate these qualifications you've outlined. I know I should be able to find them myself, but I've looked through the entire thread and haven't found them myself.

At the very least, competence to make a sexual decision requires the following:

1 - The ability to fully understand the decision and its implications
2 - Sufficient knowledge with which to make the decision
3 - The ability to feel sexual attraction and to wish to act upon that attraction

Actually, my point was that desire for something can emerge independent of hormonal imperatives.

And I have never argued with that. We are talking specifically about sexual desire, which is itself a product of sexual attraction, which is itself a product of hormonal changes. The desire to eat ice cream comes from a different process.

Once again, although you ignored it before, the very basis of sexual orientation - of who a person is sexually attracted to - is hormonal.

Actually, you contradicted that statement too. By defining rape as an act which is not based in the hormonally driven sex drive, you admit that there are reasons a person could engage wish to in sexual activities even without those hormones.

I don't classify rape as a "sexual activity". It is a violent activity, based in a wish for power and violence, not in a sexual desire.

Of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

It isn't that hard to find this information. The arguement between me and The Black Forrest (who claimed to be a primatology expert) wasn't about the accuracy of this information, but rather its interpretation.

Of course, the link itself even says, "Needs citation." In other words, the person who added it did not include a citation. Without such a citation, it is about as reliable as me saying, "Bonobos have been proven to speak French."

I actually have read quite a bit about Bonobos and their sexual activities - in reliable scientific sources. I have yet to see any mention of sex with sexually immature Bonobos. That doesn't mean it isn't out there, but it does mean that it isn't often mentioned.
Even your souce does not state that sexual activities are carried out with sexually immature Bonobos. It simply says "children". Of course, that word can be defined in different ways - as evidenced by human society. And "children" does not equate to "sexually immature." 15-year olds are considered "children" in our society, but they are not sexually immature.

To repeat, sexually mature, adult bonobos engage in sexual activities with sexually imature, child bonobos.

Even your own source doesn't say that. And since your source is a wiki which anyone and everyone can alter, it would need to have a credible citation to be reliable (and even notes itself that it has none). Interestingly enough, it leaves out important details that I have read in credible sources - such as the fact that Bonobos do have more taboos on sex, including sibling sex, mother-son sex, and sometimes even cousin-sex.

Find me a five year old or even an 8 year old capable of understanding and consenting to sexual relations. Find me one who is capable of understanding and meeting the obligations of a contract. Find me one responsible and capable enough to drive. Find me one that is well-informed and understands politics enough to be allowed a vote.

Then we can talk.Honestly? The same could be said for the vast majority of 14-yr olds (which I believe is the age of sexual consent in Canada).

You can find me an pre-pubescent child who fully understands sex and all of its implications and who, independent of any adult asking for it, desires sex (despite not yet having the hormonal mechanisms to cause such desires)?
[...and later...]
Hormones, to a point, are what makes sex feel good. Once a child goes through puberty, their body is ready for sex. Before it is ready for sex, sex isn't going to feel good. Addressing only the latter part... The hormonal mechanisms of puberty aren't physiologically required for a child to enjoy sexual activity. Else 3 year old boys wouldn't lead themselves around the house by their penises and 4 year old girls wouldn't hump doorknobs. There have to be better arguments against child molestation than this.

I didn't understand the emotional aspects of a sexual relationship, not yet having the emotional machinery to get there. I didn't understand what it meant to be sexually attracted to someone, except on the most clinical of levels. I didn't understand all of the implications of the possibility of pregnancy, again, except on the clinical level.Unfortunately for the argument, the only way those things are learned is through exposure to sex and the idea of sex. You didn't just magically attain clarity on the subject when you reached some arbitrary age of consent.

[in response to Dempublicents1]On a farm, 50 years ago.

A farm kid would certainly understand responsibility and obligation, and probably drove both horses and tractors with considerable skill. Yes, at 8.On a farm, today, across the road. Including understanding the full ramifications of sex at 8. It's still not unusual for the Amish to marry their daughters off at 12 or 13.



Actually no it doesn't. Driving around an open field doesn't require much ability.Given the seriousness of the topic and the need for rational argument, you really shouldn't be talking out of your ass. [Ah and I see you've left. Ah well.] I've seen 8 year olds manage 4 and 6-horse teams with an aplomb that the vast majority of adults couldn't handle with years of practice. It is quite difficult and dangerous.

[in response to TFC's "Exactly, you are prepared to reject any actual evidence I give you.]

ahh my fault again.For that particular aspect, yes, it is. You pretend to engage in rational discussion and then waste your oppositional strength by refusing to examine proffered evidence. As you admit, you have no intention of accepting any evidence; you obviously have little intention of even examining it. You therefore argue from ignorance, which is a shame.

Of course, the link itself even says, "Needs citation." In other words, the person who added it did not include a citation. Without such a citation, it is about as reliable as me saying, "Bonobos have been proven to speak French."

I actually have read quite a bit about Bonobos and their sexual activities - in reliable scientific sources. I have yet to see any mention of sex with sexually immature Bonobos. That doesn't mean it isn't out there, but it does mean that it isn't often mentioned.
Even your souce does not state that sexual activities are carried out with sexually immature Bonobos. It simply says "children". Of course, that word can be defined in different ways - as evidenced by human society. And "children" does not equate to "sexually immature." 15-year olds are considered "children" in our society, but they are not sexually immature.

Even your own source doesn't say that. And since your source is a wiki which anyone and everyone can alter, it would need to have a credible citation to be reliable (and even notes itself that it has none). Interestingly enough, it leaves out important details that I have read in credible sources - such as the fact that Bonobos do have more taboos on sex, including sibling sex, mother-son sex, and sometimes even cousin-sex.

I had to return as somebody told me about Demps comments.

Demp you never stop amazing me! What papers have you read?

H
Given the seriousness of the topic and the need for rational argument, you really shouldn't be talking out of your ass. [Ah and I see you've left. Ah well.] I've seen 8 year olds manage 4 and 6-horse teams with an aplomb that the vast majority of adults couldn't handle with years of practice. It is quite difficult and dangerous.


*sigh* again my experience was with a tractor and a bulldozer. We didn't have 4 to 6 horse teams.

The same could be said for the vast majority of 14-yr olds (which I believe is the age of sexual consent in Canada).

That is correct. 14 in Canada.

Wow, there goes the strawman again. "Minors" include more than prepubescent children.

Interesting you should say that, since you were the one who stated that the state has emancipated "children". It seems like you're arguing for the sake of arguing considering who actually said what.

The issue here is simple, if children are not capable of being mature and intelligent, why would the state do something foolish like emancipate them? If your premis that says children aren't capable of making rational decisions is true, it would be idiotic to ever allow them to make their own decisions. Since the state does occasionally grant adult status through the process of emancipation, it would seem that this development thing either happens much earlier than you suggest it does, or it varies a lot more than you seem willing to accept.

I didn't understand the emotional aspects of a sexual relationship, not yet having the emotional machinery to get there.

Irrelevant, since the emotional aspects of sexual relationships are social constructs in the first place.

I didn't understand what it meant to be sexually attracted to someone, except on the most clinical of levels.

This is just saying you weren't sexually interested in anyone, not that you lacked the ability to deal with the implications. Next?

I didn't understand all of the implications of the possibility of pregnancy, again, except on the clinical level.

Only even relevant if you're dealing with "normal" vaginal intercourse in the first place.

Define sex.

Is that a yes? You are speaking from personal experience about how sex feels at that age?

Of course it is. But even manual stimulation is painful if the body is not ready. This is true even of post-pubescent women. At the risk of getting too graphic, without the proper level of arousal and lubrication, clitoral stimulation can feel like someone rubbing sandpaper there.

So you're suggesting that appropriate ammounts of lube would have to be used? I can live with that answer.

Actually, what the source said was that he engaged in genital touching, which may not have had anything to do with sexual gratification - whether he knew what that was or not. It could have been (and I have seen this type of behavior in children), something more along the lines of comparing genitals - along the lines of, "Johnny said girl peepees are really different. Can I touch yours?"

You still don't seem to get it. Genital touching is a sexual act, regardless of intent. Since that happened, without the intervention or suggestion of an adult, I don't see how this is not an example of a child wishing to perform a sexual act.

Irrelevant, as motivations is exactly what we were discussing.

Actually, modivations is what you're discussing. I've been discussing the desire to perform certain activities. Perhaps that's where we're miscommunicating.

Except, maybe, for the hairy little issue of a lack of physical sexual desire.

You didn't qualify your statements, so I really see no reason to qualify mine.

That has not been demonstrated. All we know is that the child engaged in "genital touching", which is often assumed to be a sexual act. Of course, genital touching can occur without there being anything sexual about it.

Since the child clearly had the desire, for whatever reason, to engage in "genital touching", I assume then that you would be similarly quick to assume there is nothing sexual involved if it did involve an adult? Let's assume, that the child's modivations and reactions, whatever they were, were exactly the same in both instances. You'd call it sexual, wouldn't you?

The mind, my dear, is a word used to describe the information stored within the brain. Of course, a change in information requires a physical change....

Like I said, nit picky.

At the very least, competence to make a sexual decision requires the following:

1 - The ability to fully understand the decision and its implications
2 - Sufficient knowledge with which to make the decision
3 - The ability to feel sexual attraction and to wish to act upon that attraction

Thank you. Let's see, yes, I can agree with 1. That makes perfect sense. 2, yes, that is also perfectly reasonable. 3? That one seems a tad contrived, don't you think? I mean after all, if the child doesn't want to have sex, the child isn't going to offer consent.

Regardless, are you going to say that there is no one under the established age of consent who meets these requirements you've been kind enough to lay out? Are you going to say that everyone above that age posesses these qualifications? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply test if someone meets these qualifications and then allow them to consent to sex if they pass? Far less arbitrary that way, don't you think?

And I have never argued with that. We are talking specifically about sexual desire, which is itself a product of sexual attraction, which is itself a product of hormonal changes. The desire to eat ice cream comes from a different process.

Once again, although you ignored it before, the very basis of sexual orientation - of who a person is sexually attracted to - is hormonal.

I wasn't aware they'd managed to prove that. Does that mean they'll be able to alter those hormone levels and alter a person's orientation? After all, if they can identify the hormone differences that control orientation, it should be a small matter of providing hormone suplements to convert a person's orientation. This therapy will help a lot of people who are unhappy with their current sexualty, and I'm surprised you would keep the details of such an important discovery under wraps.

I don't classify rape as a "sexual activity". It is a violent activity, based in a wish for power and violence, not in a sexual desire.

You're arguing modivation again. If it were merely violence without relating to anything sexual, it wouldn't be rape. Regardless of the modivations of the rapist, the rapist is performing sexual activities. I agree with you that it is not sexual desire that modivates a rapist, but you seem to think that the modivations of the rapist are the only thing that's important in deciding if the action is sexual. I completely disagree with that for reasons I've already stated.

Of course, the link itself even says, "Needs citation." In other words, the person who added it did not include a citation. Without such a citation, it is about as reliable as me saying, "Bonobos have been proven to speak French."

Would you please like to provide contradicting evidence? After all, if it's that inacurate, it should be no trouble finding contradictory evidence.

I actually have read quite a bit about Bonobos and their sexual activities - in reliable scientific sources. I have yet to see any mention of sex with sexually immature Bonobos. That doesn't mean it isn't out there, but it does mean that it isn't often mentioned.
Even your souce does not state that sexual activities are carried out with sexually immature Bonobos. It simply says "children". Of course, that word can be defined in different ways - as evidenced by human society. And "children" does not equate to "sexually immature." 15-year olds are considered "children" in our society, but they are not sexually immature.

Tell me, in dealing with animals, how are adults diferentiated from children? I somehow doubt zoologists use the human standard of 18 years. In animals, "children" actually does equate to sexually imature.

Even your own source doesn't say that. And since your source is a wiki which anyone and everyone can alter, it would need to have a credible citation to be reliable (and even notes itself that it has none). Interestingly enough, it leaves out important details that I have read in credible sources - such as the fact that Bonobos do have more taboos on sex, including sibling sex, mother-son sex, and sometimes even cousin-sex.
Actually, it doesn't leave out the presence of sexual taboos in the Bonobo. It mentions the mother-son taboo.

If you feel it would benefit from the inclusion of the other taboos, you said yourself that it's a wiki, and thus you can edit the article and make it better.

I
Tell me, in dealing with animals, how are adults diferentiated from children? I somehow doubt zoologists use the human standard of 18 years. In animals, "children" actually does equate to sexually imature.

For Bonobo development an infant is about 4 years, a juvenile is about 4-7 years, a subadult is 7-11 years. They can live up to 40 years in the wild and 50 in captivity.

A sexually mature male is 9 years and 10 for a female.

As I mentioned before sexual contact is more about maintaining the peace and de-stressing a situation: For example:

(taken from Franz's article Bonobo Sex and Society which was published in the March 1995 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, pp. 82-88)

"I once observed a young male, Kako, inadvertently blocking an older, female juvenile, Leslie, from moving along a branch. First, Leslie pushed him; Kako, who was not very confident in trees, tightened his grip, grinning nervously. Next Leslie gnawed on one of his hands, presumably to loosen his grasp. Kako uttered a sharp peep and stayed put. Then Leslie rubbed her vulva against his shoulder. This gesture calmed Kako, and he moved along the branch. It seemed that Leslie had been very close to using force but instead had reassured both herself and Kako with sexual contact."

For Bonobo development an infant is about 4 years, a juvenile is about 4-7 years, a subadult is 7-11 years. They can live up to 40 years in the wild and 50 in captivity.

A sexually mature male is 9 years and 10 for a female.

As I mentioned before sexual contact is more about maintaining the peace and de-stressing a situation: For example:

(taken from Franz's article Bonobo Sex and Society which was published in the March 1995 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, pp. 82-88)

"I once observed a young male, Kako, inadvertently blocking an older, female juvenile, Leslie, from moving along a branch. First, Leslie pushed him; Kako, who was not very confident in trees, tightened his grip, grinning nervously. Next Leslie gnawed on one of his hands, presumably to loosen his grasp. Kako uttered a sharp peep and stayed put. Then Leslie rubbed her vulva against his shoulder. This gesture calmed Kako, and he moved along the branch. It seemed that Leslie had been very close to using force but instead had reassured both herself and Kako with sexual contact."
Thanks.

So if Leslie is a juvenile, that would put her in the 4-7 range. If females in the bonobo acheave sexual maturity at the age of 10, then this is an example of sexual contact involving sexually imature bonobos. In this case, initiated by a juvenile.

Interesting you should say that, since you were the one who stated that the state has emancipated "children".

And it has. Of course, "prepubescent children" and "children" are not necessarily the same thing. We generally use the word "children" to refer to any human being from about age 1 to about age 18 as "children". All of these people are also considered minors, unless legally emancipated. However, all of these children are not prepubescent.

The issue here is simple, if children are not capable of being mature and intelligent, why would the state do something foolish like emancipate them?

At what point did I say that children are not capable of being mature and intelligent. This is, yet again, a strawman.

Irrelevant, since the emotional aspects of sexual relationships are social constructs in the first place.

Bullshit. Are you really suggesting that the emotional bonds strengthened through healthy sexual relationships are "just social constructs"? Never mind that, from a biological viewpoint, strengthening such relationship seems to be a purpose of sex.

This is just saying you weren't sexually interested in anyone, not that you lacked the ability to deal with the implications. Next?

No, it is saying that I didn't understand what it meant to be sexually attracted to someone. In addition to that, I wasn't sexually interested in anyone.

Only even relevant if you're dealing with "normal" vaginal intercourse in the first place.

Not entirely true, but beside the point really. Pregnancy is an issue related to sex.

Is that a yes? You are speaking from personal experience about how sex feels at that age?

It all depends on how you define sex. Did I experience vaginal penetration before puberty? No. Anal? No. Did I experience something that might be considered sex? Yes.

You still don't seem to get it. Genital touching is a sexual act, regardless of intent.

Really? So when my doctor touches my genitals at my yearly exam, she is doing something sexual? When I wash my own genitals, I am doing something sexual?

The idiotic presumption that any type of genital touching is inherently sexual is part of the problem here.

Actually, modivations is what you're discussing. I've been discussing the desire to perform certain activities. Perhaps that's where we're miscommunicating.

Desire and motivation cannot be divorced from one another.

Since the child clearly had the desire, for whatever reason, to engage in "genital touching", I assume then that you would be similarly quick to assume there is nothing sexual involved if it did involve an adult?

It would depend on the situation. If an adult had never touched the genitalia of the opposite sex, it might well have nothing to do with sex. If it were an adult doctor, it might well have nothing to do with sex. It is more likely to have to do with sex, because a sexually mature adult is more likely to seek sex, but there are certainly instances in which genital touching - even among adults - has nothing to do with sex.

Thank you. Let's see, yes, I can agree with 1. That makes perfect sense. 2, yes, that is also perfectly reasonable. 3? That one seems a tad contrived, don't you think? I mean after all, if the child doesn't want to have sex, the child isn't going to offer consent.

You don't know many young children, do you? If a child thinks they can please an adult - especially one they care for - they will often consent to what that adult wants, whether they want to or not. In fact, they are largely conditioned to do so, as we condition obedience at young ages - before they are old enough to fully understand the implications of their own actions and thus make their own decisions.

According to your way of thinking, I offered consent to sexual activity with an adult at age 6. I didn't say no. In fact, when asked, I performed exactly what he wanted of me. That doesn't mean that I wanted to.

Regardless, are you going to say that there is no one under the established age of consent who meets these requirements you've been kind enough to lay out?

What is it with you and your idiotic strawman arguments. Let me spell it out for you in big letters:

I AM NOT AND HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSING THE AGE OF CONSENT!!!!!!!!!

The age of consent has little to do with pedophilia and is thus off-topic. I am discussing pre-pubescent children, who are (in Western societies at least) well below the age of consent.

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply test if someone meets these qualifications and then allow them to consent to sex if they pass? Far less arbitrary that way, don't you think? [/qutoe]

Less arbitrary? Yes. Impossible to carry out? Yes. Thus, much like with most of the law, we set a reasonable line, and then allow for exceptions to petition.

Of course, like I said, I haven't been discussing the age of consent, so this is rather off-topic.

[quote]I wasn't aware they'd managed to prove that.

It is logically impossible to prove anything using science. It has, however, been supported with evidence.

Does that mean they'll be able to alter those hormone levels and alter a person's orientation?

Considering that the altered hormone levels have already altered neural development, unlikely. Now, if they kept careful control of hormone levels throughout development, right down to altering the genetic control of said hormones, then yes, they could probably end up with everyone being essentially the same sexual orientation (with slight variation).

You're arguing modivation again. If it were merely violence without relating to anything sexual, it wouldn't be rape. Regardless of the modivations of the rapist, the rapist is performing sexual activities. I agree with you that it is not sexual desire that modivates a rapist, but you seem to think that the modivations of the rapist are the only thing that's important in deciding if the action is sexual. I completely disagree with that for reasons I've already stated.

If sexual desire does not motivate a rapist, then rape is irrelevant in determinging whether or not a pre-pubescent child can desire sex. After all, "sexual desire" is necessary to "desire sex."

Would you please like to provide contradicting evidence? After all, if it's that inacurate, it should be no trouble finding contradictory evidence.

I didn't claim to have contradicting evidence. I simply pointed out that I had read no mention of anything of this sort, despite having looked into the sexual habits of Bonobos. "Bonobos don't engage in pedophilic acts," most likely would never be mentioned, while "Bonobos do engage in pedophilic acts," most likley would.

From the looks of the Black Forrest's post, there are actual scientific sources documenting "sexual" behavior in juveniles. Of course, it does not document an older Bonobo engaging in sexual behavior with a juvenile. It clearly states that the female is the older one. As such, this is much like the 9 year old and 6 year old. Are they actually doing something sexual? Or have they learned by watching adults that these acts keep fights from occurring?

Tell me, in dealing with animals, how are adults diferentiated from children?

In animals, the word "children" is almost never used. Thus, it is an impossible question to answer.

Actually, it doesn't leave out the presence of sexual taboos in the Bonobo. It mentions the mother-son taboo.

And claims that this seems to be the only taboo, despite the presence of others.

If you feel it would benefit from the inclusion of the other taboos, you said yourself that it's a wiki, and thus you can edit the article and make it better.

Unlike the people who have currently posted, I would rather be able to source my comments. That takes a little more time than a simple edit.

And it has. Of course, "prepubescent children" and "children" are not necessarily the same thing. We generally use the word "children" to refer to any human being from about age 1 to about age 18 as "children". All of these people are also considered minors, unless legally emancipated. However, all of these children are not prepubescent.

My point was that if the reason we prevent people from making their own decisions when they're below a certain age is because they are mentally incompotent and this can be proven biologically, why would anyone ever make an exception? Let's ignore this minors-children symantic side trip.

At what point did I say that children are not capable of being mature and intelligent. This is, yet again, a strawman.

You said they were incompotent because of underdeveloped brain architecture. Same difference.

Bullshit. Are you really suggesting that the emotional bonds strengthened through healthy sexual relationships are "just social constructs"? Never mind that, from a biological viewpoint, strengthening such relationship seems to be a purpose of sex.

What I'm saying is that the level of emotional attachement we attribute to sex is most certainly a social construct. Do you have "evidence" to support your claims?

No, it is saying that I didn't understand what it meant to be sexually attracted to someone. In addition to that, I wasn't sexually interested in anyone.

You didn't understand what that meant because you'd never been sexually attracted to someone. Again, are you arguing for the sake of arguing, or was there some point you wanted to get across.

Not entirely true, but beside the point really. Pregnancy is an issue related to sex.

You can get pregnant without having vaginal sex (without deliberate medical intervention)? Well, I suppose there are things that can be involved, but those are kind of anomolies aren't they? Not exactly something that is even on the radar, and while medically possible, it's about as probable as getting AIDS from a toilet seat.

It all depends on how you define sex. Did I experience vaginal penetration before puberty? No. Anal? No. Did I experience something that might be considered sex? Yes.

And I presume this is your basis for saying it's painful?

Really? So when my doctor touches my genitals at my yearly exam, she is doing something sexual? When I wash my own genitals, I am doing something sexual?

The idiotic presumption that any type of genital touching is inherently sexual is part of the problem here.

So let's see how far I can push that one. How about rythmicly sucking on a boy's penis? Is that sexual, regardless of underlying modivation? Gentle stroking of the clitoris? Must I spell out a thousand different sexual acts before you will admit that there is a sexual connotation to certain acts regardless of underlying intent?

Desire and motivation cannot be divorced from one another.

Are you being delibetately thick? I've repeatedly told you that desire for some specific activity can come from multiple sources, and that desiring a given activity is possible without hormonal imperatives. Thus, sex can potentially be desired for reasons other than hormonal imperatives. Are you getting any of this?

It would depend on the situation. If an adult had never touched the genitalia of the opposite sex, it might well have nothing to do with sex. If it were an adult doctor, it might well have nothing to do with sex. It is more likely to have to do with sex, because a sexually mature adult is more likely to seek sex, but there are certainly instances in which genital touching - even among adults - has nothing to do with sex.

You definately have a way with saying nothing at all.

You don't know many young children, do you? If a child thinks they can please an adult - especially one they care for - they will often consent to what that adult wants, whether they want to or not. In fact, they are largely conditioned to do so, as we condition obedience at young ages - before they are old enough to fully understand the implications of their own actions and thus make their own decisions.

You say yourself that this desire to please is a result of conditioning, rather than some inate property of being a child. Do you approve of this conditioning? I certainly don't. It's dangerous, and teaches a child to devalue his or her own opinions and respect authority regardless of whether the authority is doing the right thing. Conditioning like that leads to children who grow into the sheep that our general population has become.

According to your way of thinking, I offered consent to sexual activity with an adult at age 6. I didn't say no. In fact, when asked, I performed exactly what he wanted of me. That doesn't mean that I wanted to.

Let me get this straight. At the age of six, you understood what sex was, and all the possible implications of your actions. Further you were perfectly capable of basing your decisions on the avalible information. There was no use of force or cohersion that would be enough for the act to be considered rape if used against an adult.

Assuming all these conditions were met, it would seem you did.

From your reaction, I rather suspect the conditions weren't met.

What is it with you and your idiotic strawman arguments. Let me spell it out for you in big letters:

I AM NOT AND HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSING THE AGE OF CONSENT!!!!!!!!!

If you didn't want to talk about the age of consent, why have you kept replying to my statements about the age of consent?

The age of consent has little to do with pedophilia and is thus off-topic. I am discussing pre-pubescent children, who are (in Western societies at least) well below the age of consent.

Um, actually, it has quite a bit to do with it. The age of consent is the standard by which human beings are judged to be mentally compotent enough to consent to sex. Just because you take it as self-evident that children below puberty are not compotent, does not mean it isn't a valid aspect of this discussion.

Less arbitrary? Yes. Impossible to carry out? Yes. Thus, much like with most of the law, we set a reasonable line, and then allow for exceptions to petition.

Of course, like I said, I haven't been discussing the age of consent, so this is rather off-topic.

1) The age of consent offers no exceptions to petition.
2) This isn't impossible to carry out. The standards you suggested aren't untestable.

It is logically impossible to prove anything using science. It has, however, been supported with evidence.

Nice dodge. Care to actually say something of value?

Considering that the altered hormone levels have already altered neural development, unlikely. Now, if they kept careful control of hormone levels throughout development, right down to altering the genetic control of said hormones, then yes, they could probably end up with everyone being essentially the same sexual orientation (with slight variation).

Oh, so they can't cure gay, but they could develop a vaccine? I should think with the current levels of bigotry, it would be one of the highest funded vaccine research programs in history.

If sexual desire does not motivate a rapist, then rape is irrelevant in determinging whether or not a pre-pubescent child can desire sex. After all, "sexual desire" is necessary to "desire sex."

Let me get this straight. Rapists aren't defined by the fact that the kind of assault they perform is of a sexual nature? How are they defined then?

I didn't claim to have contradicting evidence. I simply pointed out that I had read no mention of anything of this sort, despite having looked into the sexual habits of Bonobos. "Bonobos don't engage in pedophilic acts," most likely would never be mentioned, while "Bonobos do engage in pedophilic acts," most likley would.

So you have no evidence to refute my source. I'm glad we cleared that up.

From the looks of the Black Forrest's post, there are actual scientific sources documenting "sexual" behavior in juveniles. Of course, it does not document an older Bonobo engaging in sexual behavior with a juvenile. It clearly states that the female is the older one. As such, this is much like the 9 year old and 6 year old. Are they actually doing something sexual? Or have they learned by watching adults that these acts keep fights from occurring?

So, you're saying that children never do sexual things without having seen parents do them? And your basis for this assumption is?

In animals, the word "children" is almost never used. Thus, it is an impossible question to answer.

You're the one who brought the definition of the word "children" into this.

And claims that this seems to be the only taboo, despite the presence of others.



Unlike the people who have currently posted, I would rather be able to source my comments. That takes a little more time than a simple edit.
So you feel that leaving the current unsourced, innacurate version up is a better choice than putting up accurate information without having a source on hand? Do you even understand how Wikipedia works?

People don't choose to be sexually attracted to children, just like nobody chooses to be attracted to their own gender. Pedophiles CAN and frequently DO choose to NOT rape children, just as most gay men don't rape other men.

There's no fundamental difference.

Once again, The Five Castes is completely pwning everyone...

Once again, The Five Castes is completely pwning everyone...

So whose puppet are you?

It is interesting to note that numerous studies have shown that children as young as three or four experience sexual curiosity and children as young as six start to experiment with other children. The children have even given eachother orgasm. Saying that they are too young might be just cultural bias.

So whose puppet are you?

My guess is The Five Castes himself. Kind of like when he first started posting and was a mysterious "friend" of Dark Shadowy Nexus. We're supposed to think it's just a coincidence that these anonymous online people have the same arguments, continue to assert that they're pedophiles, have the same style and are "friends."

It is interesting to note that numerous studies have shown that children as young as three or four experience sexual curiosity and children as young as six start to experiment with other children. The children have even given eachother orgasm. Saying that they are too young might be just cultural bias.

It's usually good to name the study or link the source.

Sorry, but I dont remember.... Feel free to disregard that bit.

My guess is The Five Castes himself. Kind of like when he first started posting and was a mysterious "friend" of Dark Shadowy Nexus. We're supposed to think it's just a coincidence that these anonymous online people have the same arguments, continue to assert that they're pedophiles, have the same style and are "friends."

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt in an argument. I only make puppet claims when I see IDs with 3 or so posts commenting the way a noob would not.

It 5C or DSN is using puppets, that would be rather pathetic.

So whose puppet are you?

Phyrexia Secundus is a puppet for Phyrexia Prime.

My guess is The Five Castes himself. Kind of like when he first started posting and was a mysterious "friend" of Dark Shadowy Nexus. We're supposed to think it's just a coincidence that these anonymous online people have the same arguments, continue to assert that they're pedophiles, have the same style and are "friends."

Okay, a few flaws in your argument:

1) We don't use the same arguments. For example, TFC has not posted once in the Suicide thread, and I'd expect that there are several threads in which he has posted and I have not.

2) I've never asserted that I was a pedophile. This is primarily due to the fact that I am not one. I prefer a partner with boobs and ass.

3) TFC and I have different styles. He keeps his cool 100% of the time, while I say things like "shut the fuck up you worthless fucking piece of shit" (see suicide thread)

4) We are not friends

5) I have no idea who Dark Shadowy Nexus is.

My guess is The Five Castes himself. Kind of like when he first started posting and was a mysterious "friend" of Dark Shadowy Nexus. We're supposed to think it's just a coincidence that these anonymous online people have the same arguments, continue to assert that they're pedophiles, have the same style and are "friends."
This isn't the first time you've accused me of being DSN. Let's review your evidence, shall we?

1) I we both identify ourselves as pedophiles.
Yea, that's plenty of evidence. It's not like there are enough pedophiles for more than one to be on the internet at a given time. :rolleyes:

2) I was apparently a "friend" of DSN.
Review my post history. Not once have I identified myself as DSN's friend. I've repeatedly stated that I dislike his style of arguementation and expressed how pissed I was that he was making me look bad. The person who identified himself as DSN's friend was a poster who signed his posts Baldur and ran the nation of South Nifelheim. In your efforts to tell yourself that we're all the same person, you've lost track of who's said what.

3) That I bring up the same points.
Gee, it couldn't possibly be that we're talking about the same topic from a similar prospective, huh?

I think you're deliberately trying to be insulting. Half the reason I joined this forum in the first place was to tell him off.
It's usually good to name the study or link the source.
While I don't have an actual study to support his claims, I think whatever study he read must've been the same one that informed this article for helping social services identify abnormal behavior:
http://ssw.unc.edu/fcrp/cspn/vol7_no2/normal.htm

So you support the prosecution of not only those who commit thought crimes, but also of those who defend them.

Glad we got that out in the open.

Hey, if the shoe fits. If you support pedophilia, you should be jailed. Nuff said.

Don't worry about him. He lacks the credibility to discuss with the adults.

Ah, so you respond with childish insults and name-calling. Certainly doesn't bode well for your point about me.

I just wanted to make sure his position was clear so we'd all know what a complete lunatic he is.

Ah, complete lunatic for supporting morality. Call me crazy, I don't support pedophilia.

The initial question struck me as remarkably straightforward. I don't see why anyone would advocate punishing people for things they haven't done.

You certainly don't have a grasp of this. I say again, I advocate punishment for those people who commit, or support pedophilia. If you are against this, I would send you to jail if I had the power so that the children out there can be safe from your kind of persons.

You didn't even read the discussion, did you? We're not really talking about child molesters.

Way to miss the age range, too, by the way. If you're going after teenagers, you're an ephebophile, not a pedophile.

And what's with the demonisation of anti-social folk?

Yeah Triarchy, how dare you call teenagers children. Llewdor says its alright with teenagers.

Ephebophile = Pedophile

Somehow I doubt that, but I'll humour you.



That's true.



That's not. You've equated pedophilia and child molestation. That's like equating homosexuality and prison rape.

Since I've refuted your antecedent, your conclusion is irrelevant.

Don't worry Terrorist Cakes, you're preaching to a person who supports pedophilia. There's no way that you can change its mind.

You certainly don't have a grasp of this. I say again, I advocate punishment for those people who commit, or support pedophilia. If you are against this, I would send you to jail if I had the power so that the children out there can be safe from your kind of persons.

Pedophilia - which is being sexually attracted to children without necessarily acting on those feelings, or pedosexuality - which is having sex with children ? Or both ?

Why do you presuppose that their impulses are to harm others? Or that they're sudden?

A pedophile could be a good neighbour who maintains his garden and never hurts anyone. They, by definition, love children. They don't want to hurt children. The groups "child molesters" and "pedophiles" probably overlap, but neither fits entirely within the other.

I'm not even sure what "sane" means. Introverts and Extroverts have demonstrable differences in brain activity, but most people accept that both groups are sane. So what counts as insanity?

You're sick. I can understand why you wouldn't know the definition of saneity.

Pedophilia - which is being sexually attracted to children without necessarily acting on those feelings, or pedosexuality - which is having sex with children ? Or both ?

Both. Its that obvious.

Both. Its that obvious.

Do you believe that pedophiles choose to be attracted to childen, or that they cannot help how they feel ?

And I'm saying it's bigoted of you to say there's something wrong with them. If they don't hurt people, you shouldn't interfere in their lives.

I'm not saying they're normal. It's quite an uncommon predeliction, so it's pretty clearly abnormal, but that doesn't mean it needs to be fixed.

Yeah, how dare you criticize those people who think about having sex with children? That's bigotry. On second thought, how dare you protect disgusting people who are indeed very sick.

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 agree. Sexuality deals with the dealings of male and female. Children are still males and females. "Child" and "adult" aren't sexualities, they're ages. Sexuality deals with attractions to genders.

Do you believe that pedophiles choose to be attracted to childen, or that they cannot help how they feel ?

Don't know.

Do you think they should receive psychiatric help for this?

Don't know.

Do you think they should receive psychiatric help for this?

I do, yes. I however do not think that it is fair to condemn someone for something beyond their control. I pity pedophiles, not hate them.
Unless of course they give in to their feelings.

I do, yes. I however do not think that it is fair to condemn someone for something beyond their control. I pity pedophiles, not hate them.
Unless of course they give in to their feelings.

It should be condemned because it can lead to acceptance. Get it? It can lead to being included as a sexual orientation (which has never been proven). I don't hate them either, I do think they are sick and perverted which proponents like yourself would never state.

I'm afraid that people like Llewdor will influence others to say that it is bigotry to criticize those people who are pedophiles.

It should be condemned because it can lead to acceptance.

Acceptance of the act ? Doubtful.
Acceptance of the existence of the "illness" ? Possibly. I do not see anything wrong with that - it may even stimulate them to seek help sooner.

Oh, BTW, none of you are going to win this argument. You've got the "moral definites" and the "morality is relative, if existing at all's" fighting against each other.

This never turns out well.

*pulls up a lawn chair and grabs the popcorn*

I'm afraid that people like Llewdor will influence others to say that it is bigotry to criticize those people who are pedophiles.

I don't see a relevant difference between this and insisting we should jail black people. Arguing for the persecution of some people for exhibiting characteristics that have no relevant impact on the world isn't different just because some of the people disgust you and some of them don't.

Acceptance of the act ? Doubtful.
Acceptance of the existence of the "illness" ? Possibly. I do not see anything wrong with that - it may even stimulate them to seek help sooner.

I doubt that there isn't a realization that this is an illness or perversion. Like I stated, it can lead to acceptance. If people defend thoughts of pedophilia, what's next? You won't be able to stimulate them to voluntarily seek help, that's a dreamworld.

Bottom line in all of this, protect our children from these people, whether it be an author such as happened in British Columbia or Clifford Olson who is currently seeking parole.

Oh, BTW, none of you are going to win this argument. You've got the "moral definites" and the "morality is relative, if existing at all's" fighting against each other.

Actually, I'm arguing that morality should be irrelevant to law enforcement. I'm making no claims regarding whether pedophiles are moral.

I don't see a relevant difference between this and insisting we should jail black people. Arguing for the persecution of some people for exhibiting characteristics that have no relevant impact on the world isn't different just because some of the people disgust you and some of them don't.

I don't care if you don't see the difference. Good people can see the difference. Go seek some help. You need it if you're comparing black people to people who are pedophiles. That's disgusting, and in a civilized society I expect better from people.

Actually, I'm arguing that morality should be irrelevant to law enforcement. I'm making no claims regarding whether pedophiles are moral.

And you're conveniently not making any claims whether they are immoral either.

Actually, I'm arguing that morality should be irrelevant to law enforcement. I'm making no claims regarding whether pedophiles are moral.

Which is a bullshit argument. The proper argument is "HOW MUCH should morality influence law enforcement." Murder is immoral, therefore illegal. Stealing is immoral, therefore illegal.

However, continue. *grabs a lemonade and continues watching*

I don't care if you don't see the difference. Good people can see the difference. Go seek some help. You need it if you're comparing black people to people who are pedophiles. That's disgusting, and in a civilized society I expect better from people.

If you can see the difference, what is it?

If you've reached this conclusion, you must know how you got there.

I doubt that there isn't a realization that this is an illness or perversion.
Oh, there is. The simple fact that most people seem to wish to stone pedophiles to death instead of helping them makes that quite clear. Which of course does not really encourage them to step forward and ask for help.

Oh, there is. The simple fact that most people seem to wish to stone pedophiles to death instead of helping them makes that quite clear. Which of course does not really encourage them to step forward and ask for help.

Unfortunately, you're right. I despise paedophilia, but we should get those who are help, not stone them. It is a curable problem.

Rehabilitation ftw.

Which is a bullshit argument. The proper argument is "HOW MUCH should morality influence law enforcement." Murder is immoral, therefore illegal. Stealing is immoral, therefore illegal.

However, continue. *grabs a lemonade and continues watching*

No, no, no.

You establish some standard of what you want to forbid. Maimed apparently wants to forbid immoral thoughts and actions. I would much rather forbid behaviour which causes harm to others (which would include child molestation).

My standard has the advantage that it's pretty easy to see what actually harms people. His standard - I frankly don't know what he considers immoral. If he could reduce his morality to some sort of universal maxim, then we could actually debate that.

As long as he's appealing to something as interpretive as morality, almost anything could end up prohibited and we'd never know why.

And you're conveniently not making any claims whether they are immoral either.

I frankly don't care one way or the other. I don't want to punish people simply for disagreeing with me.

Oh, there is. The simple fact that most people seem to wish to stone pedophiles to death instead of helping them makes that quite clear. Which of course does not really encourage them to step forward and ask for help.

Wrong! They want them taken care of, but at the same time, if they promote it or act upon it, they want them punished, which you seem to be avoiding. Responsibility is still placed on the person who is doing this. Yes, blame the illness, but don't let them run rampant. As I have said, they won't get treatment voluntarily, so how do you propose enforcing treatment?

Which is a bullshit argument. The proper argument is "HOW MUCH should morality influence law enforcement." Murder is immoral, therefore illegal. Stealing is immoral, therefore illegal.

You are not going deep enough: define *why* murder, stealing etc are immoral first. The underlying principle can then be used to derive a consistent system.

I frankly don't care one way or the other. I don't want to punish people simply for disagreeing with me.

If you don't care about the safety of children, you cannot be in the middle on this, its impossible. You've already made your decision, you have clearly stated that you don't call them immoral. Pretty pathetic.

No, no, no.

You establish some standard of what you want to forbid. Maimed apparently wants to forbid immoral thoughts and actions. I would much rather forbid behaviour which causes harm to others (which would include child molestation).

My standard has the advantage that it's pretty easy to see what actually harms people. His standard - I frankly don't know what he considers immoral. If he could reduce his morality to some sort of universal maxim, then we could actually debate that.

As long as he's appealing to something as interpretive as morality, almost anything could end up prohibited and we'd never know why.

Ah, your standard is based on actual phsyical harm. Pretty weak set of morals you have.

Wrong! They want them taken care of, but at the same time, if they promote it or act upon it, they want them punished, which you seem to be avoiding.

Eeehm - where am I avoiding that ? If they *act* upon their desire they should be punished. If they seek aid in preventing themselves to act upon their desire they deserve praise and help.

As I have said, they won't get treatment voluntarily, so how do you propose enforcing treatment?

Step one: make it possible for them to step forward without getting maimed (pun intended).

You are not going deep enough: define *why* murder, stealing etc are immoral first. The underlying principle can then be used to derive a consistent system.

And the problem arises on the other side: because they are labelled immoral, and morality is relative, who's to say a lot of people think they are NOT immoral, therefore okay to do?

You really don't define things as "immoral." You define things as "moral" and then the leftovers are immoral or questionable. Unless it's the opposite. Meh.

Eeehm - where am I avoiding that ? If they *act* upon their desire they should be punished. If they seek aid in preventing themselves to act upon their desire they deserve praise and help.



Step one: make it possible for them to step forward without getting maimed (pun intended).

I would say you not mentioning the word punishment and actually criticizing those who advocate it pretty much avoidance to me.

Where do you get this fantasy about making it possible for them to step forward?

In B.C. awhile back, a guy wrote a book which promoted pedophilia and claimed and won in court, that it is art. Do you punish this person and force him to receive help or not?

But your arguments aren't helping. Don't personally attack your opponent. Your problem arises when you begin to attack an enemy who believes morality as a whole does not exist. You can't defend against an existentialist (sp?), because EVERYTHING is relative for them.

Whoa here. I am calling someone who supports these people sick. I have said that he needs help. If calling him immoral and sick is too much for your eyes here, sorry. And yes, I do recognize that he doesn't believe morality as a whole does not exist. This tells me that he has no boundaries in his life and its a free-for-all as long as it doesn't physically harm anyone. And he calls my set of morals subjective.:confused:

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.
This is so far from an argument that you should be embarrassed.

Your poll is biased. Pedophillia is an attraction to children. That attraction may be harmful if acted upon but it is not an impulse to harm children. In fact, most pedophiles are convinced that such harm doesn't actually exist. There is no poll option that is accurate.

Meanwhile, I tend to view the value of a post by how much ridiculous hyperbole, swearing and the term, "bullshit". The unacted upon impulses of a pedophile CANNOT be compared accurately to the acted upon impulses of Hitler. While it may have disagreeable that Hitler had those impulses and, of course, it was, the reason he was so heinous was because he acted on them. Your comparison is a false one and your attempt to connect pedophillia with liberals is simply sad.

Wrong! They want them taken care of, but at the same time, if they promote it or act upon it, they want them punished, which you seem to be avoiding. Responsibility is still placed on the person who is doing this. Yes, blame the illness, but don't let them run rampant. As I have said, they won't get treatment voluntarily, so how do you propose enforcing treatment?

They won't get treatment, usually, becuase unlike other psychological issues, admitting you have this one could ruin your life if you're lucky and kill you if you're not. People who are agressive and violent toward pedophiles are a part of the problem. People need to recognize the difference between actions and urges. And if we wish to prevent urges from becoming actions then we better start focusing our anger on those that actually hurt children, not those who simply have thoughts we find distasteful. Several people in several threads have said they fantasize about murdering pedophiles. I don't equate them with murderers because thinking and acting are not equal.

Maimed, I retracted my statement. :)

They won't get treatment, usually, becuase unlike other psychological issues, admitting you have this one could ruin your life if you're lucky and kill you if you're not. People who are agressive and violent toward pedophiles are a part of the problem. People need to recognize the difference between actions and urges. And if we wish to prevent urges from becoming actions then we better start focusing our anger on those that actually hurt children, not those who simply have thoughts we find distasteful. Several people in several threads have said they fantasize about murdering pedophiles. I don't equate them with murderers because thinking and acting are not equal.


*applauds*

If someone seeks help, that person is to be applauded and helped as much as possible. Those who harm children should be put away until the bacterium in the air rots their skin away when they die.

Saying pedophilia is another sexuality is like saying the love of fat chicks is another sexuality. You cannot control the triggering of your sex drive.

I would say you not mentioning the word punishment and actually criticizing those who advocate it pretty much avoidance to me.

Where do you get this fantasy about making it possible for them to step forward?

In B.C. awhile back, a guy wrote a book which promoted pedophilia and claimed and won in court, that it is art. Do you punish this person and force him to receive help or not?

Again, you make no distinction between actions and words. The guy with the book acted. I don't know about the book because you haven't been helpful enough to link to your story, but if it contained child pornography or actually suggested people perform sex acts on children or even sexualize them, then I think it's a problem. Otherwise, people are permitted to think and believe as they like.

It's not a fantasy. What do you think would happen to a politician who admitted he was a pedophile? I suspect he wouldn't live to resign his position. What do you think would happen if you found out your neighbor was a pedophile?

You can't FORCE people to do anything when they haven't broken the law. Pedophiles are not committing a crime until they act. You fail, utterly fail, to distinguish this.

This is so far from an argument that you should be embarrassed.

Your poll is biased. Pedophillia is an attraction to children. That attraction may be harmful if acted upon but it is not an impulse to harm children. In fact, most pedophiles are convinced that such harm doesn't actually exist. There is no poll option that is accurate.

Meanwhile, I tend to view the value of a post by how much ridiculous hyperbole, swearing and the term, "bullshit". The unacted upon impulses of a pedophile CANNOT be compared accurately to the acted upon impulses of Hitler. While it may have disagreeable that Hitler had those impulses and, of course, it was, the reason he was so heinous was because he acted on them. Your comparison is a false one and your attempt to connect pedophillia with liberals is simply sad.

There are people out there as seen in the poll that think that there is nothing wrong with being attracted to children. Disgusting really. Whether they act on it or not it is still horrific. Whether they can help it or not it, same thing. It is just plain disturbing that people can believe that it is perfectly fine. If any of those people have children I would send social services to see their situation. I'd be worried.

They won't get treatment, usually, becuase unlike other psychological issues, admitting you have this one could ruin your life if you're lucky and kill you if you're not. People who are agressive and violent toward pedophiles are a part of the problem. People need to recognize the difference between actions and urges. And if we wish to prevent urges from becoming actions then we better start focusing our anger on those that actually hurt children, not those who simply have thoughts we find distasteful. Several people in several threads have said they fantasize about murdering pedophiles. I don't equate them with murderers because thinking and acting are not equal.

I understand what you and I equate are different, I believe that advocating murder is disgusting. I believe that murderers are disgusting, they are not equal in terms of what each have said or done, but they are both wrong. Now, if someone advocates pedophilia, I believe that they should be forced into rehabilitation or some other psychiatric help and held there until such time they are declared safe. If you consider this wrong, then how do you prevent someone from doing the act of pedophilia? I believe that NAMBLA should be shut down and everyone jailed and being forced into rehab. Physical harm is not right, but neither is mental abuse which can happen to parents who know someone who has declared their thoughts to someone.

Maimed, I retracted my statement. :)

If you like I can delete mine.

It should be condemned because it can lead to acceptance. Get it? It can lead to being included as a sexual orientation (which has never been proven). I don't hate them either, I do think they are sick and perverted which proponents like yourself would never state.

Perverted is a word so misused it's lost all meaning.

They have an attraction that is harmful to them and if acted upon to others. It's necessary that they get help, but condemnation discourages help, not the other way around. There is a middle ground. I don't condemn bipolar disorder, but I would very much stay away from someone who had a case of it that affected their life and didn't seek help. I also don't accept BPD in terms of thinking of it as a healthy psychological state. See the difference?

Again, you make no distinction between actions and words. The guy with the book acted. I don't know about the book because you haven't been helpful enough to link to your story, but if it contained child pornography or actually suggested people perform sex acts on children or even sexualize them, then I think it's a problem. Otherwise, people are permitted to think and believe as they like.

It's not a fantasy. What do you think would happen to a politician who admitted he was a pedophile? I suspect he wouldn't live to resign his position. What do you think would happen if you found out your neighbor was a pedophile?

You can't FORCE people to do anything when they haven't broken the law. Pedophiles are not committing a crime until they act. You fail, utterly fail, to distinguish this.

I don't have the link at the ready, sorry. The sad part of all of this is that the guy was not convicted.

Actually, what you fail to do here is to protect those children from people who have not done this but are thinking about it. You've not even addressed this one iota. It is wrong to state you would like to do something that is not only immoral but against the law.

Perverted is a word so misused it's lost all meaning.

They have an attraction that is harmful to them and if acted upon to others. It's necessary that they get help, but condemnation discourages help, not the other way around. There is a middle ground. I don't condemn bipolar disorder, but I would very much stay away from someone who had a case of it that affected their life and didn't seek help. I also don't accept BPD in terms of thinking of it as a healthy psychological state. See the difference?

Condemnation does not encourage the action whereas no condemnation allows for acceptance. This thin line can allow them to sneak through in the opinions of society. Without condemnation, you relieve their responsibility. Get my meaning?

Perversion hasn't lost its meaning in my life. I do have the ability to discern.

I understand what you and I equate are different, I believe that advocating murder is disgusting. I believe that murderers are disgusting, they are not equal in terms of what each have said or done, but they are both wrong. Now, if someone advocates pedophilia, I believe that they should be forced into rehabilitation or some other psychiatric help and held there until such time they are declared safe.

You can't force one side of a discussion into hiding and then think you're doing some good. See, you're the problem. Because many people would never declare them safe. And pedophiles don't come forward because thinking like yours puts their entire life in danger of severe disruption.

I suspect you know a few pedophiles. You're likely related to one. Probably one or more of the people here claiming to be so upset are pedophiles. Pedophillia is more common than almost anyone would like. Most never act on their urges. Ever.

Your instant declaration that they are dangerous shows and serious and dangerous misunderstanding of the disorder. You cannot deny rights to people because you don't like what they think. Accordingly, you can be as prejudiced as you like or as sexist as you like (universal you here) and you won't be placed in rehabilitation to be fixed and I would argue that such thoughts are equally potentially harmful. You're playing the thought police and you don't have that right.


If you consider this wrong, then how do you prevent someone from doing the act of pedophilia? I believe that NAMBLA should be shut down and everyone jailed and being forced into rehab. Physical harm is not right, but neither is mental abuse which can happen to parents who know someone who has declared their thoughts to someone.
Pardon? Your inability to understand the difference between urges and actions is not mine. If you have the urge to enslave black people. Not illegal. If you enslave black people, illegal. It's really very simple. How do I make the act of striking someone illegal and not forcibly rehabilitate people who have the urge to strike someone or even suggest they'd like to see someone punched in the mouth? Easy. You realize that becoming thought police is a sick fantasy. We have an obligation to prevent actions, not thoughts. And your suggested activities would do more harm than good as they would encourage pedophiles to never admit their urges.

I don't have the link at the ready, sorry. The sad part of all of this is that the guy was not convicted.

Actually, what you fail to do here is to protect those children from people who have not done this but are thinking about it. You've not even addressed this one iota. It is wrong to state you would like to do something that is not only immoral but against the law.

Just thinking about something isn't a crime. As much as it may be desirable to do something about it we simply can't as it would be a slippery slope to other kinds of thought crime. As soon as the person sticks a toe over the line then the full weight of the law should be brought to put the person under the jail.

Perversion hasn't lost its meaning in my life. I do have the ability to discern.

All post evidence would suggest otherwise. I would call the idea of being the thought police a perversion. Don't worry, though, because I have no wish to force you into rehabilitation. I'll just strongly suggest you change your beliefs.

Condemnation does not encourage the action whereas no condemnation allows for acceptance. This thin line can allow them to sneak through in the opinions of society. Without condemnation, you relieve their responsibility. Get my meaning?

There is not only condemnation and acceptance, friend. Your black and white mentality is dangerous and precisely the problem.

i tihnk it kinda matters
i mean on the poll i voted against pedophilia but i mean i g ueuss it could be ok i mean the only problem with is many kids could get abused and forced into situations..i mean i just dont think its right.:confused:

No, no, no.

You establish some standard of what you want to forbid. Maimed apparently wants to forbid immoral thoughts and actions. I would much rather forbid behaviour which causes harm to others (which would include child molestation).

My standard has the advantage that it's pretty easy to see what actually harms people. His standard - I frankly don't know what he considers immoral. If he could reduce his morality to some sort of universal maxim, then we could actually debate that.

As long as he's appealing to something as interpretive as morality, almost anything could end up prohibited and we'd never know why.

Exactly. According to my morality people who wanted to be thought police would be high up on the list, along with racists, pedophiles, sexists, xenophobes, Pure Metal, etc. Of course, I recognize what a dangerous path a black and white "they either agree with us or we'll rehabilitate them" mentality is. When you can be forcibly rehabilitated for your thoughts where does that end?

Just thinking about something isn't a crime. As much as it may be desirable to do something about it we simply can't as it would be a slippery slope to other kinds of thought crime. As soon as the person sticks a toe over the line then the full weight of the law should be brought to put the person under the jail.

It is one thing to have a flash thought of committing a crime and coming right out and saying that you really want to, have strong desire to, and then work as hard as you can to make it legal so you don't get in trouble when you act on it.

Replying to the post that started all this:


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!).

[...]

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?

wtf? brush up on your English - you're not making sense.

"bisexuality" means having two sexual orientations. It's commonly understood as meaning being attracted to both men and women, but could also be used to refer to an attraction to both women and girls, or men and boys. Regardless of the semantics, the concept is the same - we know that it is quite possible to be attracted to more than one group.

As for the second part - where does that have anything to do with anything? This is obviously a rather cluttered and disorganized mind that Trostia has.


Baldur

"bisexuality" means having two sexual orientations.

No, it doesn't. It means that a person's sexual orientation is to be attracted to members of both sexes. They do not have two separate orientations.

(Not that this means that one cannot be homo-, hetero-, or bisexual in an adult sense and also be a pedophile.)

You can't force one side of a discussion into hiding and then think you're doing some good. See, you're the problem. Because many people would never declare them safe. And pedophiles don't come forward because thinking like yours puts their entire life in danger of severe disruption.

Whether many people would declare them safe is not part of this discussion. It really has no place as you're putting the pedophile as the victim here. Please, don't insult me.

I suspect you know a few pedophiles. You're likely related to one. Probably one or more of the people here claiming to be so upset are pedophiles. Pedophillia is more common than almost anyone would like. Most never act on their urges. Ever.

Well, since you've mentioned it, you would be wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble. Funny though. I think its similar to the claim that people say if you strongly object to homosexuality you must want to be a homosexual. Wonder if its the same way when someone objects to Christians in the same manner? Hmmm.

Your instant declaration that they are dangerous shows and serious and dangerous misunderstanding of the disorder. You cannot deny rights to people because you don't like what they think. Accordingly, you can be as prejudiced as you like or as sexist as you like (universal you here) and you won't be placed in rehabilitation to be fixed and I would argue that such thoughts are equally potentially harmful. You're playing the thought police and you don't have that right.

You clearly don't understand what I am saying here. I am saying that it is dangerous because there is a potential of serious harm to children, if that isn't dangerous, I don't know what is. Last time I checked, sexism isn't a crime, its not nice or right but its nowhere near the same thing as this issue. You're going the wrong way in your reply here. You're calling something that is extremely dangerous in thinking just plain ordinary thoughts.



Pardon? Your inability to understand the difference between urges and actions is not mine. If you have the urge to enslave black people. Not illegal. If you enslave black people, illegal. It's really very simple. How do I make the act of striking someone illegal and not forcibly rehabilitate people who have the urge to strike someone or even suggest they'd like to see someone punched in the mouth? Easy. You realize that becoming thought police is a sick fantasy. We have an obligation to prevent actions, not thoughts. And your suggested activities would do more harm than good as they would encourage pedophiles to never admit their urges.

You prevent psyicality by stopping the mere assertions of threats. Just like a death threat, that is criminal, yet you would consider this thought policing.

Have you heard of Ernst Zundel? Should answer all of this pretty easily.

I doubt that there isn't a realization that this is an illness or perversion. Like I stated, it can lead to acceptance. If people defend thoughts of pedophilia, what's next? You won't be able to stimulate them to voluntarily seek help, that's a dreamworld.

Bottom line in all of this, protect our children from these people, whether it be an author such as happened in British Columbia or Clifford Olson who is currently seeking parole.

Again, you fail to distinguish between people who have conducted dangerous actions and people who just have thoughts that are dangerous. If you condemn pedophiles to forced ANYTHING, you will absolute encourage them to continue to hide in the dark places in the world, which is the opposite of constructive. Again, people who wish to punish people for having distasteful thoughts are the reason more pedophiles do not seek help. I blame people like you as much as people like my abuser becuase your view of the world is the reason why the teenaged girl who abused me didn't get help sooner. Her parents were too ashamed and too afraid of what people like you would do to their daughter so they tried to hide it and it resulted in their daughter abusing me and later abusing another. They were wrong, but there actions were encouraged by their fear of people like you.

Replying to the post that started all this:



wtf? brush up on your English - you're not making sense.

"bisexuality" means having two sexual orientations. It's commonly understood as meaning being attracted to both men and women, but could also be used to refer to an attraction to both women and girls, or men and boys. Regardless of the semantics, the concept is the same - we know that it is quite possible to be attracted to more than one group.

As for the second part - where does that have anything to do with anything? This is obviously a rather cluttered and disorganized mind that Trostia has.


Baldur

Not necessarily. Homosexuality is attraction to the same sex of one's peer group. Pedophilia is when adults go after children. Bisexuality is homosexuality and heterosexuality rolled into one. Trostia isn't as crazy as you think.

"bisexuality" means having two sexual orientations.

Not according to my English dictionary.


It's commonly understood as meaning being attracted to both men and women, but could also be used to refer to an attraction to both women and girls, or men and boys.

Not according to my English dictionary.


Regardless of the semantics, the concept is the same - we know that it is quite possible to be attracted to more than one group.

I strongly suggest you not tell other people to "brush up on their English" until after you've looked up the term in question.

Bisexuality can mean "of or relating two both of the sexes." "Bisexual" can refer to something which is hermaphroditic. The most common use that we've probable come into contact with is the use of "bisexual" as refering to having a sexual orientation to persons of either sex.

Bisexual does NOT refer to having "two sexual orientations." It also does not include attraction to children, any more than heterosexuality or homosexuality do.

I understand what you and I equate are different, I believe that advocating murder is disgusting. I believe that murderers are disgusting, they are not equal in terms of what each have said or done, but they are both wrong. Now, if someone advocates pedophilia, I believe that they should be forced into rehabilitation or some other psychiatric help and held there until such time they are declared safe. If you consider this wrong, then how do you prevent someone from doing the act of pedophilia? I believe that NAMBLA should be shut down and everyone jailed and being forced into rehab. Physical harm is not right, but neither is mental abuse which can happen to parents who know someone who has declared their thoughts to someone.

So, how do you feel about advocating torture versus actually torturing someone yourself?

Are you less culpable because you hire someone to do your torturing for you? Or more culpable, because you drag other people into your sickness?

I speak of torture, because that is exactly what those "treatment" sessions are, according to everyone I know who has been through them.

And incidentally, you can't cure the healthy.


Baldur

Again, you fail to distinguish between people who have conducted dangerous actions and people who just have thoughts that are dangerous. If you condemn pedophiles to forced ANYTHING, you will absolute encourage them to continue to hide in the dark places in the world, which is the opposite of constructive. Again, people who wish to punish people for having distasteful thoughts are the reason more pedophiles do not seek help. I blame people like you as much as people like my abuser becuase your view of the world is the reason why the teenaged girl who abused me didn't get help sooner. Her parents were too ashamed and too afraid of what people like you would do to their daughter so they tried to hide it and it resulted in their daughter abusing me and later abusing another. They were wrong, but there actions were encouraged by their fear of people like you.

You were abused as a child? I'm so very sorry to hear that. It really makes my heart ache to hear of these things happening to others.

I agree with what you are saying, some. I too believe that those who have not yet acted on their impulses are still rehabilitable.

Just thinking about something isn't a crime. As much as it may be desirable to do something about it we simply can't as it would be a slippery slope to other kinds of thought crime. As soon as the person sticks a toe over the line then the full weight of the law should be brought to put the person under the jail.

You see, declaring your thoughts is how one finds out what someone intends to do. You know like when someone utters a threat. Same thing.

All post evidence would suggest otherwise. I would call the idea of being the thought police a perversion. Don't worry, though, because I have no wish to force you into rehabilitation. I'll just strongly suggest you change your beliefs.

I guess your moral boundaries do not set out to protect society from people who may or may not commit these disgusting, perverted actions. I guess that's the difference from being reactive and proactive.

You see, declaring your thoughts is how one finds out what someone intends to do. You know like when someone utters a threat. Same thing.
Right. And, you'll note, we do not charge somebody with murder if they simply say, "I'm gonna kill you." Having the thought, or expressing the thought, are not in any way viewed as equivalent to acting upon the thought.

So, how do you feel about advocating torture versus actually torturing someone yourself?

Are you less culpable because you hire someone to do your torturing for you? Or more culpable, because you drag other people into your sickness?

I speak of torture, because that is exactly what those "treatment" sessions are, according to everyone I know who has been through them.

And incidentally, you can't cure the healthy.


Baldur

I don't think anyone here is actually advocating torture. And since when do we start believing what pedophiles say. Of course they're going to say that "being told I'm sick and wrong and need to change" is torture. Those of us advocating giving them help before they do something aren't sick. People like you and your perverted friends are sick. There is nothing "healthy" about pedophilia.

I guess your moral boundaries do not set out to protect society from people who may or may not commit these disgusting, perverted actions. I guess that's the difference from being reactive and proactive.
Look, I understand where you are coming from, but this post of yours is just flat out dishonest.

Joc is very clearly proposing a system of dealing with pedophiles, one that is specifically aimed at reducing the number of victims and (one day, hopefully) figuring out how to prevent anybody from victimizing children. You may not LIKE his ideas, but to claim that he is not interested in protecting child abuse victims is simply and obviously dishonest of you. Don't go there.

Right. And, you'll note, we do not charge somebody with murder if they simply say, "I'm gonna kill you." Having the thought, or expressing the thought, are not in any way viewed as equivalent to acting upon the thought.

It depends on the context.

If someone says, "I'm going to kill you" and I see they have the means to do so, and it is clear to me and others around me that they are indeed serious (i.e, they are moving towards me to carry it out), it is a threat. If they have the means to do so in their hands, it is legal under Virginia law for me to shoot them.

Posting pedo stories on a website may be legal. But a pedophile having a discussion of pedophile fantasies with a minor is criminal.

There is not only condemnation and acceptance, friend. Your black and white mentality is dangerous and precisely the problem.

So, you're accusing me of having morals then? I'll repeat, if you condemn the thoughts, you stop the actions.

I guess your moral boundaries do not set out to protect society from people who may or may not commit these disgusting, perverted actions. I guess that's the difference from being reactive and proactive.

Jocabia has a very good point Maimed. The same reasons Jocobia doesn't advocate our becoming "thought police" is the same reason I oppose hate crimes legislation. It does not punish the criminal for the act, but for the thought behind the act. Thought should not be legally punishable. Neither of us want to have pedophile have free range either. We'd rather fix them before they do something, that's all.

Well, since you've mentioned it, you would be wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble. Funny though. I think its similar to the claim that people say if you strongly object to homosexuality you must want to be a homosexual. Wonder if its the same way when someone objects to Christians in the same manner? Hmmm.

My dear, he didn't say that you are, or that you want to be, a pedophile. He simply pointed out that you most likely know at least one pedophile who has never told you he/she is, in fact, a pedophile.

And what does the Christian comment have to do with the price of eggs in China? (Keep in mind that Jocabia is, in fact, a Christian).

You clearly don't understand what I am saying here. I am saying that it is dangerous because there is a potential of serious harm to children, if that isn't dangerous, I don't know what is.

Actions cause harm. Thoughts can only harm the thinker. You cannot criminalize thoughts, or you would have to throw most people in jail. After all, most people have thought about harming another. Most people, however, can control themselves and not act on it. Many pedophiles do the same - think about it, but do not act upon it.

You prevent psyicality by stopping the mere assertions of threats. Just like a death threat, that is criminal, yet you would consider this thought policing.

A death threat is an action. Thought policing would be trying to put someone in jail for the mere thought of killing someone. And yet, you won't find many human beings who haven't at least thought about killing someone....

You see, declaring your thoughts is how one finds out what someone intends to do. You know like when someone utters a threat. Same thing.

It is perfectly possible to think about something without ever intending to do it. For instance, I once had a big crush on my best friend. I thought about what it might be like to make out with him. I never, however, had any actual intention of doing so.

Whether many people would declare them safe is not part of this discussion. It really has no place as you're putting the pedophile as the victim here. Please, don't insult me.

You're trying to victimize them. You wish to steal their liberty because you don't like their thoughts. They have not at the time when they have not acted violated anyone's rights and they are not, in fact, much more likely to violate anyone's rights than you are. I am not willing to violate their rights. You are. That IS victimizing them. Until they violate someone's rights, become a credible threat or seek help then I am in no place to do anything.


Well, since you've mentioned it, you would be wrong. Sorry to burst your bubble. Funny though. I think its similar to the claim that people say if you strongly object to homosexuality you must want to be a homosexual. Wonder if its the same way when someone objects to Christians in the same manner? Hmmm.

Again, pardon? You know everyone here and can vouch that none of them are homosexuals? I didn't say all. I said there is a likelihood. Many people object strongly to certain qualities out of self-hatred. I've never seen more hateful jokes about obesity than I have out of the mouth of a select few obese people. You deny that self-hatred exists. I don't. And, yes, I would say that SOME of the people who are so hateful towards Christians, do so because they fear they are correct.


You clearly don't understand what I am saying here. I am saying that it is dangerous because there is a potential of serious harm to children, if that isn't dangerous, I don't know what is. Last time I checked, sexism isn't a crime, its not nice or right but its nowhere near the same thing as this issue. You're going the wrong way in your reply here. You're calling something that is extremely dangerous in thinking just plain ordinary thoughts.

We cannot take peoples' rights away based on potential or you'd be the next person in jail. You are openly advocating the violation of peoples' rights, something, that according to you, should land you in forced rehabilitation.

I'm not misunderstanding you. I just think you're woefully and dangerously wrong.

Pedophillia is not a crime either. Now, acting on it, taking away the rights of others, is.

I'm not calling anything ordinary thoughts. I'm suggesting they should get help and I'm suggesting that people like you are the reason more of them don't seek help.

By the way, you're insinuation evidences your ignorance. It's not a bunch of atheists promoting pedophillia. I'm a Christian that strongly believes in human rights and "do unto others". I'm weird like that.


Have you heard of Ernst Zundel? Should answer all of this pretty easily.

Yes, and I think he has more in common with you than with most pedophiles, mainly because he advocates violating the rights of others, just like you do. Most pedophiles don't ever consider acting on their urges. Meanwhile, I suspect if we gave you sole decision on a law, you would change it today. Who's more dangerous?

Again, you fail to distinguish between people who have conducted dangerous actions and people who just have thoughts that are dangerous. If you condemn pedophiles to forced ANYTHING, you will absolute encourage them to continue to hide in the dark places in the world, which is the opposite of constructive. Again, people who wish to punish people for having distasteful thoughts are the reason more pedophiles do not seek help. I blame people like you as much as people like my abuser becuase your view of the world is the reason why the teenaged girl who abused me didn't get help sooner. Her parents were too ashamed and too afraid of what people like you would do to their daughter so they tried to hide it and it resulted in their daughter abusing me and later abusing another. They were wrong, but there actions were encouraged by their fear of people like you.

Hmmm, you're saying that putting these people to shame is a bad thing then. We just disagree on this. I will not be silent if someone was to declare themselves attracted to children. I won't be hateful or violent so please don't link me with those who have declared violence against them.

Don't know where you get comparing me to an abuser, that's pretty sick of you and I think I will terminate our conversation on this note. Bye.

Bisexuality can mean "of or relating two both of the sexes." "Bisexual" can refer to something which is hermaphroditic. The most common use that we've probable come into contact with is the use of "bisexual" as refering to having a sexual orientation to persons of either sex.

Bisexual does NOT refer to having "two sexual orientations." It also does not include attraction to children, any more than heterosexuality or homosexuality do.

Dictionaries are not always up to date. In common usage, bisexuality (literally "two sexualities") has the meaning I gave.

In any case, I was just being charitable, suggesting that Trostia may be having trouble with a foreign language, rather than just being a nitwit.


Baldur

It depends on the context.

If someone says, "I'm going to kill you" and I see they have the means to do so, and it is clear to me and others around me that they are indeed serious (i.e, they are moving towards me to carry it out), it is a threat. If they have the means to do so in their hands, it is legal under Virginia law for me to shoot them.

Posting pedo stories on a website may be legal. But a pedophile having a discussion of pedophile fantasies with a minor is criminal.
Absolutely. I'm certainly not arguing that such behaviors should be ignored. I was simply pointing out that it is not appropriate to view thoughts, or even threats, as equivalent to the physical realization of the thought.

You see, declaring your thoughts is how one finds out what someone intends to do. You know like when someone utters a threat. Same thing.

Like threatening to take away the rights of law-abiding individuals. Threatening someone is illegal if it is remotely likely that you intended to act upon or were considering it. Saying "I am attracted to children" is hardly a threat. Saying "if you are attracted to children I will incarcerate you though you've committed no crime" certainly is a threat. You really need to look in the mirror.

Hmmm, you're saying that putting these people to shame is a bad thing then. We just disagree on this. I will not be silent if someone was to declare themselves attracted to children. I won't be hateful or violent so please don't link me with those who have declared violence against them.

Don't know where you get comparing me to an abuser, that's pretty sick of you and I think I will terminate our conversation on this note. Bye.

Sorry to see you go so soon. We actually DID have a pedophile or two towards the beginning of this thread. He drove me bonkers... I had a severe headache after fighting with him and his cohorts.

Dictionaries are not always up to date. In common usage, bisexuality (literally "two sexualities") has the meaning I gave.

No, it really doesn't. In fact, I've never encountered a single other human being who gave that definition, and I've been bisexual my entire life.

At any rate, it would still make you 100% wrong in criticizing somebody else's English for using the correct, dictionary-approved definition of a term. Even if there are shades of meaning that are used in colloquial speech, that does not in any way mean that somebody is using "bad English" if they use the word as it is defined.


In any case, I was just being charitable, suggesting that Trostia may be having trouble with a foreign language, rather than just being a nitwit.

You weren't being charitable, you were showing your arse because you were pissed off. That's no big thing, just be willing to accept when you've made a mistake and learn from the experience.

Dictionaries are not always up to date. In common usage, bisexuality (literally "two sexualities") has the meaning I gave.

In any case, I was just being charitable, suggesting that Trostia may be having trouble with a foreign language, rather than just being a nitwit.


Baldur

No, it doesn't. Dictionaries represent common usage. Common usage represents the meaning she gave. Your weak attempt to change the word to include pedophillia is ridiculous.

Absolutely. I'm certainly not arguing that such behaviors should be ignored. I was simply pointing out that it is not appropriate to view thoughts, or even threats, as equivalent to the physical realization of the thought.

No it's not. You're very right about that. But being a pedophile is warrant enough to be cautious and wary. And it's better not leave thing up to chance, waiting for them to actually DO something (heaven forbid). Upon discovery of their problem, it is our obligation to them and our children to see that they get help before they hurt a child. There is nothing wrong with that.

Like threatening to take away the rights of law-abiding individuals. Threatening someone is illegal if it is remotely likely that you intended to act upon or were considering it. Saying "I am attracted to children" is hardly a threat. Saying "if you are attracted to children I will incarcerate you though you've committed no crime" certainly is a threat. You really need to look in the mirror.

I hardly view the last one as a threat, because if the object of the threat has done nothing illegal, nothing will come of the action.

Threats have to be feasible.

Saying, "the neighbors and I will form a lynch mob and take care of the pedophile up the street" is certainly a threat, and is feasible. Somehow I doubt the "incarcertion" one could be considered a threat.

I guess your moral boundaries do not set out to protect society from people who may or may not commit these disgusting, perverted actions. I guess that's the difference from being reactive and proactive.

You're walking a thin line here, maim. Jocabia absolutely does seek to protect people from child molestors, especially considering his past experiences. I do as well.

That does not, however, mean that we should start throwing people in jail for what they think about. It means that we should encourage those who need it to seek help. Of course, your tactics would lead those people to hide, rather than seeking help. Thus, your ideas encourage child molestation.

So, you're accusing me of having morals then? I'll repeat, if you condemn the thoughts, you stop the actions.

How does that work?

Don't know where you get comparing me to an abuser, that's pretty sick of you and I think I will terminate our conversation on this note. Bye.

At what point did he compare you to an abuser? Oh, wait, he didn't. He compared you to the people who hid their daughter's problems instead of encouraging her to seek help for them - those who condemned her rather than helping her, which simply led to her abusing more children.

My dear, he didn't say that you are, or that you want to be, a pedophile. He simply pointed out that you most likely know at least one pedophile who has never told you he/she is, in fact, a pedophile.

And what does the Christian comment have to do with the price of eggs in China? (Keep in mind that Jocabia is, in fact, a Christian).

Its an example. Simple.



Actions cause harm. Thoughts can only harm the thinker. You cannot criminalize thoughts, or you would have to throw most people in jail. After all, most people have thought about harming another. Most people, however, can control themselves and not act on it. Many pedophiles do the same - think about it, but do not act upon it.

What do you do with someone who utters death threats? Think about it before getting back to me. A thought can only be known to the thinker, you're missing the point here.(not surprising) I am saying that if a person declares that they are attracted to children, that they need to be helped ASAP. Right now, we cannot force them to treatment, I would change that. Wouldn't you?

A death threat is an action. Thought policing would be trying to put someone in jail for the mere thought of killing someone. And yet, you won't find many human beings who haven't at least thought about killing someone....

Ah, the argument accusing everyone of the same failings. Sorry, won't work with me. Believe it or not, not everyone is like that. Have an openmind here.

It is perfectly possible to think about something without ever intending to do it. For instance, I once had a big crush on my best friend. I thought about what it might be like to make out with him. I never, however, had any actual intention of doing so.

Yes it is possible, but what do you do when someone has stated they are thinking about something and then do it and you could have prevented that tragedy? I'm not talking about jailing the person for expressing it, I'm talking about rehab here. Not sure if you've taken the time to read that in my previous posts.

I don't think anyone here is actually advocating torture. And since when do we start believing what pedophiles say. Of course they're going to say that "being told I'm sick and wrong and need to change" is torture. Those of us advocating giving them help before they do something aren't sick. People like you and your perverted friends are sick. There is nothing "healthy" about pedophilia.

Um, there's a bit more to psychiatric torture than being told you need to change.

Mind altering drugs, being forced to perform humiliating acts, and forcible restraint of persons who have not harmed anyone are just part of the "treatment" regime.

And what is so unhealthy about loving children? Pedophilia is just the human equivalent to alloparenting in other species. That our society would attempt to prevent that, and somehow equate love for children with rape, is what is truly sick.


Baldur

Sorry to see you go so soon. We actually DID have a pedophile or two towards the beginning of this thread. He drove me bonkers... I had a severe headache after fighting with him and his cohorts.

Thanks Niaman, God bless.

No it's not. You're very right about that. But being a pedophile is warrant enough to be cautious and wary. And it's better not leave thing up to chance, waiting for them to actually DO something (heaven forbid). Upon discovery of their problem, it is our obligation to them and our children to see that they get help before they hurt a child. There is nothing wrong with that.
Hey, I'm with you on this. I'm not especially fond of sexual predators, whether they are going after children or after adults, and I'm all about preventing them from ever getting the chance to act on their inclinations.

With that said, however, I think it is reckless and counterproductive to simply demand that all persons who express remotely pedophilic desires be shot on sight. As Joc pointed out, I think the main result of such practices would be to make it much harder to identify pedophiles and prevent them from offending. I DO believe in harsh (some might even say "vicious") justice for sex offenders, but I also believe that it is MORE important to prevent future attacks than to get revenge for past ones...if I am forced to choose between the two, I would always choose to spare a future victim instead of revenging on behalf of a past one.

Hmmm, you're saying that putting these people to shame is a bad thing then. We just disagree on this. I will not be silent if someone was to declare themselves attracted to children. I won't be hateful or violent so please don't link me with those who have declared violence against them.

I didn't link you. I linked you to those who would violate the rights of others becuase you have openly said that you would like to do so.

You don't have to be silent as long as you don't violate their rights. Meanwhile, keep making them fearful of the repurcussions of admitting their proclivities and you'll continue to be a part of the problem. Were I a pedophile I would be very fearful of ever admitting that to anyone.

Don't know where you get comparing me to an abuser, that's pretty sick of you and I think I will terminate our conversation on this note. Bye.

I didn't suggest you were an abuser. I said you wish to violate people's rights, something you openly admit. I said you are the reason people like my abuser weren't helped before they acted, and in this case before they acted repeatedly. I said you are as much the problem and I meant it. I'm sorry that you're offended that I don't believe in violating the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Fair enough. I don't mind if you leave. I think your thoughts are dangerous and exasperate the problem. I hope you'll choose to examine your place in this issue and address the fact that you wish to punish people who have not committed a crime. Forced rehabilitation is not aid, and these people need and deserve aid, not more victimization. Anything else simply keeps this issue in the dark places and encourages them to hide until the urges become too much. I would prefer that not happen, but then I'm trying to protect people rather than looking for some misplaced sense of retribution.

Um, there's a bit more to psychiatric torture than being told you need to change.

Mind altering drugs, being forced to perform humiliating acts, and forcible restraint of persons who have not harmed anyone are just part of the "treatment" regime.

And what is so unhealthy about loving children? Pedophilia is just the human equivalent to alloparenting in other species. That our society would attempt to prevent that, and somehow equate love for children with rape, is what is truly sick.


Baldur

First off, pedophilia is not by any stretch of the imagination actual "Love" towards children. It is lust for children. I love children. I want to be a parent one day. I enjoy babysitting my cousins. The are adorable, funny kids. If I caught anyone trying to abuse them in anyway, I would kill him with my bare hands.

Those who are pedophile, who have not fleeting moments of flawed thinking, but continuously dwell upon it- they don't love them. They just want to get their rocks off. It is sick on its own.

No, it doesn't. Dictionaries represent common usage. Common usage represents the meaning she gave. Your weak attempt to change the word to include pedophillia is ridiculous.

Actually, I did say that it commonly refers to an attraction to both men and women, but then went on to add that literally it could mean any two sexualities.


Baldur

Um, there's a bit more to psychiatric torture than being told you need to change.

Mind altering drugs, being forced to perform humiliating acts, and forcible restraint of persons who have not harmed anyone are just part of the "treatment" regime.

And what is so unhealthy about loving children? Pedophilia is just the human equivalent to alloparenting in other species. That our society would attempt to prevent that, and somehow equate love for children with rape, is what is truly sick.

Baldur

Alloparenting does not involve having sex.

I've told the two registered offenders in my neighborhood (within two miles of my house) that if I ever see them and any of my children within 50 feet of each other, they won't have to worry about going to jail, or hiring a lawyer to defend themselves. They'll have to worry if they've made funeral arrangements in advance.

Yes, it was a threat. But the police seem remarkably unresponsive to the needs of a convicted child molester who is on parole.

Dictionaries are not always up to date. In common usage, bisexuality (literally "two sexualities") has the meaning I gave.

No, it doesn't. In common usage, bisexuality refers to a sexual orientation involving attraction to both sexes. A bisexual is not someone with two different sexual orientations. They have a single sexual orientation - one that involves attraction to both males and females.

Its an example. Simple.

An example of what?

What do you do with someone who utters death threats?

Actual death threats? You arrest them for their actions - threatening another person.

However, if someone does not threaten another, but simply mentions that they thought about killing someone, we do nothing at all.

I am saying that if a person declares that they are attracted to children, that they need to be helped ASAP. Right now, we cannot force them to treatment, I would change that. Wouldn't you?

No. I don't remove the rights of others when they have actually done nothing wrong. If someone told you that they thought about killing someone, would you immediately have the arrested? What if they told you that the thought about raping someone?

Ah, the argument accusing everyone of the same failings. Sorry, won't work with me. Believe it or not, not everyone is like that. Have an openmind here.

I do have an open mind. I also know that everyone has, at some point in time, thought about harming others. Most of us simply do not act upon it. No one is perfect, my dear.

Yes it is possible, but what do you do when someone has stated they are thinking about something and then do it and you could have prevented that tragedy? I'm not talking about jailing the person for expressing it, I'm talking about rehab here. Not sure if you've taken the time to read that in my previous posts.

If rehab is forced, it will do no good whatsoever, as rehab is only useful if the person in question has realized their own problem and sought out help. And it is forced incarceration, just like jail time.

Actually, I did say that it commonly refers to an attraction to both men and women, but then went on to add that literally it could mean any two sexualities.


Baldur

And the response to that is, not according to the dictionary.

Hey, I'm with you on this. I'm not especially fond of sexual predators, whether they are going after children or after adults, and I'm all about preventing them from ever getting the chance to act on their inclinations.

With that said, however, I think it is reckless and counterproductive to simply demand that all persons who express remotely pedophilic desires be shot on sight. As Joc pointed out, I think the main result of such practices would be to make it much harder to identify pedophiles and prevent them from offending. I DO believe in harsh (some might even say "vicious") justice for sex offenders, but I also believe that it is MORE important to prevent future attacks than to get revenge for past ones...if I am forced to choose between the two, I would always choose to spare a future victim instead of revenging on behalf of a past one.

I'm a little more "rash" than that. If they haven't acted yet- rehab NOW.

If they HAVE- then go right ahead and shoot them. But only if they have.

But we're basically on the same page.

Alloparenting does not involve having sex.

I've told the two registered offenders in my neighborhood (within two miles of my house) that if I ever see them and any of my children within 50 feet of each other, they won't have to worry about going to jail, or hiring a lawyer to defend themselves. They'll have to worry if they've made funeral arrangements in advance.

Hear! Hear!

South Nilfheim, you aren't helping any by getting into retarded semantics. Certain terms mean certain things, regardless of the origin. Quit messing around, and move on.

And what is so unhealthy about loving children?

There is nothing wrong with loving children. There is something wrong with sexual attraction to the sexually immature.

Pedophilia is just the human equivalent to alloparenting in other species.

Either you are using a different definition of alloparenting than that used in biology, or you are seriously stretching the word. Are you suggesting that part of parenting is having sex with pre-pubescent offspring?

First off, pedophilia is not by any stretch of the imagination actual "Love" towards children. It is lust for children.

1. Love and Lust are often two sides of one coin.

2. How the fuck do you know it is isn't love?

If I caught anyone trying to abuse them in anyway, I would kill him with my bare hands.

3. Something you have in common with most pedophiles - except that you seem to think that anything remotely sexual is "abuse".

They just want to get their rocks off. It is sick on its own.

4. Sounds like an accurate description of teliophiles to me. Always wanting to get their rocks off, seldom if ever a loving thought for anyone.


Baldur

I suspect S.N. is a pedophile, just like that perv Jey.... You better stop messing around Nelfheim, or you just my confirm my suspicsions, and then I might explode like a time bomb...

Its an example. Simple.

Much like mine was. You didn't understand it.


What do you do with someone who utters death threats? Think about it before getting back to me. A thought can only be known to the thinker, you're missing the point here.(not surprising) I am saying that if a person declares that they are attracted to children, that they need to be helped ASAP. Right now, we cannot force them to treatment, I would change that. Wouldn't you?

Threats are not the same as thoughts. Declaring you are attracted to children does not equal threatening to molest children. Again, your inability to tell the difference between someone who has dangerous thoughts and someone who is actually dangerous makes me happy that you will never be allowed to make law. You are actually advocating violating peoples' rights. Most pedophiles would not.

No, I wouldn't force people into treatment who have not proven to be a credible danger and who have not broken any laws. You would. I have more respect for the rights of the innocent, apparently.



Ah, the argument accusing everyone of the same failings. Sorry, won't work with me. Believe it or not, not everyone is like that. Have an openmind here.

How about this example? You've thought about violating the rights of someone innocent of a crime. Should we put you in jail? You've done more than that, in fact, you've openly said if you could you would violate their rights.


Yes it is possible, but what do you do when someone has stated they are thinking about something and then do it and you could have prevented that tragedy? I'm not talking about jailing the person for expressing it, I'm talking about rehab here. Not sure if you've taken the time to read that in my previous posts.
Rehab is a violation of their liberty. Saying you've thought about it, is not the same as saying you're going to do it or that you're likely to do it. You can't tell the difference.

1. Love and Lust are often two sides of one coin.

2. How the fuck do you know it is isn't love?

No, it's not. Love can be related to lust, but love is often present in absense of lust and should be in the case of children. Lust is also present in the absense of love and sexualizing children is not loving and is lustful. The fact they sometimes coincide does not make them equal. Or did you lust after your father?


3. Something you have in common with most pedophiles - except that you seem to think that anything remotely sexual is "abuse".

You have yet to prove that it isn't and the common wisdom and all available evidence suggests it's harmful. Having sex with children or sexualizing them is not in their interest and is a selfish act by the person sexualizing them. That's not love.


4. Sounds like an accurate description of teliophiles to me. Always wanting to get their rocks off, seldom if ever a loving thought for anyone.


Baldur

Lusting after a child isn't a loving thought no matter how badly you want to equate them. If you truly loved children, you'd avoid sexual contact based on the mere chance it would dangerous to them.

Let's try a different path. Answer these questions.

1. Do you think it's possible to express love to a child without sexualizing them? Provide support.

2. Do you think it's possible that sexualizing a child is harmful? Provide support.

3. Do you think that children are harmed by not being sexualized? Provide support.

Rehab is a violation of their liberty. Saying you've thought about it, is not the same as saying you're going to do it or that you're likely to do it. You can't tell the difference.

No, rehab is not a violation of their liberty. Thoughts are indeed the precursor to actions, and frequent thoughts skyrocket the chances that you will actually follow through. You should know that as a Christian- "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. "

That most certainly applies to any sin. The thought of it is as though you have committed it in your heart- an intent to do it.

Pedophiles don't fantasize forever- they will eventually act on their thoughts.

"As a man thinketh, so is he".