NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Yes, there is. It discourages them from coming forward and makes it less likely they'll seek help. Help must be encouraged, not forced unless some crime or credible threat occurs. That's the way it works and must work. Otherwise, all of us are potential threats.

There is nothing wrong with loving children. There is something wrong with sexual attraction to the sexually immature.

How odd, then, that the two so often go hand in hand. . . .

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?

You really don't have a clue about pedophilia, do you?

There is certainly a sexual attraction, and a desire for intimacy, but it generally doesn't include "having sex with" in the traditional "insert tab A in slot B" sense.

In fact, according to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, over 90% of "child sexual abuse" (itself a questionable term, as it includes such a broad range of activities) is not committed by pedophiles at all. Most child sexual abuse is committed by people with poor self-control, whether chronic or induced (drugs, alcohol, etc.). Considering that pedophiles could reasonably make up 20-30% of the population, it is quite possible that pedophiles are less likely to abuse children than teleiophiles.

Mostly, the sexual attraction and desire for intimacy with children manifests itself in caring behavior towards children, which - absent idiotic laws - might sometimes include some sexual play, and less frequently actual intercourse with older children.


Baldur

No, rehab is not a violation of their liberty.

Really? Can I force you into rehab if I don't like what you're thinking or decide it's potentially dangerous even if that danger isn't remotely imminent or even likely?

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. "

Yes, I suspect that God will deal with this. However, if sexual thoughts were a necessary precursor to sex, then there would be no person on the planet that wasn't wildly promiscuous. Most people have sexual thoughts. Most people also manage to control those thoughts and not act on them. Personally, I occasionally have violent thoughts. I do not act on them. Ever.


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.

Committing a sin is not a crime. You may have entertained the thought in your mind, but we can't put you in jail or rehab for entertaining a thought. I suspect if we did, we'd all be in rehab or jail.



Pedophiles don't fantasize forever- they will eventually act on their thoughts.

"As a man thinketh, so is he".
False. There is much evidence that pedophillia is much more prevelent than child molestation.

And this is true of almost any fantasy. Many people fantasize about people outside their relationship. That doesn't mean all of those people will eventually cheat or even most of them.

Yes, there is. It discourages them from coming forward and makes it less likely they'll seek help. Help must be encouraged, not forced unless some crime or credible threat occurs. That's the way it works and must work. Otherwise, all of us are potential threats.

Okay, so let's assume you have your way. We are not after them at all until they've actually committed a crime. What's to bring them to coming forth then? And if they do, what's to keep them from abstaining treatment?

It is also fact that by the time a predator is caught, or for that matter, exposed- he has usually molest a dozen or more children. Waiting to punish, rehabilitate, whatever, until they've done something is too long. They've already ruined several childrens' lives. You should know that. It happened to you. You were probably not the first, and certainly not the last. Whether we ease up or crack down won't change whether they come out of the closet. Take what you can get.

Alloparenting does not involve having sex.

Depends on the species. It certainly does among some of our closest relatives, the bonobos.

Far more often, of course, it involves sex play or sex-like intimacy, rather than coitus.

Yes, it was a threat. But the police seem remarkably unresponsive to the needs of a convicted child molester who is on parole.

Yes, I've noticed the lynch mob mentality, the dereliction of duty, and even the conspiratorial nature of police "protection". It's reminiscent of Jim Crow.


Baldur

Yes, I've noticed the lynch mob mentality, the dereliction of duty, and even the conspiratorial nature of police "protection". It's reminiscent of Jim Crow.


Ah, so you believe that you should be free to have sex with anyone's child, and be free of interference from their parents and the police.

Gotcha.

Depends on the species. It certainly does among some of our closest relatives, the bonobos.

Far more often, of course, it involves sex play or sex-like intimacy, rather than coitus.



Yes, I've noticed the lynch mob mentality, the dereliction of duty, and even the conspiratorial nature of police "protection". It's reminiscent of Jim Crow.


Baldur

WE AREN'T ANIMALS!!!! AND THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY!!!

Please stay on TOPIC! :headbang:

How odd, then, that the two so often go hand in hand. . . .

What do you consider often? And the fact that both exist simultaneously on occasion does not make them related.

I own a car and a television. Interesting that they so often go hand in hand.

You really don't have a clue about pedophilia, do you?

There is certainly a sexual attraction, and a desire for intimacy, but it generally doesn't include "having sex with" in the traditional "insert tab A in slot B" sense.

Who says that it is? Apparently, her problem isn't with pedophillia but your problem is with your understanding of what consitutes sexual activity.


In fact, according to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, over 90% of "child sexual abuse" (itself a questionable term, as it includes such a broad range of activities) is not committed by pedophiles at all. Most child sexual abuse is committed by people with poor self-control, whether chronic or induced (drugs, alcohol, etc.). Considering that pedophiles could reasonably make up 20-30% of the population, it is quite possible that pedophiles are less likely to abuse children than teleiophiles.

Has nothing to do with what she said. Pedophiles are less unlikely to act on their urges. It doesn't excuse those who do.


Mostly, the sexual attraction and desire for intimacy with children manifests itself in caring behavior towards children, which - absent idiotic laws - might sometimes include some sexual play, and less frequently actual intercourse with older children.


Baldur

Sexual play with child is not caring behavior. There is much evidence that it is damaging and it is a selfish act to appease the pedophile. You've provided no evidence to the contrary.

Is impregnating 11-year-olds in their best interest? Because if it's not, then your intercourse with 'older children' is not a loving act.

No, rehab is not a violation of their liberty.

Forced rehab for those who have committed no crime is absolutley a violation of civil liberties.

Thoughts are indeed the precursor to actions, and frequent thoughts skyrocket the chances that you will actually follow through.

Not necessarily - especially not if you know that what you are thinking about is harmful.

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. "

And this depends strongly on what you define as "lust". I don't think that sexual attraction is, in and of itself, lust. Sexual attraction cannot be consciously controlled. Lust, on the other hand, can.

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.

You are making a leap here that I don't think is implied in the text. In fact, I think the point was that intent is the same as action, not that thinking about something with no intent to do it is actually intent.

Pedophiles don't fantasize forever- they will eventually act on their thoughts.

So pedophiles are less capable of self-control than other people?


How odd, then, that the two so often go hand in hand. . . .

Actually, they go hand in hand very rarely. Most of us are perfectly capable of loving children without feeling sexual attraction towards them, just as I am capable of loving friends and family without feeling sexual attraction towards them.

There is certainly a sexual attraction,

Indeed, that attraction is the very definition of pedophilia.

and a desire for intimacy, but it generally doesn't include "having sex with" in the traditional "insert tab A in slot B" sense.

Irrelevant.

In fact, according to the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, over 90% of "child sexual abuse" (itself a questionable term, as it includes such a broad range of activities) is not committed by pedophiles at all. Most child sexual abuse is committed by people with poor self-control, whether chronic or induced (drugs, alcohol, etc.). Considering that pedophiles could reasonably make up 20-30% of the population, it is quite possible that pedophiles are less likely to abuse children than teleiophiles.

And this has what to do with the price of eggs in China? I didn't state that pedophiles necessarily act upon their attractions. In fact, I was quite clear that I think pedophiles are perfectly capable of self-control.

Mostly, the sexual attraction and desire for intimacy with children manifests itself in caring behavior towards children, which - absent idiotic laws - might sometimes include some sexual play, and less frequently actual intercourse with older children.

And there would be the problem. Sex acts on sexually immature children, not yet capable of understanding or consenting to such acts. That isn't caring behavior - it is self-gratification at the expense of a child. Luckily, not all pedophiles think that they have to use children in this manner to express love for them.

Meanwhile, you still haven't pointed out what this has to do with alloparenting. Once again, are you making the claim that part of parenting is sexual acts with prepubescent children?

Depends on the species. It certainly does among some of our closest relatives, the bonobos.

I keep hearing this, but have yet to see any evidence of it presented. The closest I got was a description of two juveniles using what might be considered sexual to diffuse an argument (much as they would have observed the adult Bonobos doing) and a completely unsourced Wikipedia entry. Do you have something more substantial?

Okay, so let's assume you have your way. We are not after them at all until they've actually committed a crime. What's to bring them to coming forth then?

The fact that most pedophiles don't like the fact that they are attracted to children.

And if they do, what's to keep them from abstaining treatment?

Nothing keeps them from abstaining, but since current activities discourage both, being more understanding can only be a help as people could come forward without fear of repercussions and could seek help.


It is also fact that by the time a predator is caught, or for that matter, exposed- he has usually molest a dozen or more children. Waiting to punish, rehabilitate, whatever, until they've done something is too long. They've already ruined several childrens' lives. You should know that. It happened to you. You were probably not the first, and certainly not the last. Whether we ease up or crack down won't change whether they come out of the closet. Take what you can get.

Yes, you could say the same thing about almost any crime. Let's start rounding people up! YEEHAW!!!

Most molesters are not pedophiles as has been pointed out repeatedly. Most molesters are seeking targets of opportunity and children are less likely to tell and easier to manipulate. Your efforts would likely exasperate the problem and focus on non-criminals.

The fact that most pedophiles don't like the fact that they are attracted to children.

And if they do, what's to keep them from abstaining treatment?

Nothing keeps them from abstaining, but since current activities discourage both, being more understanding can only be a help as people could come forward without fear of repercussions and could seek help.




Yes, you could say the same thing about almost any crime. Let's start rounding people up! YEEHAW!!!

Most molesters are not pedophiles as has been pointed out repeatedly. Most molesters are seeking targets of opportunity and children are less likely to tell and easier to manipulate. Your efforts would likely exasperate the problem and focus on non-criminals.[/QUOTE]

So Molesters have no attraction to children and just did it on a whim?

I don't think so. There was a lot of thought and fantasizing before hand. And yes, they do have some sexual attraction to children, hence making them pedophiles. If they didn't, they wouldn't have done it.

So Molesters have no attraction to children and just did it on a whim?

Not so much "on a whim". Many child molestors, just like many rapists, get gratification from power and control. Sexual attraction is not necessary - power over the victim is.

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.

Children don't need to be "sexualised" - most are already sexual, to differing degrees.

In any case, common wisdom has held all sorts of odd things.

Up until a century ago, genital manipulation of young children was common all over the world. It still is in many places. It is used to quiet children down or put them to sleep. There has yet to be any evidence that the practice is harmful - far from it, children in such societies tend to be well adjusted, and violence in those societies is generally low.

I have yet to see any evidence that sex traumatizes children - however, I have seen a lot of evidence that hysterical reactions to sex do traumatize children.

If you truly loved children, you'd avoid sexual contact based on the mere chance it would dangerous to them.

In fact, this is what many pedophiles in Western nations do - not because the sex would be harmful, but because the hysterical sexual schizophrenia would harm them.


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.

1. Yes. No support needed, I think.

2. Yes - many children have been traumatized after being sent to psychiatrists, seeing an adult they loved mercilessly punished, and after being ostracized by society for enjoying their sexuality. (Note - I take issue with the word "sexualizing", as most children are already sexual, though they generally hide it from their parents.)

3. Again, I take issue with the term, but I do think children are harmed by an environment in which they are not allowed to openly develop their sexuality until they reach age 18. Besides the direct damage, there is much indirect damage due to adults avoiding them for fear of being labelled a pedophile. In one notable incident earlier this year, a man in Britain saw a two year old girl walking along a road unattended, and did not stop to help for fear of being labelled a pedophile. The girl was later found dead - she had fallen into a pond and drowned.

Another issue of psychological health is that children need to have adults other than their parents who care about them. They need to know that they have value beyond the confines of the home. The current oppressive climate is not conducive to this.


Baldur

Not so much "on a whim". Many child molestors, just like many rapists, get gratification from power and control. Sexual attraction is not necessary - power over the victim is.

The one thing I've found about the child molesters I've met is that they have a deeply ingrained belief that they have every right to have sex with the child of their choice, regardless of objections by authority, parents, or the child.

You can argue with them about it, but they'll always throw it up that they have every right to do so, even if it's against the law.

Children don't need to be "sexualised" - most are already sexual, to differing degrees.

In any case, common wisdom has held all sorts of odd things.

Up until a century ago, genital manipulation of young children was common all over the world. It still is in many places. It is used to quiet children down or put them to sleep. There has yet to be any evidence that the practice is harmful - far from it, children in such societies tend to be well adjusted, and violence in those societies is generally low.

I have yet to see any evidence that sex traumatizes children - however, I have seen a lot of evidence that hysterical reactions to sex do traumatize children.



In fact, this is what many pedophiles in Western nations do - not because the sex would be harmful, but because the hysterical sexual schizophrenia would harm them.



1. Yes. No support needed, I think.

2. Yes - many children have been traumatized after being sent to psychiatrists, seeing an adult they loved mercilessly punished, and after being ostracized by society for enjoying their sexuality. (Note - I take issue with the word "sexualizing", as most children are already sexual, though they generally hide it from their parents.)

3. Again, I take issue with the term, but I do think children are harmed by an environment in which they are not allowed to openly develop their sexuality until they reach age 18. Besides the direct damage, there is much indirect damage due to adults avoiding them for fear of being labelled a pedophile. In one notable incident earlier this year, a man in Britain saw a two year old girl walking along a road unattended, and did not stop to help for fear of being labelled a pedophile. The girl was later found dead - she had fallen into a pond and drowned.

Another issue of psychological health is that children need to have adults other than their parents who care about them. They need to know that they have value beyond the confines of the home. The current oppressive climate is not conducive to this.


Baldur

You sick disgusting pervert! You talk like one, use the same damning arguments as one- you must BE one. :mp5: :sniper: :mad: :gundge:

Sexual play with child is not caring behavior. There is much evidence that it is damaging and it is a selfish act to appease the pedophile. You've provided no evidence to the contrary.

You're the one making the outlandish claim that sexual activity is damaging. It's impossible to prove a negative - the burden of proof is on you.

Is impregnating 11-year-olds in their best interest? Because if it's not, then your intercourse with 'older children' is not a loving act.

Generally not in their best interest, in this day and age. Fortunately, we now have birth control, condoms, and vasectomies - all or any of which would provide a good degree of protection from this problem.


Baldur

You sick disgusting pervert! You talk like one, use the same damning arguments as one- you must BE one. :mp5: :sniper: :mad: :gundge:

Nah, I'm a girl lover. A pedophile, if you will.

I'm not the one with a sick, disgusting desire for violence, and hatred of intimacy.

I guess that makes you the pervert.

Good luck with that.

I'd recommend treatment - but those psychiatrists are still in the dark ages. Maybe in a hundred years.


Baldur

I'm not the one with a sick, disgusting desire for violence, and hatred of intimacy.


Violence is often a societal necessity. And just because someone doesn't want to have sex with children does not mean they hate intimacy.

Try again.

Dempulicent (sorry for misspelling) and Jocabia, answer this one thing for me

Do either of you advocate ANY preventative measures against pedophilia and child molestation? If you do, then I have no quarrel with you, and will cease to bicker with you, under the presumption that, ultimately, we're on the same side, and that it does me no good to fight my friend, and that I can turn my energies from you to people like S. Nelfhiem or however you spell it.

Nah, I'm a girl lover. A pedophile, if you will.

I'm not the one with a sick, disgusting desire for violence, and hatred of intimacy.

I guess that makes you the pervert.

Good luck with that.

I'd recommend treatment - but those psychiatrists are still in the dark ages. Maybe in a hundred years.


Baldur

Isn't there SOME way to throw this guy out? Some technicality, rule, or law somewhere?

You disgust me. If I ever see you in person (God FORBID it) I'll... I'd rather not be charged with threat of bodily injury, and get thrown out.

Grrrrrrrrrr........

The one thing I've found about the child molesters I've met is that they have a deeply ingrained belief that they have every right to have sex with the child of their choice, regardless of objections by authority, parents, or the child.

You can argue with them about it, but they'll always throw it up that they have every right to do so, even if it's against the law.

Yes, child molestors - like most criminals - tend to believe they have the right to do anything they like. (The exception, oddly, is murderers - because many commit murder in a fit of rage, rather than out of a sense of entitlement.)

However, all the pedophiles I know pay great attention to the wishes of children, and most prefer to stay on good terms with the parents as well, whenever possible. (Some parents are just assholes, so there are exceptions.)


Baldur

Children don't need to be "sexualised" - most are already sexual, to differing degrees.

Pre-pubescent children, of course, to an almost nonexistent degree, considering that their sexual maturation hasn't yet begun.

I have yet to see any evidence that sex traumatizes children - however, I have seen a lot of evidence that hysterical reactions to sex do traumatize children.

I can tell you that I was traumatized. And it had nothing to do with any "hysterical" reactions. While I am sure, in retrospect, that my mother was fairly hysterical, she hid it well.

2. Yes - many children have been traumatized after being sent to psychiatrists, seeing an adult they loved mercilessly punished, and after being ostracized by society for enjoying their sexuality. (Note - I take issue with the word "sexualizing", as most children are already sexual, though they generally hide it from their parents.)

Yes, because all children who are used sexually have any of these things happen. I, for one, saw none of them happen. Nor did I enjoy my non-existent (at the time) sexuality.

3. Again, I take issue with the term, but I do think children are harmed by an environment in which they are not allowed to openly develop their sexuality until they reach age 18.

No one is advocating keeping children from developing their sexuality until age 18. It is perfectly healthy for a pubescent and post-pubescent adolescent to begin exploring their sexuality, although it is our job as adults to help them to make healthy, responsible decisions.

In one notable incident earlier this year, a man in Britain saw a two year old girl walking along a road unattended, and did not stop to help for fear of being labelled a pedophile.

Wow, what an idiot.

Another issue of psychological health is that children need to have adults other than their parents who care about them.

Certainly. But they do not need to be seen as sex objects to have this happen.

Yes, child molestors - like most criminals - tend to believe they have the right to do anything they like. (The exception, oddly, is murderers - because many commit murder in a fit of rage, rather than out of a sense of entitlement.)

However, all the pedophiles I know pay great attention to the wishes of children, and most prefer to stay on good terms with the parents as well, whenever possible. (Some parents are just assholes, so there are exceptions.)


Baldur

Yep, you hit the nail right on the head- You're a seductive, conniving, gross b@$T@rd!

Dempulicent (sorry for misspelling) and Jocabia, answer this one thing for me

Do either of you advocate ANY preventative measures against pedophilia and child molestation?

I'm not sure what type of preventative measures could be taken against pedophila. We don't know what causes it, so we can't really prevent it. Nor is there any evidence that it can be "cured".

As for preventing child molestation - of course I advocate that. But I don't think we are going to prevent it by forcing people who have done nothing wrong into treatment programs that will do little for them.

Certainly. But they do not need to be seen as sex objects to have this happen.

The only rationalization that the two in our neighborhood clearly understand is the threat of imminent death.

Otherwise, they argue strongly that they should be able to fuck our children.

I'm not sure what type of preventative measures could be taken against pedophila. We don't know what causes it, so we can't really prevent it. Nor is there any evidence that it can be "cured".

As for preventing child molestation - of course I advocate that. But I don't think we are going to prevent it by forcing people who have done nothing wrong into treatment programs that will do little for them.

Is that a yes or a no? I have a KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) policy, so just pick one - yes or no. Just one will suffice. Just, overall, are we on the same page, or no.

You disgust me. If I ever see you in person (God FORBID it) I'll... I'd rather not be charged with threat of bodily injury, and get thrown out.

Grrrrrrrrrr........

You should work on your anger issues. This sort of lack of impulse control is one of the common traits of criminals, including child molestors. But this can be overcome. There are effective treatments - just avoid the psychiatrists.


Baldur

You should work on your anger issues. This sort of lack of impulse control is one of the common traits of criminals, including child molestors. But this can be overcome. There are effective treatments - just avoid the psychiatrists.


Baldur

I hate you...:mad:

I want your head brought to me on a silver platter.

The Alma Mater:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trostia
Seems some people - namely pedophiles, what a fucking coincidence - like to justify pedophilia by saying its no different from homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality.

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

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

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

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

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


To begin with:

blondes and brunettes........completely different than heterosexuality and homosexuality. Whether a being is blonde or brunette is a SPECIFIC preference under an already existing GENERAL preference for one of the same gender, opposite gender, or either gender. 'Brunexuality' is not an accepted sexuality. When it is, that argument might be considered valid. In the meantime, it does not compare.

And, from what I understand, pedophiles are usually not specifically attracted to either gender -- that's part of the point of liking kids, they have no difference in gender beyond their genitals. If you dress two toddlers in clothing and hairstyles opposite of their genders, people will think they are a boy or girl depending on their STLYE of dress. It's this.........what's the word, homogeny that is part of the root of the attraction. Pedophiles are not attracted to ANY secondary sexual characteristics, which means they are not homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. SO, pedophiles are correct in stating that they are attracted to children, specifically.

Now, this is the problem. Even if a pedophile says, "no, that's wrong" and does not act impulsely, that doesn't explain where this attraction evolved from. What I mean is, biologically speaking, homosexuality is something that DOES occur in nature: a.k.a. there ARE gay dogs, so to speak. But NOWHERE in the expanse of the earth is there an animal that is attracted to young of its own species that are not sexually developed. In this sense, pedophilia IS unnatural.

And I believed it should be diagnosed and treated as a deviance, kind of like a colon that pushes feces out of your mouth instead of your anus. It's a sign that something is WRONG. Learned or not, something is WRONG. I respect those who admit they have a problem and seek treatment. Anyone who tries to justify it is a reverse colon to me: you're talking shit.

And as for causing harm........ If demonstration is needed, search for testimonials from survivors of sexual child abuse on the net. Take it from the child's mouth. And they're not talking shit.

And I believed it should be diagnosed and treated as a deviance, kind of like a colon that pushes feces out of your mouth instead of your anus. It's a sign that something is WRONG. Learned or not, something is WRONG. I respect those who admit they have a problem and seek treatment. Anyone who tries to justify it is a reverse colon to me: you're talking shit.

And as for causing harm........ If demonstration is needed, search for testimonials from survivors of sexual child abuse on the net. Take it from the child's mouth. And they're not talking shit.

Thank You. Another with his head on straight.

You should work on your anger issues. This sort of lack of impulse control is one of the common traits of criminals, including child molestors. But this can be overcome. There are effective treatments - just avoid the psychiatrists.


Fortunately, I don't have an anger issue in this regard, nor do I have an impulse control problem.

The two pedophiles in my neighborhood are terrified to go outdoors.

As was explained to them when we told them our opinions on child molestation, we aren't angry, and won't be acting on impulse. We'll just be quietly taking care of a problem.

Fortunately, I don't have an anger issue in this regard, nor do I have an impulse control problem.

The two pedophiles in my neighborhood are terrified to go outdoors.

As was explained to them when we told them our opinions on child molestation, we aren't angry, and won't be acting on impulse. We'll just be quietly taking care of a problem.

When did you learn of the perverts' presence in your area?

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.

I didn't say I didn't care about the safety of children. We're not even discussing the safety of children. I don't care whether pedophilia is moral or immoral. There may well be some objective moral standard that says pedophilia is wrong. I don't care. Morality simply isn't relevant.

Ah, your standard is based on actual phsyical harm. Pretty weak set of morals you have.

I also didn't specific physical harm. We could probably also include psychological harm. The fact remains that the thoughts inside someone else's head don't harm you, or anyone else. As such, I don't see how you can possibly claim that their thoughts are relevant to you, and thus you discriminating against them based on those thoughts is discrimination based on irrelevant criteria, which is exactly the same basis as bigotry.

When did you learn of the perverts' presence in your area?

Virginia has a website with the names and addresses of offenders.

It's public information.

http://sex-offender.vsp.virginia.gov/sor/html/search.htm

Then we talked to them, innocuously at first, to get an idea of what their real attitudes were. Which they gladly spoke of.

It was easy to confirm that they have every intention of having sex with the first child they can get alone or talk into having sex.

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

Ephebophile = Pedophile

Actually, I just said the two had different clinical labels.

I can tell you that I was traumatized. And it had nothing to do with any "hysterical" reactions.

What exactly traumatized you? I'm afraid I won't be able to stay to take your response, though you could always send me a "telegram" in the game. But please consider - was it the act itself? If so, was it an act you wanted at the time? If not, it is no wonder you were traumatized. Otherwise, are you sure you didn't read your mother's reaction? Or could it have been your knowledge that the people considered it "bad", and you felt their condemnation?

Yes, because all children who are used sexually have any of these things happen. I, for one, saw none of them happen. Nor did I enjoy my non-existent (at the time) sexuality.

Well, perhaps you were one of the odd ones. I recall the sorts of sexual jokes that the kids in kindergarten told each other - though often we weren't entirely sure what they meant. I also recall boys talking about which girls they wanted to fuck, how they wanted to do it, and so forth - and I was hardly "in the loop" - so I'm guessing it was more prevalent than what I saw.

No one is advocating keeping children from developing their sexuality until age 18. It is perfectly healthy for a pubescent and post-pubescent adolescent to begin exploring their sexuality, although it is our job as adults to help them to make healthy, responsible decisions.

In theory, no one wants to prevent the healthy sexual development of children. In practice, virtually everyone does everything in their power to prevent the healthy sexual development of children. Abstinence-only sex ed, anyone?

Wow, what an idiot.

Sadly, considering the pedophile panic in Great Britain, which is even worse than in the United States, he made the wisest choice possible. After all, he had his own freedom and his own family to protect - and that would have been in great danger if he had stopped to help.

Certainly. But they do not need to be seen as sex objects to have this happen.

There does not have to be sexual attraction, but it is a strong inducement to get involved. This is true for teliophiles too - attractive people are more likely to get help, even if those helping are not especially interested in actual sex. In any case, I object to the term "sex objects". Most of us do not see children as "objects" - just as wonderful little people who happen to be quite sexy.


Baldur

Virginia has a website with the names and addresses of offenders.

It's public information.

http://sex-offender.vsp.virginia.gov/sor/html/search.htm

Then we talked to them, innocuously at first, to get an idea of what their real attitudes were. Which they gladly spoke of.

It was easy to confirm that they have every intention of having sex with the first child they can get alone or talk into having sex.

I see. That doesn't sound very repentant of them, does it.

I've been on our own state's registry, and we don't have any in our area of the city (thank Goodness).

I'd be on a war path if I found out a molester was in my neighborhood. Good thing there isn't one there.

What exactly traumatized you? I'm afraid I won't be able to stay to take your response, though you could always send me a "telegram" in the game. But please consider - was it the act itself? If so, was it an act you wanted at the time? If not, it is no wonder you were traumatized. Otherwise, are you sure you didn't read your mother's reaction? Or could it have been your knowledge that the people considered it "bad", and you felt their condemnation?



Well, perhaps you were one of the odd ones. I recall the sorts of sexual jokes that the kids in kindergarten told each other - though often we weren't entirely sure what they meant. I also recall boys talking about which girls they wanted to fuck, how they wanted to do it, and so forth - and I was hardly "in the loop" - so I'm guessing it was more prevalent than what I saw.



In theory, no one wants to prevent the healthy sexual development of children. In practice, virtually everyone does everything in their power to prevent the healthy sexual development of children. Abstinence-only sex ed, anyone?



Sadly, considering the pedophile panic in Great Britain, which is even worse than in the United States, he made the wisest choice possible. After all, he had his own freedom and his own family to protect - and that would have been in great danger if he had stopped to help.



There does not have to be sexual attraction, but it is a strong inducement to get involved. This is true for teliophiles too - attractive people are more likely to get help, even if those helping are not especially interested in actual sex. In any case, I object to the term "sex objects". Most of us do not see children as "objects" - just as wonderful little people who happen to be quite sexy.


Baldur

You're sick. You would question a victim and make him feel guilty, as though he's irrational and responsible.
Is there any low you won't stoop to?

I see. That doesn't sound very repentant of them, does it.

I've been on our own state's registry, and we don't have any in our area of the city (thank Goodness).

I'd be on a war path if I found out a molester was in my neighborhood. Good thing there isn't one there.

No, they aren't very repentant at all. Rather like the pro-pedo poster on this thread.

We're not on a war path. We just made it very clear that we know very well by their own unbidden admission that they intend to repeat their crime, and that to do so will be fatal.

It's fine that they live in our neighborhood. Because we watch them.

What exactly traumatized you? I'm afraid I won't be able to stay to take your response, though you could always send me a "telegram" in the game. But please consider - was it the act itself? If so, was it an act you wanted at the time? If not, it is no wonder you were traumatized. Otherwise, are you sure you didn't read your mother's reaction? Or could it have been your knowledge that the people considered it "bad", and you felt their condemnation?



Well, perhaps you were one of the odd ones. I recall the sorts of sexual jokes that the kids in kindergarten told each other - though often we weren't entirely sure what they meant. I also recall boys talking about which girls they wanted to fuck, how they wanted to do it, and so forth - and I was hardly "in the loop" - so I'm guessing it was more prevalent than what I saw.



In theory, no one wants to prevent the healthy sexual development of children. In practice, virtually everyone does everything in their power to prevent the healthy sexual development of children. Abstinence-only sex ed, anyone?



Sadly, considering the pedophile panic in Great Britain, which is even worse than in the United States, he made the wisest choice possible. After all, he had his own freedom and his own family to protect - and that would have been in great danger if he had stopped to help.



There does not have to be sexual attraction, but it is a strong inducement to get involved. This is true for teliophiles too - attractive people are more likely to get help, even if those helping are not especially interested in actual sex. In any case, I object to the term "sex objects". Most of us do not see children as "objects" - just as wonderful little people who happen to be quite sexy.


Baldur

You're sick. You would question a victim and make him feel guilty, as though he's irrational and responsible.
Is there any low you won't stoop to?

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.

I'm not claiming that it's "fine" that anyone's a pedophile. I am, instead, insisting that punishing people for their thoughts sets a dangerous precedent. At their heart, pedophila and psychopathy (the two conditions which most often seem to lead to this sort of popular reaction) are simply a difference of opinion. Sometimes people with these differing opinions do horrific things. But it's never okay to punish anyone simply for holding an unusual position on any issue.

Is that a yes or a no? I have a KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) policy, so just pick one - yes or no. Just one will suffice. Just, overall, are we on the same page, or no.

You have to be clear on what exactly I am agreeing to for me to answer.

You may think that this is a yes or no question, but it is quite obvious that we are in some agreement and in disagreement on some things as well. What exactly is the bottom line to you?


And, from what I understand, pedophiles are usually not specifically attracted to either gender -- that's part of the point of liking kids, they have no difference in gender beyond their genitals.

This is actually incorrect. Most pedophiles do have a gender preference as to what chidlren they are attracted to. Quite often, it is not the same as their preference in adults.

Now, this is the problem. Even if a pedophile says, "no, that's wrong" and does not act impulsely, that doesn't explain where this attraction evolved from.

So?

What I mean is, biologically speaking, homosexuality is something that DOES occur in nature: a.k.a. there ARE gay dogs, so to speak. But NOWHERE in the expanse of the earth is there an animal that is attracted to young of its own species that are not sexually developed. In this sense, pedophilia IS unnatural.

It cannot be unnatural, as it occurs in nature - human beings. We are not removed from nature. But, of course, natural does not equate to right or to good.

Learned or not, something is WRONG.

Indeed

You have to be clear on what exactly I am agreeing to for me to answer.

You may think that this is a yes or no question, but it is quite obvious that we are in some agreement and in disagreement on some things as well. What exactly is the bottom line to you?

To put it VERY VERY bluntly-

Pedophiles are disgusting and need help

And those who actually harm children need to be shot.

As a general rule (remember, I'm being overly blunt) do you agree with that or not?

To put it VERY VERY bluntly-

Pedophiles are disgusting and need help

I don't believe it's necessary to say they are disgusting, or to even get angry at them. Do you get angry at a mad dog that bites children? No.

And those who actually harm children need to be shot.
And, as in the case of the mad dog, I have absolutely no problem with dispassionately shooting them.

As a general rule (remember, I'm being overly blunt) do you agree with that or not?

Provided that the children in question are either mine, or under my care, yes, or I catch the person in the act, or the pedophile relives the act in my presence.

Both of the pedos in my neighborhood loved (when they thought they were speaking in confidence) to recount their exploits.

It is a testament to my self control that no one was shot at that moment.

I don't believe it's necessary to say they are disgusting, or to even get angry at them. Do you get angry at a mad dog that bites children? No.


And, as in the case of the mad dog, I have absolutely no problem with dispassionately shooting them.



Provided that the children in question are either mine, or under my care, yes, or I catch the person in the act, or the pedophile relives the act in my presence.

Both of the pedos in my neighborhood loved (when they thought they were speaking in confidence) to recount their exploits.

It is a testament to my self control that no one was shot at that moment.

You are a much better man than I. I have a short fuse and a overbearing temper- put 'em together and you get ME.

You're the one making the outlandish claim that sexual activity is damaging. It's impossible to prove a negative - the burden of proof is on you.

My position is already considered proven. In science, the requirement is on someone else to disprove an already supported and accepted hypothesis. You've done no work here and I KNOW it's because you have no evidence for it being healthy activity.


Generally not in their best interest, in this day and age. Fortunately, we now have birth control, condoms, and vasectomies - all or any of which would provide a good degree of protection from this problem.


Baldur

Hmmmm... so what you're saying is that pregnancy is not in the interest of the child, you put the child at risk of pregnancy with efforts that are less than 100% effective at preventing it and you don't care. A good degree of protection enough for you because you don't care about the child.

Dempulicent (sorry for misspelling) and Jocabia, answer this one thing for me

Do either of you advocate ANY preventative measures against pedophilia and child molestation? If you do, then I have no quarrel with you, and will cease to bicker with you, under the presumption that, ultimately, we're on the same side, and that it does me no good to fight my friend, and that I can turn my energies from you to people like S. Nelfhiem or however you spell it.

We are advocating preventive measures. You're subjugating them by making pedophiles fearful.

So Molesters have no attraction to children and just did it on a whim?

I don't think so. There was a lot of thought and fantasizing before hand. And yes, they do have some sexual attraction to children, hence making them pedophiles. If they didn't, they wouldn't have done it.

You're wrong and you really should educate yourself on the subject since you are so prone to violence. Most molesters are using targets of opportunity to fulfill fantasies of manipulation and domination. Children make a good target but they target anyone given the chance. Their actions have little to do with the fact they are children and much to do with the fact they are helpless. Of course, you'd know this will a little research.

Most molesters are using targets of opportunity to fulfill fantasies of manipulation and domination.

Very similar to wifebeaters.

We've discovered (in our little group here in Herndon) that the only thing a wifebeater understands is raw unadulterated force, and the certainty that it will be used.

Very similar to wifebeaters.

We've discovered (in our little group here in Herndon) that the only thing a wifebeater understands is raw unadulterated force, and the certainty that it will be used.

Uh-huh. I don't buy into this load of crap. I will do what I need to stop a wifebeater, but I won't become the problem just to feed my man needs. Violence is rarely an answer. Kicking the crap out of a wifebeater rarely does anything but make him more discreet. The law needs to start dealing with these people. Vigilante justice is ineffective.

Uh-huh. I don't buy into this load of crap. I will do what I need to stop a wifebeater, but I won't become the problem just to feed my man needs. Violence is rarely an answer. Kicking the crap out of a wifebeater rarely does anything but make him more discreet. The law needs to start dealing with these people. Vigilante justice is ineffective.

We teach women to:

a) leave
b) get a protective order (which in and of itself is actually useless)
c) get a weapon and a concealed carry permit.

The protective order classifies the man in question as an immediate threat to life and limb - just by his mere presence.

Interestingly, that is the qualifier for being able to shoot him. And having the pistol on hand makes the threat very credible.

The man is then notified of this state of affairs.

None of the women we've trained and equipped in this way have ever heard from the stalker/beater again.

Quite different from the typical woman who gets a protective order and NO weapon, and doubles her chances of being killed.

Children don't need to be "sexualised" - most are already sexual, to differing degrees.

In any case, common wisdom has held all sorts of odd things.

Yes, and in order to change the common wisdom people introduced information that debunked it or countered it. You've not done that and don't have any.


Up until a century ago, genital manipulation of young children was common all over the world. It still is in many places. It is used to quiet children down or put them to sleep. There has yet to be any evidence that the practice is harmful - far from it, children in such societies tend to be well adjusted, and violence in those societies is generally low.

Great claim. Sources?


I have yet to see any evidence that sex traumatizes children - however, I have seen a lot of evidence that hysterical reactions to sex do traumatize children.

Hey, if you close your eyes you can't see any evidence that oak trees have leaves, but that doesn't make it true. Again, can you cite any studies that should sexualize children are not truamatized? You know the opposite studies exist.


In fact, this is what many pedophiles in Western nations do - not because the sex would be harmful, but because the hysterical sexual schizophrenia would harm them.

Keep convincing yourself of that. And be careful not to actual look at any of the studies in this area. That would just poke a hole in your balloon.

Of course, it's much easier for you to excuse yourself when you blame someone else for the inevitable harm that occurs. How very convenient for your predilictions.


1. Yes. No support needed, I think.

Good, so sexualizing children isn't necessary to love them. Glad you agree.


2. Yes - many children have been traumatized after being sent to psychiatrists, seeing an adult they loved mercilessly punished, and after being ostracized by society for enjoying their sexuality. (Note - I take issue with the word "sexualizing", as most children are already sexual, though they generally hide it from their parents.)

You didn't answer. You answered that you think the results can be harmful, I'm asking you do you think sexualizing a child is possibly harmful. And if you think it cannot be harmful, then how do you explain all of the studies on children who were not put through the rare occurance you list above.


3. Again, I take issue with the term, but I do think children are harmed by an environment in which they are not allowed to openly develop their sexuality until they reach age 18. Besides the direct damage, there is much indirect damage due to adults avoiding them for fear of being labelled a pedophile. In one notable incident earlier this year, a man in Britain saw a two year old girl walking along a road unattended, and did not stop to help for fear of being labelled a pedophile. The girl was later found dead - she had fallen into a pond and drowned.

No surprise. You again avoid the question. I'm not talking about their natural sexual development. Sexual interaction with adults is not a necessary part of the sexual development of children. I am talking about sexual play and sexualization by adults, not just their ordinary development. You avoided the question because aswering two and three leaves you with the selfish act you desire to perform to satisfy your needs, not those of the child.

Simple questions you refused to answer. Hmmm... afraid answering them clearly will expose the fallacy of your claims?


Another issue of psychological health is that children need to have adults other than their parents who care about them. They need to know that they have value beyond the confines of the home. The current oppressive climate is not conducive to this.


Baldur

I had many adults who cared about me who were both related and unrelated to me. I managed to grow up sexually healthy even though no adult in my life felt the need to fondle my penis to express caring. They did silly things like hug me when I needed it or to provide emotional support.

Caring is clearly and obviously possible without sex play. The fact that you cannot separate these two things is exactly the problem here. You have learned that the only way to express caring is through sex and you wish to pass this learning on to others. It's far more caring to, you know, actually think about the other person first and to express your caring through more complicated ways. For people who can't find healthier ways to express caring, they often resort to sex. This is why many individuals have unsatisfying sex lives searching for caring when it's not present in the act of sex alone and they are really looking for meaningful emotional interaction that in most cases doesn't involve sex.

Amazingly, in some families people actually manage to be very loving without any sex play with their children or between siblings at all.

Even physiological evidence is not in your corner since pregnancy between close family members are more dangerous and less likely to succeed. Unless, you think we have a biological imperative to be unloving in families. Sex is not a requirement of love. The fact that you can't separate the two is sad and precisely the thing you need to deal with.

We teach women to:

a) leave
b) get a protective order (which in and of itself is actually useless)
c) get a weapon and a concealed carry permit.

The protective order classifies the man in question as an immediate threat to life and limb - just by his mere presence.

Interestingly, that is the qualifier for being able to shoot him. And having the pistol on hand makes the threat very credible.

The man is then notified of this state of affairs.

None of the women we've trained and equipped in this way have ever heard from the stalker/beater again.

Quite different from the typical woman who gets a protective order and NO weapon, and doubles her chances of being killed.

This is the unfortunate result of ineffective lawmaking that I think encourages the act. These men should be removed from the home the moment their danger to the woman becomes credible. Our current laws are sickening.

This is the unfortunate result of ineffective lawmaking that I think encourages the act. These men should be removed from the home the moment their danger to the woman becomes credible. Our current laws are sickening.

This system we have taught works extremely well. Most of these men are cowards who only want to prey on women they view as defenseless.

Once the woman becomes a credible lethal threat, the guy just disappears.

This system we have taught works extremely well. Most of these men are cowards who only want to prey on women they view as defenseless.

Once the woman becomes a credible lethal threat, the guy just disappears.

To do it to another woman. I don't consider it a victory to move a violent offender on to another victim. Our system is broken and your system is a poor substitute (though the way you describe it, I approve of it as an interrim solution).

This system we have taught works extremely well. Most of these men are cowards who only want to prey on women they view as defenseless.

Once the woman becomes a credible lethal threat, the guy just disappears.


But what is a credible lethal threat? Wouldn't that make the guy want to become more of a threat than his victims? I am not in support of making the countries entire population a lethal threat.

But what is a credible lethal threat? Wouldn't that make the guy want to become more of a threat than his victims? I am not in support of making the countries entire population a lethal threat.

If a man has beaten a woman to the point where she's treated at the hospital, and can prove that he has made threats about killing her, it's easy.

Police records of being called to beatings (just in time to not see the guy present) and hospital records work quite well. As do threatening letters, email, and phone messages.

It hasn't made them want to become more of a threat. The men seem to be counting on a woman, alone, who will not fight back, and who will wait for the police to show up (by which time he's long gone).

As soon as they know she has a weapon and what translates as a hunting permit just for him, they leave.

If a man has beaten a woman to the point where she's treated at the hospital, and can prove that he has made threats about killing her, it's easy.

Police records of being called to beatings (just in time to not see the guy present) and hospital records work quite well. As do threatening letters, email, and phone messages.

It hasn't made them want to become more of a threat. The men seem to be counting on a woman, alone, who will not fight back, and who will wait for the police to show up (by which time he's long gone).

As soon as they know she has a weapon and what translates as a hunting permit just for him, they leave.


Try martial arts. Giving every woman a gun and something similar to hunting permit would just cause more problems than it solves. What would stop the woman from shooting a man she doesn't like or just annoys her and say he tried to rape her? Nothing is perfect you know.

What exactly traumatized you?

Sexual contact that I was not ready for - that I did not personally want - that I wasn't even physically developed enough to want. Sexual contact that existed for no other reason than to provide sexual gratification to the adult who initiated it - who literally demanded it. The destruction of trust.

If so, was it an act you wanted at the time?[/quote]

Of course not. I was six years old. I hadn't even begun to develop sexual feelings or characteristics.

Well, perhaps you were one of the odd ones. I recall the sorts of sexual jokes that the kids in kindergarten told each other - though often we weren't entirely sure what they meant.

Telling sexual jokes does not imply sexuality. I did it to, often with quite a misconception as to why the joke was funny.

I also recall boys talking about which girls they wanted to fuck, how they wanted to do it, and so forth - and I was hardly "in the loop" - so I'm guessing it was more prevalent than what I saw.

I have to doubt that you actually heard kindergartners talking about how they wanted to fuck - and actually understanding what that really meant. My brother use to tell me that he wanted to kiss one of the little girls on the playground, marry her, and then "rub butts" (his conception of sex apparently had much more to do with where a person's hands are than genitals). He wasn't, however, feeling sexual attraction. He was trying to act grown up, and he figured that's what grown-ups do.

In theory, no one wants to prevent the healthy sexual development of children.

Actually, quite a few people do. That is why they introduce things like abstinence-only education, prevent their daughters from even finding out the names and functions of the parts of their genitalia, and try and tell young boys that masturbation is sinful.

Sadly, considering the pedophile panic in Great Britain, which is even worse than in the United States, he made the wisest choice possible.

Yes, watching a young helpless child wander around by herself is the wisest choice possible. Weren't you trying to pretend that you care about children?

After all, he had his own freedom and his own family to protect - and that would have been in great danger if he had stopped to help.

Bullshit. Even with paranoia, he would only have been in danger if he had taken her back to his house alone. Simply stopping her and asking her where she was going, where her parents were, etc. wouldn't be a problem.

There does not have to be sexual attraction, but it is a strong inducement to get involved.

Not really. Sexual attraction is a strong inducement to try and have sex with someone. It takes something a bit more to actually care about a person.

At their heart, pedophila and psychopathy (the two conditions which most often seem to lead to this sort of popular reaction) are simply a difference of opinion.

"A difference of opinion"? Sort of like disagreeing on whether purple or pink is a prettier color?

Seriously, there are physical differences involved here. It isn't a matter of a difference of opinion.


To put it VERY VERY bluntly-

Pedophiles are disgusting and need help

One change. Pedophilia is disgusting. Pedophiles need help. I would not lable a human being as disgusting because they need help.

And those who actually harm children need to be shot.

I'm not big on shooting people, but I'll agree with the general sentiment.

Sexual contact that I was not ready for - that I did not personally want - that I wasn't even physically developed enough to want. Sexual contact that existed for no other reason than to provide sexual gratification to the adult who initiated it - who literally demanded it. The destruction of trust.

:(


Things like that mold my views on sex more than anything else.

Try martial arts. Giving every woman a gun and something similar to hunting permit would just cause more problems than it solves. What would stop the woman from shooting a man she doesn't like or just annoys her and say he tried to rape her? Nothing is perfect you know.

Hasn't been a problem yet.

Also, martial arts classes have been remarkably ineffective. Most of these men outweigh the woman by 50% or more, and the woman does not possess the physical strength to make any of her hits count.

Hasn't been a problem yet.

Also, martial arts classes have been remarkably ineffective. Most of these men outweigh the woman by 50% or more, and the woman does not possess the physical strength to make any of her hits count.



Martial arts isn't just about strength. I know Jujutsu and can tell you if you are good enough you can take down a man twice your size.

Martial arts isn't just about strength. I know Jujutsu and can tell you if you are good enough you can take down a man twice your size.

Bah he's fairly right in that aspect. Perhaps you were fighting wimps. I had severe troubles trying to pull a guy that weighed twice as me. Martial arts are not the answer, unless you can manage to surprise the guy with a surprise move, and that's not common. Would you be a woman and you would know.

Picking objects, although, is a fair choice. They were called damage amplifiers by those who told me it was the best choice for a woman's self defense. Bare hand fighting against a heavy man is just going to get you raped or abused in any case, after all, the advantage of a man over a woman is that the relation between damage and resistance is unbalanced. A woman wielding an object can balance that equation again.

Martial arts isn't just about strength. I know Jujutsu and can tell you if you are good enough you can take down a man twice your size.

I've done enough gracie to know that if you're not strong enough, and fast enough, and skilled enough, you're going to die.

That sort of skill takes years to learn. I can teach women to shoot well enough to defend themselves far more competently in a single afternoon - and that includes weapon retention techniques and situational awareness.

There's a demonstration at a local martial arts academy that they used to do to show how martial arts was superior to a firearm - and how to disarm someone with a firearm.

We did the demonstration once with a real firearm that was cocked but unloaded.

I have a standing bet now with any of their instructors or students - I'll stand within arms' reach and you see if you can beat the hammer drop.

No one will take the bet anymore.

And as for causing harm........ If demonstration is needed, search for testimonials from survivors of sexual child abuse on the net. Take it from the child's mouth. And they're not talking shit.

No one is claiming that child sexual abuse doesn't harm children. Even Five Castes concedes that (though blames society for the harm).

The harm principle is being incorrectly applied to the inclination. That someone is a pedophile does not cause harm. A pedophile sitting at home thinking his thoughts, perhaps drawing some pictures or writing some fiction, isn't harming anyone.

And this is why I object to their persecution.

I've done enough gracie to know that if you're not strong enough, and fast enough, and skilled enough, you're going to die.

That sort of skill takes years to learn. I can teach women to shoot well enough to defend themselves far more competently in a single afternoon - and that includes weapon retention techniques and situational awareness.

There's a demonstration at a local martial arts academy that they used to do to show how martial arts was superior to a firearm - and how to disarm someone with a firearm.

We did the demonstration once with a real firearm that was cocked but unloaded.

I have a standing bet now with any of their instructors or students - I'll stand within arms' reach and you see if you can beat the hammer drop.

No one will take the bet anymore.


I have been doing Jujutsu for 7 years, maybe I am a tad biased.

Picking objects, although, is a fair choice. They were called damage amplifiers by those who told me it was the best choice for a woman's self defense. Bare hand fighting against a heavy man is just going to get you raped or abused in any case, after all, the advantage of a man over a woman is that the relation between damage and resistance is unbalanced. A woman wielding an object can balance that equation again.

Like this? http://www.selfdefenseproducts.com/kub.htm

That's what they gave me in a self-defense class. Gave us instructions on how to use it on pressure points, then pointed out that just hitting someone in the head over and over (especially with the pointy end) would probably be effective as well.

Hasn't been a problem yet.

Also, martial arts classes have been remarkably ineffective. Most of these men outweigh the woman by 50% or more, and the woman does not possess the physical strength to make any of her hits count.


Horse Hockey.

Self-defense training or martial arts isnt about doing a thunderous punch to the jaw, or superhuman kicks the likes of Bruce Lee.

A baby can poke you in the eye, and it will still hurt like a mutha.

I can name you several styles that have almost nothing to do with power, and everything to do with speed, or agility, or redirection of energy.
Tai-Chi for instance.
Akido.
Jujitsu

A kick to the balls, and a rake to the eye will take the fight out of almost anyone.

In my state several years ago, a 60 year old woman was mugged and accosted by five men.
Unfortunately for them she was a Master of Go-Shu Ryu. (Japanese Karate Style)

She beat the dog-crap out of every one of em.

It takes less than a few pounds of pressure to crush a larynx.
9 lbs to snap a human neck....
Almost nothing to permanently damage an eye....

I knew one old Tae-Kwon Do instructor who used to say "If you become twice as strong, you will hit twice as hard. If you become twice as fast, you will hit four times as hard."

Martial arts is about using what you have....not what you dont.

While I agree that pedoph*lia is a natural variation of s*xual preference, I believe those that act on that preference should be punished.
There are oportunistic child molesters who just pick on anyone vunerable at the moment, but that's different from someone truly attracted to children.

Excuse the mish-mash up there, but I'm on a public library computer and I have to deal with it's effing filter.

Horse Hockey.

Self-defense training or martial arts isnt about doing a thunderous punch to the jaw, or superhuman kicks the likes of Bruce Lee.

A baby can poke you in the eye, and it will still hurt like a mutha.

I can name you several styles that have almost nothing to do with power, and everything to do with speed, or agility, or redirection of energy.
Tai-Chi for instance.
Akido.
Jujitsu

A kick to the balls, and a rake to the eye will take the fight out of almost anyone.

In my state several years ago, a 60 year old woman was mugged and accosted by five men.
Unfortunately for them she was a Master of Go-Shu Ryu. (Japanese Karate Style)

She beat the dog-crap out of every one of em.

It takes less than a few pounds of pressure to crush a larynx.
9 lbs to snap a human neck....
Almost nothing to permanently damage an eye....

I knew one old Tae-Kwon Do instructor who used to say "If you become twice as strong, you will hit twice as hard. If you become twice as fast, you will hit four times as hard."

Martial arts is about using what you have....not what you dont.


You seem to understand the concept of martial arts, bravo. Do you study it?

Try martial arts. Giving every woman a gun and something similar to hunting permit would just cause more problems than it solves. What would stop the woman from shooting a man she doesn't like or just annoys her and say he tried to rape her? Nothing is perfect you know.

Because all women are irrational and shoot anyone they don't like. :rolleyes:

Like this? http://www.selfdefenseproducts.com/kub.htm

That's what they gave me in a self-defense class. Gave us instructions on how to use it on pressure points, then pointed out that just hitting someone in the head over and over (especially with the pointy end) would probably be effective as well.

No...It wasn't something you had to carry. I was talking about a bootle, a stick, a piece of pipe, that kind of improvised things. Although of course, if you go to a club or a bar with a baton in your purse...

And no matter if you practice for 7 years or a decade. Heavy built men with enough tolerance for pain can destroy your martial arts easily if you are a woman. You inability to deal considerable amounts of damage will end in your also lack of capability to drop your opponent. No matter how dextrous, fast or agile you are, you are just not strong enough and he is too thick for you. Martial arts, if there is a considerable disproportion in weight, will suffice only for the first 10 seconds of a fight or so.

I defend the practice of martial arts. I've practiced Iaido, Kyudo, Krav Maga and I am first dan in Aikido, studying martial arts through all my life, but to really trust that your martial arts alone are going to stop that flesh train charging at you is silly. I guess that old lady was attacked by idiots or crackheads, it also happens.

A baby can poke you in the eye, and it will still hurt like a mutha.

Because you are usually not aware that he is going to poke it

I can name you several styles that have almost nothing to do with power, and everything to do with speed, or agility, or redirection of energy.
Tai-Chi for instance.
Akido.
Jujitsu

Aikido, yes. I was even a sempai to a dojo. If your sensei told you, if you are a woman, that you could defeat a man of 120 kilos with a projection then he/she should be examined closely.

A kick to the balls, and a rake to the eye will take the fight out of almost anyone.

No, I have been there, and no. Those are useful, but no. You would be surprised to find people with low pain levels that can take that and even more, like a broken wrist. I did see a broken jaw once that kept on fighting.

It takes less than a few pounds of pressure to crush a larynx.
9 lbs to snap a human neck....
Almost nothing to permanently damage an eye....

Has you seen a really muscular neck?, small hands like mine would have troubles having a right grab of that larynx, and do you know what will happen if a ham sized fist crashes against me as I try?

Go for an eye, I am sure the other guy is just going to open wide for you to bust it.

I knew one old Tae-Kwon Do instructor who used to say "If you become twice as strong, you will hit twice as hard. If you become twice as fast, you will hit four times as hard."

Again, no. Weight gives you stamina and protection, due to more width of muscle and fat layers. Even if you hit faster, they can take several blows in a row, because of your lower weight projection and ability to deal proper damage, and yet you cannot withstand one from them without dropping.

Isn't there SOME way to throw this guy out? Some technicality, rule, or law somewhere?

You disgust me. If I ever see you in person (God FORBID it) I'll... I'd rather not be charged with threat of bodily injury, and get thrown out.

Grrrrrrrrrr........
He's not the one breaking site rules, pal. That'd be you.

If it makes you that angry to respond to this thread, then maybe you need some real-world time to chill out. If you don't control your temper better than you have been, we'll be forced to insist on it.

Message clear enough? Or do I need to say 'forumban' to make it totally clear? Debate, don't threaten or flame.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Horse Hockey.

Self-defense training or martial arts isnt about doing a thunderous punch to the jaw, or superhuman kicks the likes of Bruce Lee.

A baby can poke you in the eye, and it will still hurt like a mutha.

I can name you several styles that have almost nothing to do with power, and everything to do with speed, or agility, or redirection of energy.
Tai-Chi for instance.
Akido.
Jujitsu

A kick to the balls, and a rake to the eye will take the fight out of almost anyone.

In my state several years ago, a 60 year old woman was mugged and accosted by five men.
Unfortunately for them she was a Master of Go-Shu Ryu. (Japanese Karate Style)

She beat the dog-crap out of every one of em.

It takes less than a few pounds of pressure to crush a larynx.
9 lbs to snap a human neck....
Almost nothing to permanently damage an eye....

I knew one old Tae-Kwon Do instructor who used to say "If you become twice as strong, you will hit twice as hard. If you become twice as fast, you will hit four times as hard."

Martial arts is about using what you have....not what you dont.


Bullshit. And how long does it take to become a grand master?

There isn't a martial arts instructor in Northern Virginia who is willing to take the hammer fall bet anymore - not after one was humiliated in front of his class (he had done years of showing how well his style works against humans armed with fake guns).

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.
Please don't reffer to me as DSN's cohort. The guy annoys me even more than he annoys you.

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.
Interestingly enough, the law is similarly unresponsive toward the kinds of death threats pedophiles who haven't molested children recieve.

When the law is clearly prejudiced against you, what incentive is there to obey the law?
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.
He's right. Symantics debates accomplish nothing. Take a look at my signature. That was neccisary because people couldn't stop knit picking over my spelling long enough to read the points I was trying to make. Look up the second post I ever made. It was in a thread about pedophilia, and half of it was arguing over whether the original poster had created a valid contraction when he said the word pedo's. If you are going to remind people that the word pedophile doesn't mean child molester, fine, but no one's going to seriously believe you on that "bisexuality could mean straight and pedo" stuff. I don't even believe you on that one. There may not be a word for being attracted to adults and children, but I sure as hell know that bisexual isn't a good choice for adopting one.
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...
South Nifelheim has previously admited he's a pedophile. Jey, however fell victum to your idiotic belief that "only a pedophile would ever defend a pedophile". Since you seem to have a short memory, I'll remind you I'm a pedophile, just so you don't accuse me of trying to hide it.

Has nothing to do with what she said. Pedophiles are less unlikely to act on their urges. It doesn't excuse those who do.

Though, the fact that pedophiles apparently (according to the figures linked to in this thread) make up 20% of the population and only 10% of molesters, it does suggest that the view that we're more dangerous to children than the general population is not just exadurated, but a complete reversal of the true nature of reality.
Isn't there SOME way to throw this guy out? Some technicality, rule, or law somewhere?

You disgust me. If I ever see you in person (God FORBID it) I'll... I'd rather not be charged with threat of bodily injury, and get thrown out.

Grrrrrrrrrr........
Your restraint is wise. I recieved such threats in the other thread, and the posters were given a temporary ban. A week or two if I recall. Hopefully people can discuss this subject without resorting to threats and posturing.

And, from what I understand, pedophiles are usually not specifically attracted to either gender -- that's part of the point of liking kids, they have no difference in gender beyond their genitals. If you dress two toddlers in clothing and hairstyles opposite of their genders, people will think they are a boy or girl depending on their STLYE of dress. It's this.........what's the word, homogeny that is part of the root of the attraction. Pedophiles are not attracted to ANY secondary sexual characteristics, which means they are not homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. SO, pedophiles are correct in stating that they are attracted to children, specifically.

Actually, I'm not attracted to boys in the least. You are correct in that secondary sex characteristics aren't attractive to me, but that doesn't mean I lack a preference. The proposed "proof" you've offered by dressing a child in drag is invalidated by the fact that adults in similarly effective drag have the same effect on the sexually "normal". Unless straight men don't mind finding a surprise penis on their girlfriend, I think your arguement is poorly thought out at best.

Now, this is the problem. Even if a pedophile says, "no, that's wrong" and does not act impulsely, that doesn't explain where this attraction evolved from. What I mean is, biologically speaking, homosexuality is something that DOES occur in nature: a.k.a. there ARE gay dogs, so to speak. But NOWHERE in the expanse of the earth is there an animal that is attracted to young of its own species that are not sexually developed. In this sense, pedophilia IS unnatural.

You should really look up the bonobo. Do some reading in it. The Black Forest pointed out this fastenating animal to me, and it's proven quite useful when people bring up this point. Incidentally, the bonobo is one of the closest genetic relatives to humankind.
You're sick. You would question a victim and make him feel guilty, as though he's irrational and responsible.
Is there any low you won't stoop to?
I'm afraid simply rolling over everytime someone says "I was raped" doesn't really accomplish much. Especially since, as it turned out, the sexual acts Dempublicants1 was describing really would have been rape even if there weren't an age of consent.

You aren't naturally attracted to someone based on their age.
Therefor, no.

You aren't naturally attracted to someone based on their age.
Therefor, no.I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If age is not a natural distinction, then with regards to attraction it wouldn't matter for anyone whether they're dealing with kids, teens or adults.
There is a rather striking correlation between age and the build of someone's body though.. Change in curvature and whatnot.. Might be relevant..

I'm afraid simply rolling over everytime someone says "I was raped" doesn't really accomplish much. Especially since, as it turned out, the sexual acts Dempublicants1 was describing really would have been rape even if there weren't an age of consent.

Would they? As an adult, do you think I could truly claim rape if someone told me to do something and I did it, with no physical force involved? Last I checked, unless I could demonstrate that I rightfully feared for my life, that wouldn't be counted as rape.

Would they? As an adult, do you think I could truly claim rape if someone told me to do something and I did it, with no physical force involved? Last I checked, unless I could demonstrate that I rightfully feared for my life, that wouldn't be counted as rape.
Untrue. There does not have to be physical force used, or immediate fear of death, for an assault to be recognized as rape.

Untrue. There does not have to be physical force used, or immediate fear of death, for an assault to be recognized as rape.
Lack of consent, and/or, the inability to legally give consent.

Lack of consent, and/or, the inability to legally give consent.
Bingo.

Now, I grant you, the legal definition of rape is actually pretty narrow, and it can be very hard to PROVE that a rape has occured. But the core is that if you have sex with ANYBODY without their consent, then you just committed rape. Doesn't matter how or why their consent was absent.

Untrue. There does not have to be physical force used, or immediate fear of death, for an assault to be recognized as rape.

There has to be an obvious reason to believe it was coerced. In this case, the only reason to believe that is the fact that one participant was an adult and one was a child. I think this is a perfectly good reason. TFC obviously does not.

Were I to be put in the same situation as an adult, and to act in the same way, the chances of me being able to claim rape are exactly 0.


Lack of consent, and/or, the inability to legally give consent.

The person I am arguing with does not believe in the "inability to give consent" of children. He claims that the inability to give consent has nothing to do with it - that the same situation would be legally rape even if no child were involved.

Bingo.

Now, I grant you, the legal definition of rape is actually pretty narrow, and it can be very hard to PROVE that a rape has occured. But the core is that if you have sex with ANYBODY without their consent, then you just committed rape. Doesn't matter how or why their consent was absent.

But in adults, a person willingly doing something that you ask for is considered consent. You don't have to state, "I am consenting to this action," before doing it. Even if an adult did something they actually didn't want to - if you do not *know* that they do not want to, you can hardly be said to have committed rape.

But in adults, a person willingly doing something that you ask for is considered consent. You don't have to state, "I am consenting to this action," before doing it. Even if an adult did something they actually didn't want to - if you do not *know* that they do not want to, you can hardly be said to have committed rape.
That's true. But there's a lot more than just the two ends to the spectrum. There are plenty of rape cases in which the victim did not physically resist, or was not physically forced in any way, yet the perp still got convicted.

A charming example is actually in the news right now; it's about something called "command rape." This is the practice of male officers in the military raping their female subordinates, by making it clear that if the female does not submit then she will be put in harm's way during combat, or implying that she will not be provided with backup, or any of a million other subtle threats. He's not saying HE will kill her or harm her, just that he will make sure she's got a much better chance of being killed or harmed by others. He may also threaten her job, her pay, or even her family.

Does she submit to him? In some cases, yes. Does she consent? Fuck no, and one conviction was recently handed down for this very reason. It's rape.

That's true. But there's a lot more than just the two ends to the spectrum. There are plenty of rape cases in which the victim did not physically resist, or was not physically forced in any way, yet the perp still got convicted.

A charming example is actually in the news right now; it's about something called "command rape." This is the practice of male officers in the military raping their female subordinates, by making it clear that if the female does not submit then she will be put in harm's way during combat, or implying that she will not be provided with backup, or any of a million other subtle threats. He's not saying HE will kill her or harm her, just that he will make sure she's got a much better chance of being killed or harmed by others. He may also threaten her job, her pay, or even her family.

Indeed. And it was not my intention to say that these things were not rape. These are the cases of coercion I mentioned. And, in these cases, the woman has a legitimate reason to fear for her life or livelihood if she does not acquiese.

My intention was simply to point out that, were the exact same situation that occurred when I was a child to have occurred yesterday instead - with the only difference being that I am not a child, it would not have been rape or assault.

Indeed. And it was not my intention to say that these things were not rape. These are the cases of coercion I mentioned. And, in these cases, the woman has a legitimate reason to fear for her life or livelihood if she does not acquiese.

My intention was simply to point out that, were the exact same situation that occurred when I was a child to have occurred yesterday instead - with the only difference being that I am not a child, it would not have been rape or assault.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. If an adult does not want to have sex, but agrees to anyway because of social pressure from the other person involved, it isn't considered rape? If that is indeed the case, there's something seriously wrong with rape laws, and that should definately change.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. If an adult does not want to have sex, but agrees to anyway because of social pressure from the other person involved, it isn't considered rape? If that is indeed the case, there's something seriously wrong with rape laws, and that should definately change.

Actually, I think that does count as rape.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. If an adult does not want to have sex, but agrees to anyway because of social pressure from the other person involved, it isn't considered rape? If that is indeed the case, there's something seriously wrong with rape laws, and that should definately change.

What is "social pressure"? Are we talking "peer pressure"? Are we talking, "I won't like you any more if you don't"?

Define the term.

There should be no space in socity for pedofiles, sub human scum who are no good to anybody, just a drain on funds.

How about: "It's your wifely duty. I'll tell the Imam if you don't."

Or even: "I'll make sure you don't make the cheerleading team if you don't."

Even without a life or livelihood at stake, and power differential creates the potential for this sort of coersion.

How about: "It's your wifely duty. I'll tell the Imam if you don't."

Or even: "I'll make sure you don't make the cheerleading team if you don't."

Even without a life or livelihood at stake, and power differential creates the potential for this sort of coersion.

And these things generally have to be stated, correct? Otherwise, anyone who ever slept with someone with any power differential would either be a rapist or a rape victim.

((although I can honestly say, unless the person making the statement was the head of the cheerleading team, that "I'll make sure you don't make cheerleading," would not be an adequate threat for someone to claim they had been raped if they acquiesed.))

What is "social pressure"? Are we talking "peer pressure"? Are we talking, "I won't like you any more if you don't"?

Define the term.
All of the above. Every method people use to pressure unwilling persons into sex should count as cohersive rape. Why are people so quick to defend these practices?

And these things generally have to be stated, correct? Otherwise, anyone who ever slept with someone with any power differential would either be a rapist or a rape victim.

((although I can honestly say, unless the person making the statement was the head of the cheerleading team, that "I'll make sure you don't make cheerleading," would not be an adequate threat for someone to claim they had been raped if they acquiesed.))

I feel like I missed something on a previous page. That's what I get for jumping back into someone else's conversation.

My answer to your initial question is yes.

All of the above. Every method people use to pressure unwilling persons into sex should count as cohersive rape. Why are people so quick to defend these practices?

It's not black and white like that. At some point the person agreeing has some responsibility in the act. Are you coersed if you do it because you want the other person to be happy? Are you coersed if you want to express your love to other person? Are you coersed if you have sex with the other person just to relieve their horniness? If you have sex with someone just to have a baby? Nearly every act we engage in involves coersion of a type or another. Eventually, the pressure becomes so weak that you cannot fault the person exerting the 'pressure' for the fact that the other person acquiesced. That's why we make the age of a person an issue, because of the natural coersion that is nearly always involved in the act of sexual congress. And that's why when the person is capable of making a sound decision we require the pressure to be overt.

It's not black and white like that. At some point the person agreeing has some responsibility in the act. Are you coersed if you do it because you want the other person to be happy? Are you coersed if you want to express your love to other person? Are you coersed if you have sex with the other person just to relieve their horniness? If you have sex with someone just to have a baby? Nearly every act we engage in involves coersion of a type or another. Eventually, the pressure becomes so weak that you cannot fault the person exerting the 'pressure' for the fact that the other person acquiesced. That's why we make the age of a person an issue, because of the natural coersion that is nearly always involved in the act of sexual congress. And that's why when the person is capable of making a sound decision we require the pressure to be overt.
Are you seriously defending manipulative practices like "fuck me or it's over"? Most of the examples you gave don't sound like coersion because the person in question wants to have sex.

What's wrong with defining coersive rape as any time a person is deliberately pressured into having sex when they don't want to?

Pedophilia is not reformable. It is sexual deviancy at its worst. There aren't enough islands in the world to drop them on. Just gather them into communities and build massive walls around them. Don't kill them, just isolate and monitor them HEAVILY.:mp5: :sniper:

There should be no space in socity for pedofiles, sub human scum who are no good to anybody, just a drain on funds.


Agreed, they all should be rounded up and locked away forever where they can never harm a child, better yet, once found guilty and covicted, take them out back behind the court house and hang them......:sniper:

Are you seriously defending manipulative practices like "fuck me or it's over"? Most of the examples you gave don't sound like coersion because the person in question wants to have sex.

What's wrong with defining coersive rape as any time a person is deliberately pressured into having sex when they don't want to?

I'm not defending such practices. I'm saying that rape requires an overt act because we can't simply consider all undesirable acts to be criminal. I don't approve of "fuck me or it's over" nor do I approve of "make me dinner or it's over", but at some point we have to allow people to make their choices. As far as 'wanting' to have sex, it depends on how you define want. Technically, they don't want to have sex as they want to do an act that relieves whatever pressure they are attempting to address in the examples I gave. It's all a matter of being a part of the spectrum, a spectrum I try to stay far on one end of, but others choose together to engage in another part of the spectrum. As adults, we do lots of things we don't want to do for one reason or another. You can't qualify every time we do something that we don't want to do as an act against our will.

Wife: Wanna have sex?
Husband: I'm really tired. How about another time?
Wife: Oh, come on, we haven't had sex in two months.
Husband: Has it really been that long? Alright, but just so you know when we're done, you're a rapist.

Agreed, they all should be rounded up and locked away forever where they can never harm a child, better yet, once found guilty and covicted, take them out back behind the court house and hang them......:sniper:

Guilty of what? You realize the vast majority of pedophiles never commit any crime related to children, yes?

And could you please stop with the sniper smiley. It makes it difficult to take you seriously in any way.

I'm not defending such practices. I'm saying that rape requires an overt act because we can't simply consider all undesirable acts to be criminal. I don't approve of "fuck me or it's over" nor do I approve of "make me dinner or it's over", but at some point we have to allow people to make their choices. As far as 'wanting' to have sex, it depends on how you define want. Technically, they don't want to have sex as they want to do an act that relieves whatever pressure they are attempting to address in the examples I gave. It's all a matter of being a part of the spectrum, a spectrum I try to stay far on one end of, but others choose together to engage in another part of the spectrum. As adults, we do lots of things we don't want to do for one reason or another. You can't qualify every time we do something that we don't want to do as an act against our will.

Wife: Wanna have sex?
Husband: I'm really tired. How about another time?
Wife: Oh, come on, we haven't had sex in two months.
Husband: Has it really been that long? Alright, but just so you know when we're done, you're a rapist.
I can and do qualify every time an adult does something they don't want to do as an act against his/her will. That's pretty much the definition of "against his/her will".

Wife: Wanna have sex?
Husband: I'm really tired. How about another time?
Wife: Oh, come on, we haven't had sex in two months.
Husband: Has it really been that long? Alright, but just so you know when we're done, you're a rapist.

The "alright" bit suggests she conceded. If she hadn't and her husband had still persisted it would indeed have been rape.

The "alright" bit suggests she conceded. If she hadn't and her husband had still persisted it would indeed have been rape.
1) Jocabia's example was of a wife pressuring her husband, not the other way arround.

2) Does that mean that a secretary who says "alright" to her boss after he applied pressure was not raped?

Guilty of what? You realize the vast majority of pedophiles never commit any crime related to children, yes?

And could you please stop with the sniper smiley. It makes it difficult to take you seriously in any way.

Maybe,maybe not. If found to have commited a crime against a chile then either lock them up forever or hang them once convicted. They can not be reformed and will offend again, so why give them a second chance??

And no, i will use what ever smiley i wish to.....:mp5: :sniper:

I can and do qualify every time an adult does something they don't want to do as an act against his/her will. That's pretty much the definition of "against his/her will".

Only if you overly simplify our will. I don't want to do my job (sometimes), but I do it because I don't want to be homeless even more. Again, I don't know of any adult that does only what they want to do. If you define every factor as coersion then everything is coersed.

You should know that 'against your will' isn't defined that way. You exert our will in choosing, even choosing to do something we don't want. Will in that context is a synonym of volition.

Volition - http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/volition - 2 : the power of choosing or determining : WILL

1) Jocabia's example was of a wife pressuring her husband, not the other way arround.

2) Does that mean that a secretary who says "alright" to her boss after he applied pressure was not raped?

No, she wasn't raped. It's a different crime.

http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Abuse/lisk/legal_rape_definition.htm
Rape is an act of sexual intercourse carried out:

1. "against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another."
2. where the victim is unable to resist because of an intoxicating, narcotic, or anesthetic substance that the accused has responsibility for administering.
3. where the victim is unconscious of the nature of the act and the perpetrator knows it.
4. where the victim believes, due to the perpetrator's intentional deceptive acts, that the perpetrator is her spouse.
5. where the perpetrator threatens to retaliate against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility the perpetrator will execute the threat -- "threatens to retaliate" means threatens to kidnap, imprison, inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or death.
6. where the victim is incapable of giving consent, and the perpetrator reasonably should know this.
7. where the perpetrator threatens to use public authority to imprison, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim reasonably believes the perpetrator is a public official.

If you look at five and seven they specifically define what types of coersion with threats can be considered rape. This doesn't mean a boss threatening to fire his secretary isn't coersing her. It just means because the secretary can reasonably resist and take another route, s/he is not being raped but being violated in another way.

Meanwhile, you are again using extreme examples that are illegal under the law. The majority of the examples we are using are cases where the person does not explicitly want to have sex but their was no violation of the law. It's true you can think up examples all day of people who DID use coersion and DID violate the law, but as long as we can think up ones where it occurred and no crime was committed then all acts of coersion are not rape.

Meanwhile, what happened to my example. Is it an act of rape if a husband mentions to his wife that they haven't engaged in a long time?

Maybe,maybe not. If found to have commited a crime against a chile then either lock them up forever or hang them once convicted. They can not be reformed and will offend again, so why give them a second chance??

And no, i will use what ever smiley i wish to.....:mp5: :sniper:

Not maybe, maybe not. The vast majority haven't committed a crime, so when you're threatening all pedophiles you're threatening mostly innocent individuals.

I think you should se the complicate aspect of this.
Or rather, you should start a topic about this or anything if you don't want any arguments.
You can't possible believe that the factual universe change just to remove any fact that could support pedophila. Universe doesn't have any moral censure.
It's not bullshit of course they have their argument and we have ours.

It is just another sexualiy though it's a failed one and we can admit that do take the right to supress any forms of sexuality that we can't stand.
They are right we are supressing them and that does makes me a kind of sexophob, I admit it.
When we truly see their arguments and accept them we can understand it and more efficiently remove them from society.

I am against pedophila in a calm way becouse the arguments against pedophila can be used against sexuality towards any young people
and it does and also this encourages adults to be less childish.

The age of consent here where I live is 15, some think that's pedophila
but we think the maturity of the body that decides
and I think we usually aren't afraid of any damage to children just for knowing about sex or accidentally seeing porn.
But where do pedophiliacs come from?

I don't like morality becouse it's hystery no matter how much danger lurking out there.

Also children have sexuality according to Feud which I believe in but that would mean the normal sexuality between parent and child is not what we generally speak of as sex but explains pedopiliacs sexuality toward children.
The parents sexual drive, the parenting instinct have been perverted.
I speculate it's often very loonly people and already insane that become pedopiacs becouse children are so easy prey.

Sexuality leads to children and therefore there is some assocation that make some old loosers with sexuality supressed think the other way around.
During the their whole life the main sexual release must have been making children and watching their nude bodies in a society that still teaches that
the main purpose of sex is making children.
Sexuality is repressed due to his famili values which promote childrish innocense ass the asexual pure way of life.
I think pedophilacs are family guys who gone to far and yes pedophiliacs are created by to strict family values and supressed sexuality.

Look childrens bodies and children are idealised, it's not strange that some people turn on it.

Aslo there are some theories that there exist platonic pedophiacs that are natural and positive phenomena.
According my old teacher the greeks where pedophiacs who took a young boy as their protoge and usually just sexually watched their bodies
in the greek sports and various activities.
The greek love of nudity involves pedophily aswell as homosexually more often
than hetrosexualiy.
I think my teacher was idealistic and naive, if he where right then it was a pedophic culture and it only makes sense that there should have been one.
Just think of how many pedophiliacs there are today if we put them in the same place. The old cultures where more similar what environment formed one person could shape all at once.

I am not sure, I did like to know for sure but you seemed to want arguments
and this is fashinating.

No, she wasn't raped. It's a different crime.

http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Abuse/lisk/legal_rape_definition.htm
Rape is an act of sexual intercourse carried out:

1. "against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another."
2. where the victim is unable to resist because of an intoxicating, narcotic, or anesthetic substance that the accused has responsibility for administering.
3. where the victim is unconscious of the nature of the act and the perpetrator knows it.
4. where the victim believes, due to the perpetrator's intentional deceptive acts, that the perpetrator is her spouse.
5. where the perpetrator threatens to retaliate against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility the perpetrator will execute the threat -- "threatens to retaliate" means threatens to kidnap, imprison, inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or death.
6. where the victim is incapable of giving consent, and the perpetrator reasonably should know this.
7. where the perpetrator threatens to use public authority to imprison, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim reasonably believes the perpetrator is a public official.

If you look at five and seven they specifically define what types of coersion with threats can be considered rape. This doesn't mean a boss threatening to fire his secretary isn't coersing her. It just means because the secretary can reasonably resist and take another route, s/he is not being raped but being violated in another way.

Meanwhile, you are again using extreme examples that are illegal under the law. The majority of the examples we are using are cases where the person does not explicitly want to have sex but their was no violation of the law. It's true you can think up examples all day of people who DID use coersion and DID violate the law, but as long as we can think up ones where it occurred and no crime was committed then all acts of coersion are not rape.

Meanwhile, what happened to my example. Is it an act of rape if a husband mentions to his wife that they haven't engaged in a long time?
Interesting. Blackmail and/or threat of economic ruin and destitution don't count, only fear for one's life, health, or freedom. I must say, I finally understand why you don't want children to be protected only by adult rape laws. They are woefully inadequite.

And your story was about a wife pressuring her husband, not the other way around. I assumed you'd done the gender reversal intentionally. And yes, if he didn't want to have sex, but she guilt tripped him into it, it should count as coersive rape.

Interesting. Blackmail and/or threat of economic ruin and destitution don't count, only fear for one's life, health, or freedom. I must say, I finally understand why you don't want children to be protected only by adult rape laws. They are woefully inadequite.

And your story was about a wife pressuring her husband, not the other way around. I assumed you'd done the gender reversal intentionally. And yes, if he didn't want to have sex, but she guilt tripped him into it, it should count as coersive rape.
I did and I switched them back accidentally. And by that definition then nearly every person on the planet is a rapist. You assume a guilt trip. My intent in the argument was to indicate that she was reminding him how long it had been with the intent to make him realize they were drifting.

You act as if children have the ability to make sound decision and simultaneously make the argument that adults cannot make sound decisions. The dichotomy would be interesting if it wasn't so absurd.

I did and I switched them back accidentally.

I thought so. It seems we can all fall into the old, steriotypical way of thinking in spite of ourselves. In this case, "men are always the ones pressuring their partners for sex".

And by that definition then nearly every person on the planet is a rapist.

I hate to say it, but if the shoe fits...

You assume a guilt trip. My intent in the argument was to indicate that she was reminding him how long it had been with the intent to make him realize they were drifting.

How do you define "guilt trip"?

You act as if children have the ability to make sound decision and simultaneously make the argument that adults cannot make sound decisions. The dichotomy would be interesting if it wasn't so absurd.
Actually, my contention is that children are not less capable of making sound decisions merely by virtue of being children. I just find it amazing how you're willing to accept this kind of manipulation in adult sexual relationships.

I thought so. It seems we can all fall into the old, steriotypical way of thinking in spite of ourselves. In this case, "men are always the ones pressuring their partners for sex".

I actually don't believe this is true. I've been pressured for sex many times in relationships. However, in the example, I used and, in fact, most of the time when I think of a heterosexual relationship I think of a particular one and it worked that way in that relationship.


I hate to say it, but if the shoe fits...

Ah, yes, and again you classify every adult of incapable of making their own decisions. How sad your world must be that you are so easily manipulated and cannot decide things for yourself if even the slightest pressure is exerted on you.


How do you define "guilt trip"?

I don't define it as everything that might make one guilty. If someone kicks me in the nuts and I mention to them that it hurt, I'm not trying to make them feel guilty. I'm trying to let them know what they did and the consequences of it in an effort to make it stop. Making someone realize how a behavior in a relationship is affecting you is effective communication. With the terms you use, you almost completely discount the ability of your average adult to make decisions for themselves.


Actually, my contention is that children are not less capable of making sound decisions merely by virtue of being children. I just find it amazing how you're willing to accept this kind of manipulation in adult sexual relationships.

First of all, you classify every expression of anything contradictory as manipulation so your point becomes completely meaningless.

You: I'd like to got to Red Lobster.
Me: I was hoping for a steak and I don't like the steaks at Red Lobster.
You: MANIPULATOR!!!! You're trying to food rape me.

According to your implied definition of manipulation, pretty much any open communication where people don't agree would be manipulation. Hell, even if I agree with something someone said just to avoid manipulating them I would be by your ridiculous definition because had I openly communicated with them they may have made a different decision.

Generally, people view manipulation to be when you try to prevent a person from making an informed decision, not when you inform them so they may make an informed decision.

Manipulate - b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/manipulate
There is nothing artful, unfair or insidious about the scenarios we're discussing. You view basically every open interaction as manipulation.

In your 'ideal' world, there would be no compromise. Just people acting out only their own wants with no consideration for the wants of others, because, according to you, considering the wants of others is a form of manipulation.

I actually don't believe this is true. I've been pressured for sex many times in relationships. However, in the example, I used and, in fact, most of the time when I think of a heterosexual relationship I think of a particular one and it worked that way in that relationship.

I didn't say you believed it. I was just remarking on how easy it is to fall back into using steriotypes we don't believe in, just because that's how we're socialised.

Ah, yes, and again you classify every adult of incapable of making their own decisions. How sad your world must be that you are so easily manipulated and cannot decide things for yourself if even the slightest pressure is exerted on you.

So, again, you're supporting these practices? There's no reason people who are blackmailed or threatened with financial ruin to say there consent was not valid?

You're the one contending that everyone uses dispicable tactics to coherse others into sex.

I don't define it as everything that might make one guilty. If someone kicks me in the nuts and I mention to them that it hurt, I'm not trying to make them feel guilty. I'm trying to let them know what they did and the consequences of it in an effort to make it stop. Making someone realize how a behavior in a relationship is affecting you is effective communication. With the terms you use, you almost completely discount the ability of your average adult to make decisions for themselves.

Interesting you put it that way. You find me discounting the ability of an average adult to make decisions for themselves inaccurate? You feel that honest communication shouldn't count as manipulation? What were your grounds that children can't consent again?

First of all, you classify every expression of anything contradictory as manipulation so your point becomes completely meaningless.

You: I'd like to got to Red Lobster.
Me: I was hoping for a steak and I don't like the steaks at Red Lobster.
You: MANIPULATOR!!!! You're trying to food rape me.

According to your implied definition of manipulation, pretty much any open communication where people don't agree would be manipulation. Hell, even if I agree with something someone said just to avoid manipulating them I would be by your ridiculous definition because had I openly communicated with them they may have made a different decision.

Who's oversimplifying and hyperbolising now?

Generally, people view manipulation to be when you try to prevent a person from making an informed decision, not when you inform them so they may make an informed decision.

So then, telling a child I would be interested in having sex with them wouldn't count as manipulation? An honest statement geared toward giving them the ability to make an informed decision, right?

Manipulate - b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/manipulate
There is nothing artful, unfair or insidious about the scenarios we're discussing. You view basically every open interaction as manipulation.

The terms artful, unfair, and insidious are all subjective terms. All of them are in the eye of the beholder.

In your 'ideal' world, there would be no compromise. Just people acting out only their own wants with no consideration for the wants of others, because, according to you, considering the wants of others is a form of manipulation.
I was under the general impression that we require the decision about sexual activity to default to the least enthusiastic person involved, and to attempt to change their mind through emotional manipulation like guilt trips and threats to leave, was considered unacceptable. Was I wrong?

I didn't say you believed it. I was just remarking on how easy it is to fall back into using steriotypes we don't believe in, just because that's how we're socialised.

So, again, you're supporting these practices? There's no reason people who are blackmailed or threatened with financial ruin to say there consent was not valid?

I'm not talking about blackmail and threats. In those cases, however, it's still a crime, it's just a different crime.


You're the one contending that everyone uses dispicable tactics to coherse others into sex.

I'm not defining them as dispicable tactics. You are. You have stated that you think open, healthy communication is manipulative. I think open, healthy communication, compromise, occasionally doing things you don't want to do are all landmarks of a healthy, adult relationship.


Interesting you put it that way. You find me discounting the ability of an average adult to make decisions for themselves inaccurate? You feel that honest communication shouldn't count as manipulation? What were your grounds that children can't consent again?

Yes, that's related unless you have a clue what you're talking about. Children's ability to consent has nothing to do with communication, my friend. It has to do with their ability to make informed decision while analyzing the effect of those decisions appropriately. An ability you're currently discounting in adults. It's no suprise you can't see the difference. I'm trying to explain why a black and white movie (children) doesn't have the array of colors a color movie (adults) have and I just realized that you actually can't see color.


Who's oversimplifying and hyperbolising now?

I'm not hyperbolizing anything. You openly stated that you believe that if a person openly expresses what their feeling and it causes the other person to change their mind in terms of sex that you think it should be considered rape. I could just summarize your position here, but I'd rather quote you -

Wife: Wanna have sex?
Husband: I'm really tired. How about another time?
Wife: Oh, come on, we haven't had sex in two months.
Husband: Has it really been that long? Alright, but just so you know when we're done, you're a rapist.

And yes, if he didn't want to have sex, but she guilt tripped him into it, it should count as coersive rape.

You take any kind of communication as manipulation. You called it rape. Hard to oversimplify or hyperbolize when you called healthy communication, rape.


So then, telling a child I would be interested in having sex with them wouldn't count as manipulation? An honest statement geared toward giving them the ability to make an informed decision, right?

They can't make an informed decision. That's the problem. The manipulation comes in when you try to get them to make a decision that's inherently bad for them to achieve your own goals.


The terms artful, unfair, and insidious are all subjective terms. All of them are in the eye of the beholder.

Yet, you want to use them as a means for considering every cooperation between adults where they don't have exactly the same course in mind as manipulative.

I was under the general impression that we require the decision about sexual activity to default to the least enthusiastic person involved, and to attempt to change their mind through emotional manipulation like guilt trips and threats to leave, was considered unacceptable. Was I wrong?
I can't answer that, because what you define as a guilt trip I define as open, healthy communication. You use terms to demonize that communication and you've made it quite clear that you view virtually any attempt to compromise or affect the decision of another as wrong even though it's an necessary part of every relationship.

I'll have to agree with Jocabia here.
Let's try just a small difference in the original scenario and see how it works(everything unnessicary to the example will be removed):
Husband:Give me money.
Wife:No, sorry.
Husband:But you haven't given me money in a while.
Wife:Ok, here's 20 bucks then.

This is not called stealing or scamming, this is called presenting evidence for your position.
No real difference in sex.
(Also should point out that there are no consequences for saying no in either example in contrast to the whole thing not having happened.)

I'll have to agree with Jocabia here.
Let's try just a small difference in the original scenario and see how it works(everything unnessicary to the example will be removed):
Husband:Give me money.
Wife:No, sorry.
Husband:But you haven't given me money in a while.
Wife:Ok, here's 20 bucks then.

This is not called stealing or scamming, this is called presenting evidence for your position.
No real difference in sex.
(Also should point out that there are no consequences for saying no in either example in contrast to the whole thing not having happened.)

Yes, he or she hasn't suggested any consequences for the actions and certainly no consequences imposed by one of the actors. Calling it coersive rape or even manipulation makes nearly every situation qualify.

Yes, he or she hasn't suggested any consequences for the actions and certainly no consequences imposed by one of the actors. Calling it coersive rape or even manipulation makes nearly every situation qualify.
Actually, it's the refusal to take no for an answer that makes me deeply uncomfortable. In both examples, there was a clear refusal, that the other partner didn't like, and got overturned through nothing more reasonable than a guilt trip. The only thing communicated by the wife's insistence was that she really wanted sex, and that she felt entitled because it'd been a while.

And consequences, as you would certainly point out to me if I were to take this back to the subject of children being manipulated, need not be directly pointed out for them to be implied.

Actually, it's the refusal to take no for an answer that makes me deeply uncomfortable. In both examples, there was a clear refusal, that the other partner didn't like, and got overturned through nothing more reasonable than a guilt trip. The only thing communicated by the wife's insistence was that she really wanted sex, and that she felt entitled because it'd been a while.

And consequences, as you would certainly point out to me if I were to take this back to the subject of children being manipulated, need not be directly pointed out for them to be implied.

Well, like I said, if any communication that is not agreement bothers you then perhaps you should be a hermit. She didn't suggest she was entitled. You read that into her communication and that you did is very telling. She simply reminded him how long it had been and if he changed his mind it was because this new information caused him to make another choice. Your additions to the scenario are just that. In the scenario, she simply and clearly reminded him it had been a long time. Any nefarious intent was created by you and is not in the nature of the scenario.

But they weren't implied, except in the mind's of some who don't understand that healthy relationships exist. He didn't threaten anything in my scenario. He gave no semblence of any indication of consequences. How do I know? It's my scenario and I didn't write it in.

And, you also read in that because he made a case, he 'refuses' to take no for an answer, rather than he simply thinks she might make a different choice with more information. To healthy individuals, additional information rarely subjugates their ability to make decisions.

I should remind you that nobody is making an unrefusable offer.
Which is usually the qualification for coersive rape.

I'm not talking about blackmail and threats. In those cases, however, it's still a crime, it's just a different crime.

Depends where you are.

While US law has quite a narrow definition of rape, all of the cases you're describing plus all of the cases Five Castes is describing would fall under the definition of sexual assault in Canadian law.

Depends where you are.

While US law has quite a narrow definition of rape, all of the cases you're describing plus all of the cases Five Castes is describing would fall under the definition of sexual assault in Canadian law.

All of the cases I'm describing? So if a wife tried to have sex with her husband and he initially declined and then she mentioned how long it had been, if he says yes after that, it's assault?

All of the cases I'm describing? So if a wife tried to have sex with her husband and he initially declined and then she mentioned how long it had been, if he says yes after that, it's assault?

If he files a complaint, yeah.

I didn't say the law made any sense.

If he files a complaint, yeah.

I didn't say the law made any sense.

Somehow, I doubt it. Can you link to the law please?

I wish the forum moderators would close down this illegal and repulsive pedophile forums, irregardless of what the Netherlands is doing nowadays.

And the 105 people who agree to legalize it should be reported to the police in their native countries.

I wish the forum moderators would close down this illegal and repulsive pedophile forums, irregardless of what the Netherlands is doing nowadays.

And the 105 people who agree to legalize it should be reported to the police in their native countries.

The vast majority of pedophiles never touch a child. This has been explained repeatedly. Meanwhile, no one has agreed to legalize pedophilia.

And what crime would you report them for? Having an opinion you don't like?

Somehow, I doubt it. Can you link to the law please?
Or a court case.

If you're right, Llewdor, it would seem that Canada's rape laws are more in line with my own thinking.

For future reference, the Canadian Criminal Code can be found here:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/

My understanding of the law is as I've described it. However, the relevant sections of the code seem to say that the only relevant coersion is the application of force against anyone (not just the victim), the threat of the application of force against anyone, fear of the application of force against anyone, the use of authority, or fraud.

So it appears that the law exists largely as Jocaiba described it, save the fraud provisions:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267426.html

For future reference, the Canadian Criminal Code can be found here:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/

My understanding of the law is as I've described it. However, the relevant sections of the code seem to say that the only relevant coersion is the application of force against anyone (not just the victim), the threat of the application of force against anyone, fear of the application of force against anyone, the use of authority, or fraud.

So it appears that the law exists largely as Jocaiba described it, save the fraud provisions:

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/267426.html

Right. When you think about it, if the law were in the form you suggested it would make it impossible for my wife to acknowledge that I've changed my mind because she has to worry that I might change it again later and accuse of her of rape. People change their minds. Adults have conversations about their sex lives. It's not coersion to give reasons why you think you should do something or go somewhere, and rape is no exception. Look at other acts as similar when discussing adults. If I used the types of tactics you listed to force you to go to my home or to a restaurant, etc., I'd be guilty of illegally restraining you or kidnapping (depending on where we were). However, if I was discussing going to a restaurant with my wife and she said she didn't want to go, I'd certainly be allowed to make my case without it being considered kidnapping.

Right. When you think about it, if the law were in the form you suggested it would make it impossible for my wife to acknowledge that I've changed my mind because she has to worry that I might change it again later and accuse of her of rape. People change their minds. Adults have conversations about their sex lives. It's not coersion to give reasons why you think you should do something or go somewhere, and rape is no exception. Look at other acts as similar when discussing adults. If I used the types of tactics you listed to force you to go to my home or to a restaurant, etc., I'd be guilty of illegally restraining you or kidnapping (depending on where we were). However, if I was discussing going to a restaurant with my wife and she said she didn't want to go, I'd certainly be allowed to make my case without it being considered kidnapping.

I recall having those very same concerns.

But since I hold a very low opinion of elected officials, I didn't dismiss the possibility that they'd passed a law that stupid.

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.

Agreed.

Right. When you think about it, if the law were in the form you suggested it would make it impossible for my wife to acknowledge that I've changed my mind because she has to worry that I might change it again later and accuse of her of rape. People change their minds. Adults have conversations about their sex lives. It's not coersion to give reasons why you think you should do something or go somewhere, and rape is no exception. Look at other acts as similar when discussing adults. If I used the types of tactics you listed to force you to go to my home or to a restaurant, etc., I'd be guilty of illegally restraining you or kidnapping (depending on where we were). However, if I was discussing going to a restaurant with my wife and she said she didn't want to go, I'd certainly be allowed to make my case without it being considered kidnapping.
So it isn't called rape under the legal definition. Doesn't applying social pressure in order to obtain sex the other person doesn't want to participate in count as a crime of some order?

Unlike homosexuality or heterosexuality, in pedophilia only one of the participants can make an educated choice because only one has reached puberty. It would only be pleasure for one person and pain for the other which could be considered rape.

So it isn't called rape under the legal definition. Doesn't applying social pressure in order to obtain sex the other person doesn't want to participate in count as a crime of some order?

Depends on the situation. Is the person capable of saying no? Are they allowed to say no without some kind of illegal repercussions?

Social pressure is a part of every decision that affects other people, whether intentional or not. We expect that a healthy capable adult is capable of dealing with such pressures. I a man has sex with his wife because it will make her feel more comfortable even though he doesn't really want to, that's social pressure. It's also a decision he made willingly and of his own volition. To suggest that is a crime is to completely shut communication (because pretty much any expression of how someone feels about an event or decision could be coersive) and virtually all acts of kindness (since what makes an act kind is that I am doing it for someone else rather than my own selfish pleasure).

Honestly, given that you view sexual activity in such a selfish and rather simplistic way, it's not all the surprising that you argue that children are capable of consent. In reality, relationships between individuals are much nuanced and complicated than you give them credit for.

Unlike homosexuality or heterosexuality, in pedophilia only one of the participants can make an educated choice because only one has reached puberty. It would only be pleasure for one person and pain for the other which could be considered rape.
I'd like to hear your views on the educational nature of puberty. How does puberty educate people?

And you do realise you're confusing pedophilia with child molestation, right?
Depends on the situation. Is the person capable of saying no? Are they allowed to say no without some kind of illegal repercussions?

So there can be terrible consequences, so long as they're legal? Fired from your job? Thrown out of your home? These are legal, after all, assuming the person went through the proper procedures to have you evicted or fired for an "unrelated reason". I was pretty sure such things qualified as a crime in most places.

Social pressure is a part of every decision that affects other people, whether intentional or not. We expect that a healthy capable adult is capable of dealing with such pressures.

And ignore the idea that a healthy child might be equally capable of dealing with them. But as I'm sure you'll point out, yours is the commonly accepted point of view.

I a man has sex with his wife because it will make her feel more comfortable even though he doesn't really want to, that's social pressure. It's also a decision he made willingly and of his own volition. To suggest that is a crime is to completely shut communication (because pretty much any expression of how someone feels about an event or decision could be coersive) and virtually all acts of kindness (since what makes an act kind is that I am doing it for someone else rather than my own selfish pleasure).

Some of the most horrific stories of rape I've ever heard came from people who "consented" because of social pressure like this. Because they wanted the other person to like them. Because they felt the other person would be unhappy if they didn't. Just because a person is not a child does not mean these things lose their ability to be traumatic.

You said before that the dividing line in your mind is not being able to say "no". That's a perfectly acceptable line. Can a man who desprately loves his wife, and cares about her more than anything in the world say no to her when she tells him she'll leave him if she doesn't? How about if he's financially dependent on her and has no job skills, meaning without her, he would be on the streets? How about if she didn't say she'd leave him, but the implication was there? Where's the line now?

Honestly, given that you view sexual activity in such a selfish and rather simplistic way, it's not all the surprising that you argue that children are capable of consent. In reality, relationships between individuals are much nuanced and complicated than you give them credit for.
And considering how you view human beings and relationships as complicated and nuanced, I have a hard time understanding why you insist on calling every sexual encounter between an adult and a child rape, regardless of context.

So there can be terrible consequences, so long as they're legal? Fired from your job? Thrown out of your home? These are legal, after all, assuming the person went through the proper procedures to have you evicted or fired for an "unrelated reason". I was pretty sure such things qualified as a crime in most places.

They are not legal. That's the point. Some consequences are not legal for the very reason you're complaining about them. However, most consequences are legal because as adults we are well prepared to deal with the coersive nature of dealing with other adult human beings.


And ignore the idea that a healthy child might be equally capable of dealing with them. But as I'm sure you'll point out, yours is the commonly accepted point of view.

According to you, no one is capable of dealing with them. You can't argue that adults should consider it a crime to deal with such things and at the same time that children are capable of dealing with such things. If one is to take evidence from your arguments, you, an adult, aren't even capable of understanding the nature of coersion. Forgive me if, given that, that I don't consider you a reliable source.


Some of the most horrific stories of rape I've ever heard came from people who "consented" because of social pressure like this. Because they wanted the other person to like them. Because they felt the other person would be unhappy if they didn't. Just because a person is not a child does not mean these things lose their ability to be traumatic.

I'm quite certain most of those stories were children. However, no matter how you slice it, we have to have a reasonable expectation of the other partner having an ability to deal with the real world. That world includes social pressure in every activity involving other human beings. Because children have more difficulty with social pressures which can be evidenced by talking to them once in while we eliminate some of the activities that would have the more dire consequences where they to succumb to social pressure.

I didn't say they lose their ability to be traumatic. However at some point we have to have a reasonable expectation that people have a minimal amount of control over themselves. All evidence suggests as much, but as you are so willing to point feel free to prove that a healthy adult is incapable of dealing with social pressure.


You said before that the dividing line in your mind is not being able to say "no". That's a perfectly acceptable line. Can a man who desprately loves his wife, and cares about her more than anything in the world say no to her when she tells him she'll leave him if she doesn't? How about if he's financially dependent on her and has no job skills, meaning without her, he would be on the streets? How about if she didn't say she'd leave him, but
the implication was there? Where's the line now?

Yes, he can. Human beings are allowed to enter into relationships of many shapes and sizes. It's highly unlikely that such a situation crept up on him. He willingly positioned himself to dependent on a pretty unsavory person. And again still has the right and responsibility to say no to this person. According to the law and rightfully so, the question is whether or not this person could reasonably have said no. Depending on details you didn't give, some of these cases MAY qualify, but in most cases, becuase sex is an expected part of a *gasp* sexual relationship, it is completely acceptable for a person to decide when that part of the relationship goes away to end the relationship. That's not a threat, it's a natural consequence of changing such a relationship.

Meanwhile, you make extreme examples, why? According to you, my example which was much more mild should be illegal? Why pretend like you're only talking about these types of examples. You have no understanding of the nuances of human communication and interaction.


And considering how you view human beings and relationships as complicated and nuanced, I have a hard time understanding why you insist on calling every sexual encounter between an adult and a child rape, regardless of context.

Because children actually don't have the ability to deal with these complicated and nuanced relationships. You're actually arguing that adults aren't either, so you're really destroying your own argument.

The arguments you're trying to apply to adults actually do apply to children according to every study I've ever seen many of which I've presented to you and none of which you've read. Sexual encounters are naturally harmful to children. You've yet to prove they aren't and the evidence is on our side. Sorry, buddy, but sell your unsupported assertions to someone uneducated enough to not know better.

They are not legal. That's the point. Some consequences are not legal for the very reason you're complaining about them. However, most consequences are legal because as adults we are well prepared to deal with the coersive nature of dealing with other adult human beings.

You see, it's this idea that adult relationships are coersive by nature that bothers me.

According to you, no one is capable of dealing with them. You can't argue that adults should consider it a crime to deal with such things and at the same time that children are capable of dealing with such things. If one is to take evidence from your arguments, you, an adult, aren't even capable of understanding the nature of coersion. Forgive me if, given that, that I don't consider you a reliable source.

Actually, according to me, the things children aren't capable of dealing with should be considered crimes when adults are involved anyway. Why is this so hard for you to get? Am I not being clear enough?

I'm quite certain most of those stories were children. However, no matter how you slice it, we have to have a reasonable expectation of the other partner having an ability to deal with the real world. That world includes social pressure in every activity involving other human beings. Because children have more difficulty with social pressures which can be evidenced by talking to them once in while we eliminate some of the activities that would have the more dire consequences where they to succumb to social pressure.

All right, let's talk about those dire consequences, shall we? What are they, and why are they worse than the consequences of activities society does allow them free will regarding?

I didn't say they lose their ability to be traumatic. However at some point we have to have a reasonable expectation that people have a minimal amount of control over themselves. All evidence suggests as much, but as you are so willing to point feel free to prove that a healthy adult is incapable of dealing with social pressure.

"Shouldn't have to" is not the same as "cannot". And a healthy person, adult or child, is perfectly capable of making decisions when fully informed. Direct, deliberate misleading or pressuring is dispicable whenever it's used, and shouldn't be allowed with anyone.

Yes, he can. Human beings are allowed to enter into relationships of many shapes and sizes. It's highly unlikely that such a situation crept up on him. He willingly positioned himself to dependent on a pretty unsavory person. And again still has the right and responsibility to say no to this person. According to the law and rightfully so, the question is whether or not this person could reasonably have said no. Depending on details you didn't give, some of these cases MAY qualify, but in most cases, becuase sex is an expected part of a *gasp* sexual relationship, it is completely acceptable for a person to decide when that part of the relationship goes away to end the relationship. That's not a threat, it's a natural consequence of changing such a relationship.

Change all the "he"s to "she"s and vice versa and say the exact same thing. Go ahead. I'd like to see you blame the victum for being in an abusive situation when it isn't a man. You should do so if you don't want to be sexist about your horrible additudes toward people who end up in bad situations.

Meanwhile, you make extreme examples, why? According to you, my example which was much more mild should be illegal? Why pretend like you're only talking about these types of examples. You have no understanding of the nuances of human communication and interaction.

You seem to be ignoring that all my examples were based on your original example. I was filling in missing information, and didn't contradict your original guilt trip. You're the one who wants to contend that healthy communication would count as manipulation when a child is involved. Your contentions are no different from mine.

Because children actually don't have the ability to deal with these complicated and nuanced relationships. You're actually arguing that adults aren't either, so you're really destroying your own argument.

My arguement has been that children are no less capable of dealing with them than adults by virtue of being children. Do you even listen to yourself?

The arguments you're trying to apply to adults actually do apply to children according to every study I've ever seen many of which I've presented to you and none of which you've read. Sexual encounters are naturally harmful to children. You've yet to prove they aren't and the evidence is on our side. Sorry, buddy, but sell your unsupported assertions to someone uneducated enough to not know better.
So nature is the root of the problem? "Naturally harmful"? You should really start keeping these kids away from one another then, since apparently they will have sexual encounters with other kids if they aren't having them with adults.

You see, it's this idea that adult relationships are coersive by nature that bothers me.

Actually, according to me, the things children aren't capable of dealing with should be considered crimes when adults are involved anyway. Why is this so hard for you to get? Am I not being clear enough?

All right, let's talk about those dire consequences, shall we? What are they, and why are they worse than the consequences of activities society does allow them free will regarding?

"Shouldn't have to" is not the same as "cannot". And a healthy person, adult or child, is perfectly capable of making decisions when fully informed. Direct, deliberate misleading or pressuring is dispicable whenever it's used, and shouldn't be allowed with anyone.

Change all the "he"s to "she"s and vice versa and say the exact same thing. Go ahead. I'd like to see you blame the victum for being in an abusive situation when it isn't a man. You should do so if you don't want to be sexist about your horrible additudes toward people who end up in bad situations.

You seem to be ignoring that all my examples were based on your original example. I was filling in missing information, and didn't contradict your original guilt trip. You're the one who wants to contend that healthy communication would count as manipulation when a child is involved. Your contentions are no different from mine.

My arguement has been that children are no less capable of dealing with them than adults by virtue of being children. Do you even listen to yourself?

So nature is the root of the problem? "Naturally harmful"? You should really start keeping these kids away from one another then, since apparently they will have sexual encounters with other kids if they aren't having them with adults.

Ha. Amusing. Strawmen, misinformation, and basically just nonsense. Nothing about my arguments are limited to men. I don't like abusive relationships, but unless a person physically harms or physically threatens another it's simply not a crime. Plain and simple. I can't put a man in jail for mentally abusing a woman, either. I can't and I wouldn't. It doesn't mean I like it.

Meanwhile, you said you think it should be a crime even when it's not abusive. So let's stop pretending like your argument is about abuse.

Your argumentation is so weak. When I present it one way I'm succumbing to stereotypes and when I present it another I'm a sexist. Certainly you have a real argument.

You pretend like the examples I used were dishonest in any way. I mentioned a scenario where a woman was being perfectly honest with her husband and you didn't like. According to you she should not have spoken honestly with her husband because honest communication amounts to pressure if you don't agree. You aren't even being remotely consistent.

Again, I believe I'll take the sex out of it and see how it looks:
Say you have some bum on the street.
Say that guy says to everyone who goes by "Gimme money or you'll look like a cheapskate"
This of course, is not theft by any definition of the word.
This isn't theft because there is a chance that a passerby would decide that the money is worth more to them then the image of generosity.
By the way, on your "financially dependant" scenario, that would be similar to a boss firing a worker for not having sex.
It's also a bad analogy, because very few sane people will decide that sex is worth less then a steady income.
Some people will refuse sex if the argument for it is "we haven't had sex in a while, so let's have sex now"

Ha. Amusing. Strawmen, misinformation, and basically just nonsense.

Pot. Kettle. Enough said.

Nothing about my arguments are limited to men. I don't like abusive relationships, but unless a person physically harms or physically threatens another it's simply not a crime. Plain and simple. I can't put a man in jail for mentally abusing a woman, either. I can't and I wouldn't. It doesn't mean I like it.

So you feel emotional abuse shouldn't count as a crime? Thanks. Now I know the kind of person I'm dealing with.

Meanwhile, you said you think it should be a crime even when it's not abusive. So let's stop pretending like your argument is about abuse.

Actually, this misunderstanding simply stems from us having different standards for what constatutes abuse.

Your argumentation is so weak. When I present it one way I'm succumbing to stereotypes and when I present it another I'm a sexist. Certainly you have a real argument.

Let's face it. If those are your only two ways of presenting the situation, then I think it's your part of the arguement that needs work.

You pretend like the examples I used were dishonest in any way. I mentioned a scenario where a woman was being perfectly honest with her husband and you didn't like. According to you she should not have spoken honestly with her husband because honest communication amounts to pressure if you don't agree. You aren't even being remotely consistent.
I remember my own arguements, thank you. Unwanted sex is rape. Very simple concept, but one you apparently don't agree with. Guilt tripping someone into sex is a means of making a person submit to your will regarding sex just as much as blackmail and threats of violence are.

So you feel emotional abuse shouldn't count as a crime? Thanks. Now I know the kind of person I'm dealing with.

"Shouldn't" isn't the word. "Doesn't" is. Anyone can insult anyone they want (including sexual partners) with no legal penaltys. This makes them scum, but they still can.

Let's face it. If those are your only two ways of presenting the situation, then I think it's your part of the arguement that needs work.

Lemme rephrase that. "If I phrase it one way you say I'm succumbing to steriotypes and if I phrase it another way you call me sexist"

I remember my own arguements, thank you. Unwanted sex is rape. Very simple concept, but one you apparently don't agree with. Guilt tripping someone into sex is a means of making a person submit to your will regarding sex just as much as blackmail and threats of violence are.
The problem is, this isn't unwanted sex.
Do not want sex on the merits of sex alone != Do not want sex at all.
The argument was that one party was arguing their case.
If this changes the other parties mind, then they now want to have sex after considering whatever it was the first party brought up.
The defining line here is whether it would be viable for the person to decide that they don't want sex even given what the other party brought up.
Or in this case:
Some people will decide that they don't want sex more then they don't want to feel guilty.
Almost nobody refuses sex if the alternative is large amounts of physical pain.

Pot. Kettle. Enough said.

So you keep saying but so far, you've never posted an ounce of proof in any thread EVER. EVER. Your argument rests on bastardizing the arguments and evidence of others. You're a lazy debater who keeps complaining that I won't let you get away with it.

So you feel emotional abuse shouldn't count as a crime? Thanks. Now I know the kind of person I'm dealing with.

Nope. And it's not a crime. Apparently most people agree with me. It's an impossible thing to prove for one. And unless the person is physically in fear (which is a crime) then they have every ability to avoid such abuse, unlike physical abuse.

Go ahead. Call me all the names you like. In the US, that is no crime. Being mean is not a crime and shouldn't be.


Actually, this misunderstanding simply stems from us having different standards for what constatutes abuse.

Lies. I described a definitive situation where there was clearly no abuse. You still said it was rape. Stop equivocating. My memory isn't as bad as yours.


Let's face it. If those are your only two ways of presenting the situation, then I think it's your part of the arguement that needs work.

I'm talking about a man seeking sex from a woman and vice versa. Somehow, I don't think it would change if it was a man and a man or a woman and a woman. You can't address the argument so you try to divert the subject by making it about something else. It's a weak tactic and ineffective.


I remember my own arguements, thank you. Unwanted sex is rape. Very simple concept, but one you apparently don't agree with. Guilt tripping someone into sex is a means of making a person submit to your will regarding sex just as much as blackmail and threats of violence are.[/QUOTE]

No, unwanted sex is not rape by the definition of rape. Rape requires force or threat of it. I gave you a scenario where it was a choice and you still called it rape. Doing things you wouldn't prefer to do but choose to do for a plethora of reasons isn't rape. You've not made an substantive argument that it is other than exaggerated scenarios where on could argue that force actually does exist. It does nothing to change the fact that in the scenario I gave there was no force in any way. Period. Do you actually have an argument.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Rape - 2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent

Come on, certainly you have a better argument than making up a definition that doesn't exist in any lexicon.

"Shouldn't" isn't the word. "Doesn't" is. Anyone can insult anyone they want (including sexual partners) with no legal penaltys. This makes them scum, but they still can.

Actually, shouldn't is exactly what Jocabia was arguing.

Lemme rephrase that. "If I phrase it one way you say I'm succumbing to steriotypes and if I phrase it another way you call me sexist"

The only change is you changed the whens to ifs. There wasn't a substantive change, so my original response is still aplicable.

The problem is, this isn't unwanted sex.
Do not want sex on the merits of sex alone != Do not want sex at all.
The argument was that one party was arguing their case.
If this changes the other parties mind, then they now want to have sex after considering whatever it was the first party brought up.
The defining line here is whether it would be viable for the person to decide that they don't want sex even given what the other party brought up.
Or in this case:
Some people will decide that they don't want sex more then they don't want to feel guilty.
Almost nobody refuses sex if the alternative is large amounts of physical pain.
So your line is if any sane person would ever refuse? If there were a significant percentage of the population who would refuse sex even if there were the threat of violence involved, would that make it acceptable to use the threat of violence?

So you keep saying but so far, you've never posted an ounce of proof in any thread EVER. EVER. Your argument rests on bastardizing the arguments and evidence of others. You're a lazy debater who keeps complaining that I won't let you get away with it.

In other words, you're mad that the evidence you present, tends to support my assertions? It isn't my fault you keep posting evidence for my side.

Nope. And it's not a crime. Apparently most people agree with me. It's an impossible thing to prove for one. And unless the person is physically in fear (which is a crime) then they have every ability to avoid such abuse, unlike physical abuse.

Go ahead. Call me all the names you like. In the US, that is no crime. Being mean is not a crime and shouldn't be.

Again, to be clear, emotional manipulation and social blackmail are perfectly valid ways of obtaining sex in your book. In light of that fact, I see no reason to deffer to your moral authority on sexual matters. And incidentally, if the majority really does agree with you, that just means that the majority has equally fucked up views on sex.

Lies. I described a definitive situation where there was clearly no abuse. You still said it was rape. Stop equivocating. My memory isn't as bad as yours.

Like I said, believe whatever you need to believe to keep thinking you're winning.

I'm talking about a man seeking sex from a woman and vice versa. Somehow, I don't think it would change if it was a man and a man or a woman and a woman. You can't address the argument so you try to divert the subject by making it about something else. It's a weak tactic and ineffective.

Then go ahead. Say you think a woman in a situation like you described deserves to be there, just like you said it was the man's fault earlier. If you think it's so innocent, say it.

No, unwanted sex is not rape by the definition of rape. Rape requires force or threat of it. I gave you a scenario where it was a choice and you still called it rape. Doing things you wouldn't prefer to do but choose to do for a plethora of reasons isn't rape. You've not made an substantive argument that it is other than exaggerated scenarios where on could argue that force actually does exist. It does nothing to change the fact that in the scenario I gave there was no force in any way. Period. Do you actually have an argument.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
Rape - 2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent

Come on, certainly you have a better argument than making up a definition that doesn't exist in any lexicon.
I thought you believed I was an idiot who was incapable of holding together a coherent arguement (not to mention mentally unstable and in serious need of serious therapy). Make up your mind. Am I an unworthy peon, or someone capable of formulating reasonable arguments. You can't have it both ways. (Well, you seem to actually be capable of double-think, but you know what I mean.)

The only change is you changed the whens to ifs. There wasn't a substantive change, so my original response is still aplicable.

Actually, I didn't intend to change the whens to ifs. Maybe I should bold my changes this time: "If I phrase it one way you say I'm succumbing to steriotypes and if I phrase it another way you call me sexist"

So your line is if any sane person would ever refuse? If there were a significant percentage of the population who would refuse sex even if there were the threat of violence involved, would that make it acceptable to use the threat of violence?
Well, it wouldn't be rape.
It still would be assault, however.
And "What if" is not an argument of any merit.
EDIT: Of course, this assumes that the perpetrator wouldn't go ahead and rape the victim anyway.
I don't like abusive relationships, but unless a person physically harms or physically threatens another it's simply not a crime.
Nope, don't see a "shouldn't" in there. Just see a "doesn't".

Actually, I didn't intend to change the whens to ifs. Maybe I should bold my changes this time: "If I phrase it one way you say I'm succumbing to steriotypes and if I phrase it another way you call me sexist"

I see now. Yes, it does actually make it clearer if you bold your changes. I didn't notice the other ones the first time through.

In response to those changes, if he can't properly respond to either one of those accuasations, his arguement does need adjusting.

Well, it wouldn't be rape.
It still would be assault, however.
And "What if" is not an argument of any merit.
EDIT: Of course, this assumes that the perpetrator wouldn't go ahead and rape the victim anyway.

So the threat of violence wouldn't make it rape if a significant number of people would refuse to have sex with the threat of violence used to "convince them"? I should point out that a significant number of people do refuse to have sex with the threat of violence used to "convince them". Those are the ones where a rapist has to resort to actual violence.

Nope, don't see a "shouldn't" in there. Just see a "doesn't".
You just aren't looking in the right place.
I can't and I wouldn't.

So the threat of violence wouldn't make it rape if a significant number of people would refuse to have sex with the threat of violence used to "convince them"? I should point out that a significant number of people do refuse to have sex with the threat of violence used to "convince them". Those are the ones where a rapist has to resort to actual violence.

Again, I wasn't refering to cases where the attacker will try for it anyway. I'm talking about where the attacker will JUST hit the victim with no attempt to get sex out of it after the victim has refused.
Most people don't refuse the second one.

You just aren't looking in the right place.

Nope, you're not:
It doesn't mean I like it.

Again, I wasn't refering to cases where the attacker will try for it anyway. I'm talking about where the attacker will JUST hit the victim with no attempt to get sex out of it after the victim has refused.
Most people don't refuse the second one.

So now most people not refusing a particular style of arguement is what constatutes rape in your book?

Nope, you're not:
He said he wouldn't make it a crime, so that to me suggests he believes it shouldn't be a crime. He seems to think it's unsavory, and worthy of disaprooving stares or something, but not worthy of legislation and a genuine effort to stop the practice.

So now most people not refusing a particular style of arguement is what constatutes rape in your book?

That was supposed to imply that it was unrefusable. And you may as well ignore that line, on rereading it it doesn't make much sense.

He said he wouldn't make it a crime, so that to me suggests he believes it shouldn't be a crime. He seems to think it's unsavory, and worthy of disaprooving stares or something, but not worthy of legislation and a genuine effort to stop the practice.
Insults come under free speech. In most cases this is a good thing. In this case it's not. Even so, if that's the only thing happening then the victim should be free to leave the relationship. If she's not, another crime is being commited and that one can be reported to the police.

In other words, you're mad that the evidence you present, tends to support my assertions? It isn't my fault you keep posting evidence for my side.

You not reading it and claiming it says the opposite of what it does despite quotes to the contrary is lying. Lying doesn't support your side. It just makes you a liar. Read your own studies and quit lying about what they say.


Again, to be clear, emotional manipulation and social blackmail are perfectly valid ways of obtaining sex in your book. In light of that fact, I see no reason to deffer to your moral authority on sexual matters. And incidentally, if the majority really does agree with you, that just means that the majority has equally fucked up views on sex.

Nope. Much like I don't think pedophilia should be outlawed but I don't agree with it. Don't try this weak crap with me. There are more shades than illegal or wonderful. You're a pedophile and you're suggesting that because I find some behaviors detestable but don't want them to be illegal because of the path they create makes morally reprehensible. Do you really want to make that argument?

The majority of people, like me, find the behavior reprehensible. That doesn't mean they are willing to make it illegal. I am not. That's for certain.


Like I said, believe whatever you need to believe to keep thinking you're winning.

Then go ahead. Say you think a woman in a situation like you described deserves to be there, just like you said it was the man's fault earlier. If you think it's so innocent, say it.

I'll say it. If you place yourself in a position where you are dependent on someone who would abuse that dependence then you are responsible for you position. So is the person abusing that position, but that doesn't make them guilty of a crime. I've said this all along and sex is not the issue. The fact that you think whether a woman or a man is the victim of emotional abuse makes a difference speaks volumes about what you're really arguing.


I thought you believed I was an idiot who was incapable of holding together a coherent arguement (not to mention mentally unstable and in serious need of serious therapy). Make up your mind. Am I an unworthy peon, or someone capable of formulating reasonable arguments. You can't have it both ways. (Well, you seem to actually be capable of double-think, but you know what I mean.)

I try to give you the benefit of the doubt but thus far it appears, I am mistaken in doing so. I said this in the other thread but it makes just as much sense here because like EVERY thread you refuse to offer even a little support for your positions, rather chosing to simply bastardize whatever evidence other people offer up.

You know what's hilarious about these threads. In every thread I talk about how you are unwilling and unable to present even the slightest amount of evidence for your case. All you'd have to do to make me look like a clown is present some evidence, yet you don't only lending credence to my point and further supporting my claims.

In addition, in every thread you accuse me of doing the same thing, yet an examination of each of those threads would reveal links, support, presented evidence some of which you admit you're not willing to accept, yet you claim none was offered. Again, only lending credence to my point and further supporting my claims.

At least make this hard, dude. Pretend like you came here for a discussion instead of to preach. Fake a link once in a while or something, but this is just sad.

Go ahead. Make me look like a clown. Present an ounce of evidence. I keep offering up that challenge in every thread and so far, not an ounce. You're a terrible debator.

You not reading it and claiming it says the opposite of what it does despite quotes to the contrary is lying. Lying doesn't support your side. It just makes you a liar. Read your own studies and quit lying about what they say.

How can they be my studies? You've said repeatedly that I haven't brought any evidence in, so how can you possibly define this stydy as mine?

Nope. Much like I don't think pedophilia should be outlawed but I don't agree with it. Don't try this weak crap with me. There are more shades than illegal or wonderful. You're a pedophile and you're suggesting that because I find some behaviors detestable but don't want them to be illegal because of the path they create makes morally reprehensible. Do you really want to make that argument?

The majority of people, like me, find the behavior reprehensible. That doesn't mean they are willing to make it illegal. I am not. That's for certain.

Jocabia, I honestly see little difference between jailing and the form of civil commitment you propose. Since pedophilia has no effective psychiatric treatment the only purpose of such a civil commitment is to remove the pedophile from the population at large, just as a jail does. The primary difference, is that civil commitment doesn't require the formality of a trial.

I'll say it. If you place yourself in a position where you are dependent on someone who would abuse that dependence then you are responsible for you position. So is the person abusing that position, but that doesn't make them guilty of a crime. I've said this all along and sex is not the issue. The fact that you think whether a woman or a man is the victim of emotional abuse makes a difference speaks volumes about what you're really arguing.

What am I arguing? You've read volumes inot my posts, so tell me exactly what it is I'm arguing. Go ahead and expose my evil agenda to the world. I look forward to reading your misinterpretation.

I try to give you the benefit of the doubt but thus far it appears, I am mistaken in doing so. I said this in the other thread but it makes just as much sense here because like EVERY thread you refuse to offer even a little support for your positions, rather chosing to simply bastardize whatever evidence other people offer up.

Ah, I knew you were accusing me of having no evidence. So, you've said that I have no evidence, and that my evidence doesn't say what I think it says. Please be consistent in your attacks.

Go ahead. Make me look like a clown. Present an ounce of evidence. I keep offering up that challenge in every thread and so far, not an ounce. You're a terrible debator.
You'll forgive me if I'm not hurt by your unfavorable assessment of my abilities.

How can they be my studies? You've said repeatedly that I haven't brought any evidence in, so how can you possibly define this stydy as mine?

I posted them. Once I posted them and mentioned a part of the study, you've since kept trotting them out even though you claim they reached the opposite conclusion from what the study actually says. Honesty is overrated really.

Jocabia, I honestly see little difference between jailing and the form of civil commitment you propose. Since pedophilia has no effective psychiatric treatment the only purpose of such a civil commitment is to remove the pedophile from the population at large, just as a jail does. The primary difference, is that civil commitment doesn't require the formality of a trial.

Who proposed civil commitment? Seriously, I know you don't actually read studies but at least read the posts you're replying to. I've argued repeatedly and continuously against any kind of forced incarceration.



What am I arguing? You've read volumes inot my posts, so tell me exactly what it is I'm arguing. Go ahead and expose my evil agenda to the world. I look forward to reading your misinterpretation.

Hmmm... let's see what could you be arguing? I think I remember you arguing about the poor oppressed man. And how feminists only care about women. But hey, it could be that I hacked your account and put that argument in for you.


Ah, I knew you were accusing me of having no evidence. So, you've said that I have no evidence, and that my evidence doesn't say what I think it says. Please be consistent in your attacks.

Actually, I said you've never POSTED any evidence. The studies I posted that you CLAIM support you don't. Thus you have no evidence, even while trying to use mine. My meaning is clear and your current argument is called equivocation. It's a fallacy.


You'll forgive me if I'm not hurt by your unfavorable assessment of my abilities.
I've proven it repeatedly. You have not linked a single piece of evidence in these arguments that supports your assertions. Go ahead. Go back twenty pages if you like in every thread we're both in. You've lost. At least have a little grace.

I'd like to hear your views on the educational nature of puberty. How does puberty educate people?

One word. Masturbation. :P

Also, sex ed.

Oh, and porn.

One word. Masturbation. :P

Also, sex ed.

Oh, and porn.
Two of those don't require puberty, and the third is merely societal and can be changed easily.

What research is or is not being presented? I've been trying to follow this latest round of arguments and I have to admit I'm a bit lost.

I can offer myself as evidence if you like. I'm an MAA (minor attracted adult) and sincerely belive that my sexual orientation is just that. It's a fact I've known about myself as long as I can remember. I suffered no abuse or other trauma as a child. What else am I to believe?

In fact the American Psychiatric Association has apparently attempted on several occassions over the last few years to classify pedophilia as a sexual orientation rather than a paraphillia, but have backed down each time due to government pressure.

My arguement has been that children are no less capable of dealing with them than adults by virtue of being children.
Puke.
So nature is the root of the problem? "Naturally harmful"? You should really start keeping these kids away from one another then, since apparently they will have sexual encounters with other kids if they aren't having them with adults.
Better them having sex with an adult. This subject isn't even debatable; it's such common sense.

To be frank, MOST of the paraphilias should not be considered mental illnesses. Really, what does sadism hurt? How about masochism? Necro/podo/zoophilia?

Better them having sex with an adult. This subject isn't even debatable; it's such common sense.
Common sense is so often wrong though.

Common sense is so often wrong though.
Yeah, that's why it's considred to be such a rudimentary sense that it's thought to be ridiculous to not follow it...

Puke.

Better them having sex with an adult. This subject isn't even debatable; it's such common sense.

It should be pointed out that adults are in a different position than peers and this position is one that the law has respect for. This is why the two situations are different. It's not common sense. It's actually quite well-supported.

Yeah, that's why it's considred to be such a rudimentary sense that it's thought to be ridiculous to not follow it...

The interesting thing about your common sense argument is that it's really just popped up in the last few years. Easy enough for you to say that adults and children shouldn't sleep together, but what is a child? There are areas of the US where 18 is the age of consent, therefore 17 is considered a child. Yet there are other areas of the US where the AoC is 16, and some places even younger. So is a 20 year old sleeping with a 17 year old sleeping with a child or an adult?

It was common practice until just fairly recently for children to marry at 15, or 13, or even younger. So how long has your common sense been common sense? Spain I believe has an AoC of 13. Who's common sense are you referring to?

I don't personally support adult/child relationships, but not for the reason that it's 'common sense'.

I posted them. Once I posted them and mentioned a part of the study, you've since kept trotting them out even though you claim they reached the opposite conclusion from what the study actually says. Honesty is overrated really.

Considering the lible you keep spreading about me, I'm not surprised to see you writing that honesty is overrated. Especially in light of your ability to ignore simple math and statistics we've both used.

Who proposed civil commitment? Seriously, I know you don't actually read studies but at least read the posts you're replying to. I've argued repeatedly and continuously against any kind of forced incarceration.

You feel I should be in a mental instatution because I'm a danger to myself and others, do you not? You've said so on more than one occasion.

Hmmm... let's see what could you be arguing? I think I remember you arguing about the poor oppressed man. And how feminists only care about women. But hey, it could be that I hacked your account and put that argument in for you.

Did you post this in the correct thread? This is the pedophilia thread, not the virginity thread. Please deal with this subject.

Actually, I said you've never POSTED any evidence. The studies I posted that you CLAIM support you don't. Thus you have no evidence, even while trying to use mine. My meaning is clear and your current argument is called equivocation. It's a fallacy.

Jocabia, I'm not going to rise to your bait. You've refused to answer my arguements and evidence because your position is untennable, so you accuse me of having no evidence and playing symantic games. You're counting on the size of this thread to intimidate people into taking your word instead of actually reading the thread to see if you're telling the truth. I know your game, and I'm not interested in playing.

I've proven it repeatedly. You have not linked a single piece of evidence in these arguments that supports your assertions. Go ahead. Go back twenty pages if you like in every thread we're both in. You've lost. At least have a little grace.
Perhaps you should go run that search yourself. If you had, you'd find the same thing I did, me posting information, and you ignoring it, dismissing it, or making up lies about what it says.

Considering the lible you keep spreading about me, I'm not surprised to see you writing that honesty is overrated. Especially in light of your ability to ignore simple math and statistics we've both used.

So you can mathematically isolate for pedophilia? Really? Okay, fine, tell me if I take a group of non-pedophiles and a group of pedophiles who are EXACTLY identical exect for pedophilic tendencies, according to the studies we both used who will have more child molesters in it? And by identical I mean exactly the same number of men, same number of women, same number of people with rape fantasies, exactly the same groups in ever way EXCEPT pedophilic tendencies. The answer is the pedophiles according to the studies we both used. How do I know? Because I actually read the study. Isolating for pedophilia proves it's an aggrivating factor. If you have a group with no rape fantasies in it, for example, the pedophiles will be the ONLY group likely to molest. That makes it by definition an aggrivating factor. I'm sorry your understanding of statistics is so poor.

I almost wish you were doing this on purpose, because it's just embarrassing.

Now, what libel? Quote me 'libling' you.


You feel I should be in a mental instatution because I'm a danger to myself and others, do you not? You've said so on more than one occasion.

Nope. I NEVER said that. I think you should get therapy voluntarily. Quote me or quit saying that. I never said that pedophiles should be institutionalized. EVER. I said they should seek therapy, VOLUNTARILY. I actually argued against forced institutionalization. Pay attention or keep wondering why I find your abilty to follow laughable.

Here's me saying it in a thread you posted in -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11340038&postcount=748
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11398962&postcount=1045
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11346618&postcount=750

Here's me saying it to Barrygoldwater right in the middle of the argument we're having right now, you posted right before it and right after -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11438658&postcount=1284
Here's me saying it to YOU -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11344233&postcount=698
"Pedophiles are innocent of a crime until they act on their urges. As such, their liberty should be respected. Pedophiles have unhealthy urges. As such, they should be encouraged to seek help for those urges."

So we've established I've argued against it. Now let's see you, you know, present some evidence I've argued for it or quit lying.


Did you post this in the correct thread? This is the pedophilia thread, not the virginity thread. Please deal with this subject.

You're beliefs change by thread? I wasn't aware. What do you just make them up? Or is your commitment to an idea just that low? Everything you post is fair game in EVERY topic.


Jocabia, I'm not going to rise to your bait. You've refused to answer my arguements and evidence because your position is untennable, so you accuse me of having no evidence and playing symantic games. You're counting on the size of this thread to intimidate people into taking your word instead of actually reading the thread to see if you're telling the truth. I know your game, and I'm not interested in playing.

You have no evidence. You have none. You haven't read the study that you keep pretending to understand. I'm not counting on the thread. I'm daring you to post evidence. You don't have any. I've been daring you to post any evidence for the entirety of every thread we've ever been in. So far, you've NEVER risen to the challenge. But hey, prove me wrong.


Perhaps you should go run that search yourself. If you had, you'd find the same thing I did, me posting information, and you ignoring it, dismissing it, or making up lies about what it says.
Good, link to it then? Quote it. Show this 'evidence'. I find you posting once or twice with information about things not on topic. I can find you referencing things I posted. As you've said, you can't prove a negative. I can't post every post of yours here. Go ahead, link to your vast evidence? You should only to have to go back twenty-five pages or so just to get to the off-topic stuff. Better get cracking.

ZOMG, closed by request.