NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm afriad this particular section suffers from the same problem which disproves the existence of vampires (at least one kind of vampire). The idea is that if you start with one vampire, biting let's say one neck a week, and that everyone bitten by a vampire becomes a vampire, in one week, starting with only one vampire, you've got two vampires. The following week 4, then 8, then 16, then 32. After eight weeks, you've got 256 vampires. In a one year, 4,503,599,627,370,496 vampires will exist. This exceeds the current population of the earth, so vampires of this kind cannot exist, or we'd all be vampires and will have starved to death by now.

How this applies to the post, it creates the assumption of a 20 fold growth rate of child sex offenders each generation. Assuming this is accurate, the number of such offenders should have reached a critical threashold a long time ago, since this is clearly greater than the average human population growth over basicly all of human history.

I'll leave you all to finish the examination of this statistical analasys yourselves.

If there's anything important I've missed, please, feel free to let me know.

I was planning on posting about this part tonight. Thank you for doing it for me. I so wanted to put down this illusionist he/shehas rather frustrated me.

No, it's because they're rapists.
Agreed completely.
Pedophiles are fine until they act on their urges.
I've thought plenty of people were good-looking..."loved" some, lusted after others, and (just in passing) thought "hey, he/she isn't too hard on the eyes..." but I have never acted on that impulse.
If I had, it would have constituted (in some, if not most cases) rape.

Once a person has violated someone - particularly a child - by forcing sexual activities on them, then that person has no rights as a human being any longer.
By taking away the rights of another, you forfeit your own.
If I were to kill someone, then I have taken away their right to live. I, therefore, have given up my rights in the process.
Same goes for rapists, be they pedophiles or no.
I actually agree with this. In particular, I would advance an agenda where the victums are allowed to decide the punishments of convicted criminals. After all, they're the ones who have to deal with the consequences of the criminal's actions, so they're in the best position to decide an appropriate punishment.
Ummm... yeah, actually, they are.
Sadly, the law is in disagreement with you and I on that point. Informed consent has nothing to do with how informed a person is and everything to do with their fitting a very arbitrary definition of adulthood.
Quoted for truthery.

Also, the correct spelling is "consent", not "conscent".
I'm glad you found at least part of my post to be useful.

In regards to the second part of your post, I'll try to make that adjustment. Regardless, I feel obligated to point to my signature.
These people have sick minds, so I really don't care. Paedophiles may be people physically but mentally, they are in such a perverse state that is highly abnormal. A human being may find itself sexually attracted to someone who is underaged and I suppose, as long as it results in nothing overly perverse, that it doesn't matter but too often, people act on those urges. Then that is wrong. NAMBLA, for example, would fit this criteria (acting on the urges).
So, what are your feelings on thought-crime?

Right away, I see a few possible solutions. One is to provide them with some form of pornography to masturbate to, in order to lessen the sexual drive that removes reason from their minds and makes them rape children. The only form of pornography I can think of that does not involve actual, live children would be lolicon: drawn, Japanese-anime style art that involves children, but is not modeled on actual occurances, but purely from the artist's imagination. Quite frankly, this art disgusts me, but it's the only kind I can think of that wouldn't hurt children and yet provide something to the paedophile.

Another possibility would be some form of virtual reality technology that the paedophile could delve into, to indulge themselves in sexual acts with virtual children rather than real children. Again, this would lessen the sexual drive, though it would depend on how far virtual reality technology has evolved thus far, and how expensive it would be.

If eventually possible, we could alter whatever it is in their brains that makes them attracted to children in the first place. Of course, this opens up a huge range of possible misuse, from ridding society of homosexuality, to preventing people from being attracted to someone of another ethnicity, so I would stay away from this suggestion.

That is all I have at the moment. What do others suggest?

Those methods don't work. They will simply increase the person's focus on children, and make it increasingly acceptable in their minds. How about some therapy or counseling or something?

Those methods don't work. They will simply increase the person's focus on children, and make it increasingly acceptable in their minds. How about some therapy or counseling or something?
We don't have a cure for pedophilia, friend.

And I seem to recall a statement on this forum a while back about rape rates in france dropping when porn was legalised there. I don't know if it's true, but if it is, it would kind of refute your arguement.

We don't have a cure for pedophilia, friend.

And I seem to recall a statement on this forum a while back about rape rates in france dropping when porn was legalised there. I don't know if it's true, but if it is, it would kind of refute your arguement.


Lobotomy, vasectomty, castration...

Where there is a will,
there is a way,
and where there is a whip,
there is a will.

and where there is a whip,
there is a will.

tell me more.....

:p

tell me more.....

:p

Not 'ere...
Perhaps when you are near Eston
:p :fluffle:

Not 'ere...
Perhaps when you are near Eston
:p :fluffle:

hmm...perhaps
:fluffle:

We don't have a cure for pedophilia, friend.

And I seem to recall a statement on this forum a while back about rape rates in france dropping when porn was legalised there. I don't know if it's true, but if it is, it would kind of refute your arguement.


If that was true rape rates would drop everywhere porn was legal. I believe its legal in the US.

hmm...perhaps
:fluffle:

*nods* :fluffle:

and me still perenially broke till I switch daily occupations... *grumble*

*nods* :fluffle:

and me still perenially broke till I switch daily occupations... *grumble*

:confused: come again? - i'm slow today... forgive me :P

:confused: come again? - i'm slow today... forgive me :P


*unconfuses* better now? :fluffle:
I was just being random, I suppose. And looking for a job that has more paid hours. Which I'll find. *shrug*

*unconfuses* better now? :fluffle:
I was just being random, I suppose. And looking for a job that has more paid hours. Which I'll find. *shrug*

yes much :)

:fluffle:

I'm on the job hunt - i have a good job, but it's just not going anywhere - there's no progression - and i'm too ambitious to stick around - and maybe a tad impatient

yes much :)

:fluffle:

I'm on the job hunt - i have a good job, but it's just not going anywhere - there's no progression - and i'm too ambitious to stick around - and maybe a tad impatient

I'm doing stuff that needs doing. Too bad it doesn't make for a decent living.
On the bright side: HAH! stopped one pretty sad person ( as in very distressed ) from carrying out suicidal wishes!
Hooyah! Mission Accomplished!

I'm doing stuff that needs doing. Too bad it doesn't make for a decent living.
On the bright side: HAH! stopped one pretty sad person ( as in very distressed ) from carrying out suicidal wishes!
Hooyah! Mission Accomplished!


picture this, I’m sitting in the office - quietly drinking my coffee (which is very strong by the way) - and Bogmarsh posts the above - and here I am, with an over active imagination due to the mind numbingly pointless & non-progressive nature of my role - picturing him in a superhero costume, Incredible style - stopping suicidal people from jumping off bridges

I’m shocked and appalled at myself

but well done, good work - I went out with someone who tried 'leave me and I'll kill myself' trick... so I dared him... left anyway. He lives happily somewhere in Lancashire. No one fucks with my head!

I've deduced that you're a councillor (that’s probably the wrong spelling) of sorts?

picture this, I’m sitting in the office - quietly drinking my coffee (which is very strong by the way) - and Bogmarsh posts the above - and here I am, with an over active imagination due to the mind numbingly pointless & non-progressive nature of my role - picturing him in a superhero costume, Incredible style - stopping suicidal people from jumping off bridges

I’m shocked and appalled at myself

but well done, good work - I went out with someone who tried 'leave me and I'll kill myself' trick... so I dared him... left anyway. He lives happily somewhere in Lancashire. No one fucks with my head!

I've deduced that you're a councillor (that’s probably the wrong spelling) of sorts?

Piffle. All it took was stuffing him with fags, coffee, and sarnies all at the same time.
People who find themselves thusly short on hands stop thinking.
Delay him, put him on the shelf, till the CT arrives.
Old trick... but ever so effective!
good guess indeed!
:fluffle:

Piffle. All it took was stuffing him with fags, coffee, and sarnies all at the same time.
People who find themselves thusly short on hands stop thinking.
Delay him, put him on the shelf, till the CT arrives.
Old trick... but ever so effective!
good guess indeed!
:fluffle:

YAY i've been upgraded to 'sometimes deadly'

i'll remember that if i ever need to talk someone down off a building - "here, let go, have a fag and a coffee"...

lets hope they dont slip

:fluffle:

YAY i've been upgraded to 'sometimes deadly'

i'll remember that if i ever need to talk someone down off a building - "here, let go, have a fag and a coffee"...

lets hope they dont slip

:fluffle:


*grin* well, I can always try offering my own carcass as an enticement to step away from that wall and all.

Must dash - visitors coming.
*curious as to what they want*

*grin* well, I can always try offering my own carcass as an enticement to step away from that wall and all.

Must dash - visitors coming.
*curious as to what they want*

you hussy!

and :( .. ok.. tattybye... i best go do some work then

:fluffle:

I've seen a lot of people here explain that children aren't allowed to conscent to anything, and that their parents give conscent on their behalf for things like "popcorn and a movie". I hope you realise the dangerous precedent this line of thinking offers. If children aren't allowed self-determination, and the parent is the decision maker, that would mean that the parents would be able to provide conscent on behalf of their children. Considering the percentage of child molesters who molest their own children (Link (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure5_2.htm)) I think you might want to rethink putting the child's ability to conscent in the hands of the person most likely to abuse them.

You missed the point.

Our society allows the parent to give consent for most things. A civilised society, in my book, does NOT allow the parent to consent FOR the child, to sex.

But - our society DOES allow the rights of guardianship - and that means we DO have the responsibility to make all the (allowed) decisions.

Does that mean our child doesn't get input? Of course not... but, if my girl wants peanuts, and she is peanut allergic, I m not going to 'allow' her that choice. If I don't want my kids eating popcorn, I'm not going to allow her that choice.

You seem to be misunderstanding what 'self-determination' entails. The parent/guardian creates the framework WITHIN which the child should be allowed to self-determine... just as my employer provides a framework within which I can self-determine.... just as our society creates the framework within which we all can self-determine.

The child is no absolved of all choices, but the implicit consent has already been given BEFORE the child chooses.

And again - our soceity shouldn't allow a parent to consent to something like sex, FOR their child... so that aspect of the 'devolution of consent' shouldn't be an issue.

Ummm... yeah, actually, they are.

Contradiction is not debate.

Consent requires an ability to GIVE consent. Reasoned consent requires an ability to reason.

Scientific data shows that juvenille brains lack the same cause-and-effect processes as adult brains, thus - a child can NOT give 'reasoned' consent. If a child lacks the ABILITY to give conent, then a child cannot GIVE consent... no matter WHAT he or she thinks or says.

Sadly, the law is in disagreement with you and I on that point. Informed consent has nothing to do with how informed a person is and everything to do with their fitting a very arbitrary definition of adulthood.


You find it 'arbitrary' because you fail to understand WHY it is set.

you hussy!

and :( .. ok.. tattybye... i best go do some work then

:fluffle:


:fluffle:

dangerous workaholics!

:fluffle:

dangerous workaholics!

meh

:fluffle: < i swear they're trying ruffle hair that's not there

There is way too much fluffling going on in a thread that's supposed to be about paedophiles...

Lobotomy, vasectomty, castration...

Where there is a will,
there is a way,
and where there is a whip,
there is a will.
Lobotomy? I don't see the difference between that and execution. Not a cure.

Vasectomy? All that does is eliminate the path sperm can take to mix with ejaculatory fluids. It makes impregnating someone impossible. It does nothing to the sex drive. Not a cure.

Castration? While that does diminish the sex drive, the hormonal imperative might be gone, but the sexual preferences and identity remain. Castrated men can "get it up" and they don't lose the ability to feel pleasure. Sex isn't so much of an imperitive, but the mental component which deals with who or what a person is attracted to doesn't change. Not a cure.
You missed the point.

Our society allows the parent to give consent for most things. A civilised society, in my book, does NOT allow the parent to consent FOR the child, to sex.

But - our society DOES allow the rights of guardianship - and that means we DO have the responsibility to make all the (allowed) decisions.

Does that mean our child doesn't get input? Of course not... but, if my girl wants peanuts, and she is peanut allergic, I m not going to 'allow' her that choice. If I don't want my kids eating popcorn, I'm not going to allow her that choice.

You seem to be misunderstanding what 'self-determination' entails. The parent/guardian creates the framework WITHIN which the child should be allowed to self-determine... just as my employer provides a framework within which I can self-determine.... just as our society creates the framework within which we all can self-determine.

The child is no absolved of all choices, but the implicit consent has already been given BEFORE the child chooses.

And again - our soceity shouldn't allow a parent to consent to something like sex, FOR their child... so that aspect of the 'devolution of consent' shouldn't be an issue.
I believe you failed to read the second link I provided. The additude that children are the property of their parents, and that parents make decisions for their children, regardless of the child's wishes does lead to the mentality that incest rape is okay. That is exactly how the child molesters in California got themselves an excemption.
Contradiction is not debate.

Consent requires an ability to GIVE consent. Reasoned consent requires an ability to reason.

Scientific data shows that juvenille brains lack the same cause-and-effect processes as adult brains, thus - a child can NOT give 'reasoned' consent. If a child lacks the ABILITY to give conent, then a child cannot GIVE consent... no matter WHAT he or she thinks or says.
Let me get this straight, it doesn't matter what the child thinks. We adults know better, so we have the right to enforce our views on your sexual behavior. Is that right? Do you not even see that child molesters hold this view in common with you?

This scientific data that "proves" children are mentally incompotent does nothing of the sort. Brain architecture, while posessing a tenuous link to cognative power, has never been sufficiently understood that we can determine a person's mental abilities based soely on a scan of their brain. The fact that you continue to bring this up suggests a basic lack of understanding of the depths of human ignorance regarding this organ.
You find it 'arbitrary' because you fail to understand WHY it is set.
Then explain it to me.

I believe you failed to read the second link I provided. The additude that children are the property of their parents, and that parents make decisions for their children, regardless of the child's wishes does lead to the mentality that incest rape is okay. That is exactly how the child molesters in California got themselves an excemption.


I didn't say 'property'.

The idea that parents have a duty to make decisions for their children does NOT lead to the mentality that incest rape is okay.

Abuse of that idea, coupled with broken thinking, might.


Let me get this straight, it doesn't matter what the child thinks. We adults know better, so we have the right to enforce our views on your sexual behavior. Is that right? Do you not even see that child molesters hold this view in common with you?


And, most of us agree that breathing air instead of water is a good idea.

We adults SHOULD know better, and we have a duty of care. We are supposed to protect our kids from harm, until they are old enough to make those 'risk' decisions for themselves.

The difference in the thinking is that the child molestor places his/her desire for carnal knowledge of the child ABOVE the duty of care, or any concern for the child's well-being.


Then explain it to me.

I'm not sure I'm that capable a teacher...

I didn't say 'property'.

The idea that parents have a duty to make decisions for their children does NOT lead to the mentality that incest rape is okay.

Abuse of that idea, coupled with broken thinking, might.

I'm just going to ask if you bothered to read the second link I provided. I'm not saying that most parents are raping their kids. That would be absurd. What I am saying is that the practice is supported, whether you like it or not, by the fact that parents are allowed to make every decision in their child's life.

And, most of us agree that breathing air instead of water is a good idea.

We adults SHOULD know better, and we have a duty of care. We are supposed to protect our kids from harm, until they are old enough to make those 'risk' decisions for themselves.

The difference in the thinking is that the child molestor places his/her desire for carnal knowledge of the child ABOVE the duty of care, or any concern for the child's well-being.

You really don't see the connection, do you?

I'm not sure I'm that capable a teacher...
In other words, you don't really know why the age of consent is what it is, and you are trying not to lose face by making this about my ability to comprehend.

I'm just going to ask if you bothered to read the second link I provided. I'm not saying that most parents are raping their kids.


I didn't say you were. This is what we call a 'strawman'.


That would be absurd. What I am saying is that the practice is supported, whether you like it or not, by the fact that parents are allowed to make every decision in their child's life.


No. It isn't. You ignored every point I made about duty of care, and the fact that our society endows us with those powers to delegate.

I'm getting tired of typing things you don't bother to read. It is more work than it is worth.


You really don't see the connection, do you?


Everyone that votes... no matter what country, no matter which party, no matter how long they've been doing it, or how fair their electoral system is... breathes air.

ir is the connection between all of those people.

Therefore, air must CAUSE voting.


In other words, you don't really know why the age of consent is what it is, and you are trying not to lose face by making this about my ability to comprehend.

Not at all. There are different ages of consent in different countries for different things. Those numbers aren't plucked out of the air... they are the culmination of experiment... in many cases, for thousands of years.

Coincidentally (or maybe not) the age of consent which you claim as so arbitrary, ALSO works out at about the same age when the juvenille brain can be reckoned to make value judgements on matters of consent.

The 'experimental' method of thousands of years, generates the same rough ballpark figure as the lab test. Not arbitrary... the number is a 'calibration'.

But - I really am getting tired of your apparent inability to comprehend even the simplest ideas I suggest, or even, apparently, to read an entire post.

As a wise philosopher once said: "Bored, now".

I didn't say you were. This is what we call a 'strawman'.

Actually, it was an attempt by me to diminish the intensity of what I was saying.

And I take your silence on my first sentence to mean you didn't read the provided article.

No. It isn't. You ignored every point I made about duty of care, and the fact that our society endows us with those powers to delegate.

I'm getting tired of typing things you don't bother to read. It is more work than it is worth.

I read your comments, I just felt they were a rehash of points we already covered, so I didn't feel it was neccisary to respond. I didn't know it was that important to you.

I don't disagree that where a child is not capable of understanding the nature of the choice before him/her, then it is appropriate to delegate that choice to the guardian. The place where we disagree is the question of what a child is and is not capable of deciding on its own.

Further, you seem to endow all decisionmaking authority to the parent to dole out as he/she pleases, rather than accept a pradigm where the decisionmaking authority rests with the interested party but is delegated to the parent in circumstances where the child cannot know the implications of those choices. While the end result is the same, we differ fundamentally on how we approach the idea of parental rights.

Everyone that votes... no matter what country, no matter which party, no matter how long they've been doing it, or how fair their electoral system is... breathes air.

ir is the connection between all of those people.

Therefore, air must CAUSE voting.

So I take it that you don't feel that being granted the legal right to control every action another person takes is any way relevant to abuse commited by the person in the position of authority. I feel there's nothing more to discuss on that issue then.

Not at all. There are different ages of consent in different countries for different things. Those numbers aren't plucked out of the air... they are the culmination of experiment... in many cases, for thousands of years.

I could accept that this is simply a trial and error method of determining an accurate goal, except for the fact that the goal itself is so poorly defined. The nature of the qualifications for informed consent are really very important if we are to determine how well this process of trial and error has really done at approaching a reasonable level.

Coincidentally (or maybe not) the age of consent which you claim as so arbitrary, ALSO works out at about the same age when the juvenille brain can be reckoned to make value judgements on matters of consent.

I see you've ignored my statements about brain development and the irrelevance of that standard in light of the level of human ignorance about the relationship between any pattern of thinking and neural architecture. I think I understand how you feel about writing something and having it ignored. I'll try to do better in the future.

The 'experimental' method of thousands of years, generates the same rough ballpark figure as the lab test. Not arbitrary... the number is a 'calibration'.

Calibration toward what? I know I've been asking the same question over and over again, but I promise to stop if you just answer it. What are these qualifications that are required for informed consent?

But - I really am getting tired of your apparent inability to comprehend even the simplest ideas I suggest, or even, apparently, to read an entire post.

As a wise philosopher once said: "Bored, now".
I take it then that you're leaving? Too bad. I don't think either of us has made much progress.

Obvious to you. But it's still immeasurable. There is no one in the world who has the supreme judgement to say "You are right, You are wrong, you're half right...etc." We're all equal in status, and therefore all our beliefs must be respected as equal.
How far must we go, where does it all end? if not here with this then where?!

Welcome to the sick, fucked up world of "moral relativism," in all of its fallacies.


Laws are still subjective. They were created by people, debated by people, passed by people. <<< How does one person gain the ability to be considered more correct than another? How does one person come to be known as the person with the correct ideas? It's all subjective.
And what's this? The equally parasitic sister ideology of "unconditional tolerance," being used here too! who would have guessed? :rolleyes:

hey quick question. You know that child model stuff where its kids dressed up in riske clothes and poses but isnt nude or sex acts, is that considered illegal? Andi if its not, someone said cartoon kiddie porn is fine, would you consider these types of photos ok?

Oh, so criminals aren't people? A long time ago, white men thought they were the only one's with worth. Isn't that how you feel right now, as a non-criminal? Aren't you making a judgement about people who commit crimes?
No..no....just..NO! :|

hey quick question. You know that child model stuff where its kids dressed up in riske clothes and poses but isnt nude or sex acts, is that considered illegal?

In some jurisdictions, yes it is.

Andi if its not, someone said cartoon kiddie porn is fine, would you consider these types of photos ok?
There are laws against that too, depending on where you live.

There are even places where written text is illegal if it happens to touch on this subject matter. Australia was one place a man was prosecuted for having stories.

Not everywhere is that bad, of course, but it isn't places like China that are cracking down on this material. It's generally countries that like to be known for their policies on free expression and openmindedness. (You should see the mess in the old US of A.)

Definitions are incredibly arbitrary here in the US. The age old standard of "I know it when I see it" for pornography means that anything a prosecutor suggest and a judge agress a pedophile might masturbate to would be illegal, if not under ordinary child porn legislation (like would cover the child model sites) then under "virtual" child porn legislation.

Apparently the arguement is that having some form of sexual release would make us more likely to go out and rape children. Never put your faith in the intelligence of a politician.

How about we just do what nature intended? One male and one female around the same age.

And I take your silence on my first sentence to mean you didn't read the provided article.


Take it how you chose, and be wrong or right based on that.


I don't disagree that where a child is not capable of understanding the nature of the choice before him/her, then it is appropriate to delegate that choice to the guardian. The place where we disagree is the question of what a child is and is not capable of deciding on its own.


Not exactly. The ability of the child to understand is part of the package, but doesn't change whether or not the executive power rests in the hands of the child.


Further, you seem to endow all decisionmaking authority to the parent to dole out as he/she pleases, rather than accept a pradigm where the decisionmaking authority rests with the interested party but is delegated to the parent in circumstances where the child cannot know the implications of those choices. While the end result is the same, we differ fundamentally on how we approach the idea of parental rights.


Are you a libertarian, by any chance? Am I combatting an idea of 'god given rights' that are intrinsic to the individual?

I argue that the parent is endowed with decision-making authority, because that is how it is. That IS the paradigm. And, SUPREME decision-making authority is a societal mechanism.

If a child has ANY decision-making authority, it is that that both society and the parent allow to be delegated.


So I take it that you don't feel that being granted the legal right to control every action another person takes is any way relevant to abuse commited by the person in the position of authority. I feel there's nothing more to discuss on that issue then.


You are right that I don't "feel that being granted the legal right to control every action another person takes is any way relevant to abuse commited by the person in the position of authority".

The word abuse is right there. Any system can be abused, and implied in that, is the fact that such action IS an 'abuse' of the system.

It isn't a matter of the legal right being GRANTED to the parent. The legal right RESTS with the parent, at the condescension of the society, to be delegated as appropriate.

I feel like you are arguing against walls because you don't like bricks... you are railing against the idea of delegation of authority, apparently, because you dislike the idea of being controlled...?

How about we just do what nature intended? One male and one female around the same age.
I see you're also a gay basher. Regardless, I should probably respond to you anyway.

I really don't see how you can speak to what "nature intended" since nature is not a personified entety, by definition, it can't intend anything.

If we are, however, to take your suggestion and follow the edicts of nature, I feel you would not be happy with the results. You see, the clearest way of determining what "nature intends" is to listen to our instincts. One of the things we human beings do so often is ignore those primal instincts and adopt the public consentual morality that surrounds them. If we were to follow our sexual instincts and listen to nature, men would give up on idiotic ideas like consent in their mating rituals, and would just take whatever woman they found attractive. After all, their instincts say, "fuck every hot woman you see".

Further, my instincts, whether you like it or not, are telling me to have sex with small children. I restrain those instincts, and you suggest that I should respect what nature intended? You think I should go with my instincts? I think not.

This "one man, one woman" think is a human social construct, not some imutable law of nature.

Nature presents an inherently hedonistic viewpoint. "If it feels good, do it." We are wired to feel good about whatever it is that nature wants from us. Nature wants us to have sex, so sex feels good. Nature wants us not to burn ourselves, so fire hurts.

Are we clear? You don't speak for nature. You don't even seem to understand it.

Apparently the arguement is that having some form of sexual release would make us more likely to go out and rape children. Never put your faith in the intelligence of a politician.

Would make 'us'??

FOr me - the fact that you argue children can consent is beginning to take on the sinister overtones of ulterior motive...

How about we just do what nature intended? One male and one female around the same age.

Wow. Just wow.

Rather than touching on any of the hundreds of points on which this is fatally flawed, I'll just point to two.

One: In 'nature', the male of the human species can continue to provide viable sexual material for the entire lifespan, after puberty. The female - for a finite span. Clearly - males cannot ALWAYS be expected, then, to breed with their own 'age'.

Two: In 'nature' the female libido peaks in the early to mid thirties. In males, the very late teens. Obviously, then - males and females are 'naturally' inclined to breed at different ages.

Contradiction is not debate.

Consent requires an ability to GIVE consent. Reasoned consent requires an ability to reason.

Scientific data shows that juvenille brains lack the same cause-and-effect processes as adult brains, thus - a child can NOT give 'reasoned' consent. If a child lacks the ABILITY to give conent, then a child cannot GIVE consent... no matter WHAT he or she thinks or says.

My personal memories of being a juvenile tell a very different story from your "scientific data" (which, by the way, you have yet to back up)

My personal memories of being a juvenile tell a very different story from your "scientific data" (which, by the way, you have yet to back up)

Your 'personal memories of being a juvenile' are tainted by the fact that you were a juvenille at the time, and thus, lacked perspective.

Not at all. There are different ages of consent in different countries for different things. Those numbers aren't plucked out of the air... they are the culmination of experiment... in many cases, for thousands of years.

Actually, they ARE plucked out of the air. That's why they range from 12 to 21 worldwide.

Coincidentally (or maybe not) the age of consent which you claim as so arbitrary, ALSO works out at about the same age when the juvenille brain can be reckoned to make value judgements on matters of consent.

Do you really believe that Chilean people are as psychologically developed at age 12 as the people of Madagascar are at age 21?

And what about countries that have no age of consent, like Ecuador? Are Ecuadorians simply born with the ability to give consent for sex?

Your "logic" so full of bullshit that I could spread it on the lawn and use it as fertilizer.

Your 'personal memories of being a juvenile' are tainted by the fact that you were a juvenille at the time, and thus, lacked perspective.

So when my mom claimed that one of our hermit crabs had died, and I told her "no, it just molted, that's why the exoskeleton is hollow", and lo and behold, the hermit crab did indeed turn out to be alive after having molted, that's just a result of my juvenile brain "lacking perspective"?

When her computer was having memory issues, and I fixed them by fiddling with the Virtual Memory settings, that was just a result of my juvenile brain "lacking perspective"?

Go fuck yourself, you worthless piece of shit.

Would make 'us'??

FOr me - the fact that you argue children can consent is beginning to take on the sinister overtones of ulterior motive...
I'm sorry. You didn't know I was a pedophile? I've made no effort to hide it since joining this forum. Did you miss the other places in this thread I've identified myself as attracted to little girls?

If so, you've probably also missed the places where I explain why exactly it isn't a good idea to have sex with young children too, and that's why you consider my arguements sinister.
My personal memories of being a juvenile tell a very different story from your "scientific data" (which, by the way, you have yet to back up)
So do mine, but you can't expect him to believe us. After all, it doesn't matter how mature and intelligent children act anymore. Now that he has his "neurological scans" that "prove children cannot think rationally" he feels he can write off any evidence we offer that children aren't stupid.
Your 'personal memories of being a juvenile' are tainted by the fact that you were a juvenille at the time, and thus, lacked perspective.
Self-justifying ideas must be very comforting. After all, no one can ever contradict them. Trivial matters like evidence and logic can't ever put a dent in that kind of reasoning.

Pedophiles are just humans in severe need of being excecuted . But its nice to know that I can actually find a forum where rape and pedophilia are not only apologised for but endorsed ...:rolleyes:

As the father of two children I say this with utmost sincerity

Touch my children in a sexual way and I will kill you . Two to the balls and four to the face.

I've almost been raped...you know what? I was seven.
Kill the pedophiles in the world! Show them no mercy! :mp5:

As stated in the title, they are people as well.

Barely though.

I'm sorry. You didn't know I was a pedophile? I've made no effort to hide it since joining this forum. Did you miss the other places in this thread I've identified myself as attracted to little girls?

If so, you've probably also missed the places where I explain why exactly it isn't a good idea to have sex with young children too, and that's why you consider my arguements sinister.


No - I didn't know you were a paedophile... for some reason, 'paedophile' isn't a thread title that immediately leaps out at me as something I must immediately check.

The reason I consider your arguments sinister is that you seem to be arguing that young children can consent - which, you must admit, given the admission you are interested in that way, smacks of ulterior motive.


Self-justifying ideas must be very comforting. After all, no one can ever contradict them. Trivial matters like evidence and logic can't ever put a dent in that kind of reasoning.

It is nothing to do with self-justification.

If you had never seen a mirror (or other reflective surface) how would you know what you looked like?

Why do attractive women think themselves ugly?

What makes a healthy girl look in the mirror and think she is fat?

The answer is - all of our perspectives are just that, perspectives.. not necessarily anything resembling reality, and totally subjective. We very rarely see ourselves as others might.

So when my mom claimed that one of our hermit crabs had died, and I told her "no, it just molted, that's why the exoskeleton is hollow", and lo and behold, the hermit crab did indeed turn out to be alive after having molted, that's just a result of my juvenile brain "lacking perspective"?

When her computer was having memory issues, and I fixed them by fiddling with the Virtual Memory settings, that was just a result of my juvenile brain "lacking perspective"?

Go fuck yourself, you worthless piece of shit.

Given that this was a post that I had to remind you to calm down about (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11311289&postcount=11) and you seem again to be unable to engage in civil discourse without telling people they are worthless pieces of shit and need to fuck off, why don't you take a three day break from the rigors of forum life.

Paedophiles are people too.
No, they're not.

Pedophiles automatically renounce their humanity when they molest children. If I see one, I will kill it.

Pedophiles are just humans in severe need of being excecuted . But its nice to know that I can actually find a forum where rape and pedophilia are not only apologised for but endorsed ...:rolleyes:

As the father of two children I say this with utmost sincerity

Touch my children in a sexual way and I will kill you . Two to the balls and four to the face.
And as the father of five and grandfather of eight, I will help you. :D

I've almost been raped...you know what? I was seven.
Kill the pedophiles in the world! Show them no mercy! :mp5:

Why stop there? Kill all men who make advances at bars. Hell, lets go further and kill any man with a sex drive.

The obvious solution to the paedophilia problem is to allow purely and obviously fictional works that show child pornography. This is restriced to only computer generated or hand drawn images, that do not use any real image of a child. As a New Media student, I realize this is a hard thing to distinguish, but I think that a group of experts could slowly pick away at the technicalities that would destinguish legal and illegal works. Legalizing certain works would be beneficial as they would curtail and "urges" to act that certain people might have.

Meanwhile, the penalty for actually acting upon those "urges" should be increased. The actual act of paeophilia is despicable and should not be tolerated to happen. This is why the penalty should be either death, or life in prison without parole.

By allowing the freedom of certain depictions of child pornography that do not actually harm or portray real children, paedophiles have an outlet for their urges which they cannot deny. But for those who are truly mentally disturbed and do act upon those urges, tollerance is not acceptable.

hey quick question. You know that child model stuff where its kids dressed up in riske clothes and poses but isnt nude or sex acts, is that considered illegal?

Nude photography of children is strictly legal in the United States, but only if it contains no sexual connotations. Dressing them up in risque clothing probably adds sexual connotations, even if they cease to be nude.

But, both are widely available from reputable American retailers. The works of photographers like David Hamilton and Jock Sturges can be found at mainstream bookstores, because it is strictly legal.

But that doesn't stop law enforcement from raiding those photographers' studios from time to time. So while the law says they're legal, the enforcement says they're not.

Andi if its not, someone said cartoon kiddie porn is fine, would you consider these types of photos ok?

Works of imagination are probably illegal in the United States. I know that they were expressly permitted by law in Canada earlier in this decade (the courts struck down a prohibition), but the government has since made new efforts to prohibit them which haven't yet faced a legal challenge.

The obvious solution to the paedophilia problem is to allow purely and obviously fictional works that show child pornography. This is restriced to only computer generated or hand drawn images, that do not use any real image of a child. As a New Media student, I realize this is a hard thing to distinguish, but I think that a group of experts could slowly pick away at the technicalities that would destinguish legal and illegal works. Legalizing certain works would be beneficial as they would curtail and "urges" to act that certain people might have.

Meanwhile, the penalty for actually acting upon those "urges" should be increased. The actual act of paeophilia is despicable and should not be tolerated to happen. This is why the penalty should be either death, or life in prison without parole.

By allowing the freedom of certain depictions of child pornography that do not actually harm or portray real children, paedophiles have an outlet for their urges which they cannot deny. But for those who are truly mentally disturbed and do act upon those urges, tollerance is not acceptable.

That's not a solution any more than porn alleviates or gives an "outlet" to rapists.

I posit it would actually just incourage pedophilia. Think of it in terms of conditioning. Concept of pedophilia (depicted in porn), plus reward (masturbation), equals incouragement.

I do agree that raising the penalty for the crime of it would be useful.

No, they're not.

Pedophiles automatically renounce their humanity when they molest children. If I see one, I will kill it.
Speaking of renouncing humanity..

Given that this was a post that I had to remind you to calm down about (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11311289&postcount=11) and you seem again to be unable to engage in civil discourse without telling people they are worthless pieces of shit and need to fuck off, why don't you take a three day break from the rigors of forum life.

Can we...Applaud your actions?

Speaking of renouncing humanity..

I'm not really sure how wise it is for Eut to be talking about killing people again, after his recent mod run-ins, anyway...

That's not a solution any more than porn alleviates or gives an "outlet" to rapists.

I posit it would actually just incourage pedophilia. Think of it in terms of conditioning. Concept of pedophilia (depicted in porn), plus reward (masturbation), equals incouragement.

I do agree that raising the penalty for the crime of it would be useful.

The argument that you can reduce harm by freeing up access to porn is a poor one, but so, I think, is the argument that the porn somehow causes harm.

And if it's not harmful, why prohibit it?

Speaking of renouncing humanity..

He merely has a higher conception of Humanity than you have.

The argument that you can reduce harm by freeing up access to porn is a poor one, but so, I think, is the argument that the porn somehow causes harm.

And if it's not harmful, why prohibit it?

My argument is not that porn "causes" harm. It merely incourages viewers to emulate it - not always, but more than 0. And in the case of pedophilia, said viewers cannot emulate it without causing harm.

He merely has a higher conception of Humanity than you have.

Or not.

The argument that you can reduce harm by freeing up access to porn is a poor one, but so, I think, is the argument that the porn somehow causes harm.

And if it's not harmful, why prohibit it?


I don't harm you by swinging an axe in front of your nose.
Shall I play that game?

My argument is not that porn "causes" harm. It merely incourages viewers to emulate it - not always, but more than 0. And in the case of pedophilia, said viewers cannot emulate it without causing harm.

I entire agree with your argument here...I couldn't had said it better

Or not.
Not in the case of teh-pantless-one...

Not in the case of teh-pantless-one...

Prejudice a'int my bag, baby.

Judging on the evidence, two posters... one of them is talking about killing people... who may or may not be criminals. The other poster isn't...

He merely has a higher conception of Humanity than you have.
Sure, if by higher conception of humanity you mean placing vigilante murderers above paedophiles (assuming that paedophile is equal to child molester), yeah, that is what it is.

My argument is not that porn "causes" harm. It merely incourages viewers to emulate it - not always, but more than 0. And in the case of pedophilia, said viewers cannot emulate it without causing harm.

So we should prohibit something because some people misuse it in a way that causes harm?

Like kitchen knives. Or rope.

I don't harm you by swinging an axe in front of your nose.
Shall I play that game?

You do frighten me. That's arguably harm.

But if it isn't, as long as you don't harm me, what have you really done wrong? The penalty for actually harming me should be incredibly severe (I think punishments would act as better deterrents if they were more unpleasant), which would thus discourage such reckless behaviour.

Pedophiles are just humans in severe need of being excecuted . But its nice to know that I can actually find a forum where rape and pedophilia are not only apologised for but endorsed ...:rolleyes:

As the father of two children I say this with utmost sincerity

Touch my children in a sexual way and I will kill you . Two to the balls and four to the face.
Are you in favor of thought-crime? The idea that a person can be punished for their thoughts, not just their actions? Pedophelia is not an action, but a way of thinking. The action you're thinking of is called child molesting. Pedophiles find kids attractive. They are about as likely to rape them as you are to rape someone you find attractive.
I've almost been raped...you know what? I was seven.
Kill the pedophiles in the world! Show them no mercy! :mp5:
That's terrible, but I'm going to ask a simple question. Would this have counted as rape without an age of consent law? I somehow suspect it would have. I don't support what happened (and nearly happened) to you, but judging all pedophiles on the basis of an attepted rape is the same as a woman judging all men on the same basis. Most people, pedophiles or not, aren't rapists.
No - I didn't know you were a paedophile... for some reason, 'paedophile' isn't a thread title that immediately leaps out at me as something I must immediately check.

I suppose it's just because I read entire threads before I respond to them. As such, I assumed you'd have seen the other places in this thread where I self-identified. Well, now you know.

The reason I consider your arguments sinister is that you seem to be arguing that young children can consent - which, you must admit, given the admission you are interested in that way, smacks of ulterior motive.

Technically, I've been arguing that the case hasn't been proven that they can't give consent.

Regardless of whatever ulterior motive you are projecting on to me, I've stated repeatedly that I don't feel it is morally justifiable to engage in sexual activities with a child for the simple reason that even if the supposed harm and trauma is a social fabrication, the child has to live in this society, and so would be traumatised by the social condemnation. Even if a person can consent to sex, they can't consent to be tortured for the rest of their lives.

It is nothing to do with self-justification.

If you had never seen a mirror (or other reflective surface) how would you know what you looked like?

Why do attractive women think themselves ugly?

What makes a healthy girl look in the mirror and think she is fat?

The answer is - all of our perspectives are just that, perspectives.. not necessarily anything resembling reality, and totally subjective. We very rarely see ourselves as others might.
If I were to take this idea a step further, your perceptions of another's capabilities are also completely subjective, and tainted by your own prospective (or lack thereof). Under this form of reasoning, we can't be sure of anything, and all our decisions must therefore be based on completely uninformed guesses and our own biases and prejudices.
Given that this was a post that I had to remind you to calm down about (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11311289&postcount=11) and you seem again to be unable to engage in civil discourse without telling people they are worthless pieces of shit and need to fuck off, why don't you take a three day break from the rigors of forum life.
Hopefully the time out will help.
No, they're not.

Pedophiles automatically renounce their humanity when they molest children. If I see one, I will kill it.
Where did you get the idea that all pedophiles molest children? I don't.
That's not a solution any more than porn alleviates or gives an "outlet" to rapists.

I take it that you reject the evidence of France's sex crime rates dropping after they legalised pornography?

I posit it would actually just incourage pedophilia. Think of it in terms of conditioning. Concept of pedophilia (depicted in porn), plus reward (masturbation), equals incouragement.

Interestingly enough, it is possible to masturbate without porn. You should try it sometime. The human imagination is a wonderful thing.

I do agree that raising the penalty for the crime of it would be useful.
I feel that the penalty for molesting children should be the same as any other rape. It's the same crime, and the age of the victum makes it no more, or less horrible.
My argument is not that porn "causes" harm. It merely incourages viewers to emulate it - not always, but more than 0. And in the case of pedophilia, said viewers cannot emulate it without causing harm.
So then, it is also your arguement that violent video games, while they don't "cause" harm, merely encourge viewers to emulate it - not always, but more than 0. In the case of violent video games, said viewers cannot emulate it without causing harm.

That was fun.

I suppose it's just because I read entire threads before I respond to them. As such, I assumed you'd have seen the other places in this thread where I self-identified. Well, now you know.


I'm not certain I have read this whole thread - but then, I've never claimed that I have. Often, I drop into a thread to see what is being debated because I see a name I recognise of someone that usually makes good points. (Jocabia, Dempublicents, Bottle, Willamena, Straughn... and a number of others.)

So - it is entirely possible I dropped in mid-thread here. I haven't kept track.

And - unless I was looking at your posts, I wouldn't have noticed most of their content. Oft times, in a thread that isn't a pet topic, I will read the posts of the person I am debating with, rather than EVERY post.


Technically, I've been arguing that the case hasn't been proven that they can't give consent.


Which still doesn't automatically grant that they CAN - even if the adverse is not proved. (Which, I think is arguable, anyway).


Regardless of whatever ulterior motive you are projecting on to me, I've stated repeatedly that I don't feel it is morally justifiable to engage in sexual activities with a child for the simple reason that even if the supposed harm and trauma is a social fabrication, the child has to live in this society, and so would be traumatised by the social condemnation. Even if a person can consent to sex, they can't consent to be tortured for the rest of their lives.


I'm not projecting any motive onto you. You admit you are a paedophile. You are arguing for children being able to consent to sex. I'm not saying you DO have an ulterior motive... but you must be able to see that it LOOKS like it.

And now - your argument against acting on your paedophilic tendencies ISN'T about physical harm, or about the emotional trauma that MIGHT be caused by the act... ONLY about the fact that such a child then has to live in a society that frowns upon child abuse. Effectively - you ignore your OWN contribution to harm, and make this a 'problem with society'.


If I were to take this idea a step further, your perceptions of another's capabilities are also completely subjective, and tainted by your own prospective (or lack thereof). Under this form of reasoning, we can't be sure of anything, and all our decisions must therefore be based on completely uninformed guesses and our own biases and prejudices.


All of our decisions SHOULD be based on the fact that ALL of the stimuli we receive are 'subjective', to some extent... by being available to us only through subjective perception.

I'm not certain I have read this whole thread - but then, I've never claimed that I have. Often, I drop into a thread to see what is being debated because I see a name I recognise of someone that usually makes good points. (Jocabia, Dempublicents, Bottle, Willamena, Straughn... and a number of others.)

So - it is entirely possible I dropped in mid-thread here. I haven't kept track.

And - unless I was looking at your posts, I wouldn't have noticed most of their content. Oft times, in a thread that isn't a pet topic, I will read the posts of the person I am debating with, rather than EVERY post.

It wasn't meant as a criticism. I was really just trying to work out for myself how you missed my statements to that effect. Your reason sounds probable to me.

The point is that now you know. We've corrected for whatever circumstances left you ignorant of this detail.

Which still doesn't automatically grant that they CAN - even if the adverse is not proved. (Which, I think is arguable, anyway).

If you think it's been proved that children can't consent, could you please summarise the proof for me? I really would like to see it.

I'm not projecting any motive onto you. You admit you are a paedophile. You are arguing for children being able to consent to sex. I'm not saying you DO have an ulterior motive... but you must be able to see that it LOOKS like it.

Of course I know what it looks like. Does my bias invalidate my arguements? I should think that if my bias is so badly interfearing with my judgement, that it should show through in my arguements, and thus they should be easily torn down. Part of the reason I've tried to make my sexual identity clear from the start is to deal with this question up front. Feel free to argue with me all you like, but kindly address my arguements rather than my bias, of which I am well aware.

And now - your argument against acting on your paedophilic tendencies ISN'T about physical harm, or about the emotional trauma that MIGHT be caused by the act... ONLY about the fact that such a child then has to live in a society that frowns upon child abuse. Effectively - you ignore your OWN contribution to harm, and make this a 'problem with society'.

You've badly misread my statements. I didn't deny the possibility of physical harm, nor did I deny the existence of inherent mental harm. I simply stated that the social condemnation alone should be reason enough.

As to the question of physical harm, that's something that can be avoided simply by limiting one's choice of sexual activities. The question of mental and emotional harm in the absence of social condemnation can't be known until the social condemnation is actually absent.

Thus, with those two so questionable, I feel the only the unavoidable and unquestionable obstacle needs to be considered, since alone it manages to prove that it is a bad idea.

All of our decisions SHOULD be based on the fact that ALL of the stimuli we receive are 'subjective', to some extent... by being available to us only through subjective perception.
Trouble with that is, our perceptions of our own biases is similarly subjective. You really can't know anything.

Take Descarte's meditations. He quite succinctly proves that we can't be sure anything we learn from our senses is accurate, because our senses lie. Halucinations and dreams exist, and could very well be the source of our sensory knowledge. In fact, one of the only things Descarte said we could be sure of is our own opinions and beliefs. This is the very subject you were saying we couldn't know about because of our own biases. Thus we can truly know nothing.

So we should prohibit something because some people misuse it in a way that causes harm?

Like kitchen knives. Or rope.

No. We should prohibit something because it incourages (see: conditions through sexual reward) harmful, criminal behaviour.


blah blah blah you must also want to eliminate video games cuz you're against child pornography


No, because video games don't sexually arouse their viewers providing masturbatory material which in turn reinforces psychologically their desire. Video games also have plenty of other benefits and aren't designed to appeal to people who want to fuck children. Nice try to dismiss my argument with a slippery slope there, pedophile.

No. We should prohibit something because it incourages (see: conditions through sexual reward) harmful, criminal behaviour.

Again, imagination is an astounding tool. You should really try it sometime.

No, because video games don't sexually arouse their viewers providing masturbatory material which in turn reinforces psychologically their desire. Video games also have plenty of other benefits and aren't designed to appeal to people who want to fuck children. Nice try to dismiss my argument with a slippery slope there, pedophile.
Do you even listen to yourself? You're using the same arguements as are used against violent video games. How could I not point out the paralell?

with pedophilia (a mental illness).

It is the exact same as being gay, or straight. It is a preferance of children over men or women. Paeodophiles have about the same chance of actually raping a child as someone whos gay, or straight.

It might be a psychological disorder, but only a pedophile is going to try to justify it as legitimate.

Thats just stupid. Its not even worth a reply.

No, it's because they're rapists.

Agreed. Just because someone prefers childs over adults, does not mean that a few rapists should be considered the exact same as Paedophiles.

I do not think that the death penalty is right, especially in this case. Death is an escape. Not only do they not learn anything, but they are given something much preferable to spending life in jail.

Also, I played hundreds of violent video games. And im not violence prone at all.

I have never seen anyone so completely pwn a thread as much as The Five Castes is pwning this one.

Keep up the infallible logic, my friend. They'll learn eventually.

Again, imagination is an astounding tool. You should really try it sometime.

I do. I've written symphonies and novels before.

Oh wait, you're referring to imagining yourself having sex with children. I fail to see how that refutes my argument at all.

Do you even listen to yourself? You're using the same arguements as are used against violent video games. How could I not point out the paralell?

They're not the same argument, because masturbation is a psychological reinforcement that is quite unlike pressing buttons and playing a fucking video game. Sexual gratification is a far greater psychological reward than whatever anyone gets from a video game. If you don't see the key difference, I suggest it's due to you being a child-fucker who can't see past your own dick and its desire to implant itself into adolescents.

It is the exact same as being gay, or straight. It is a preferance of children over men or women.

No, pedophilia is a mental illness. You can repeat "its the exact same as being gay or straight" all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you're making an erroneous and quite offensive analogy just in an attempt to make pedophilia somehow more acceptable.

I have never seen anyone so completely pwn a thread as much as The Five Castes is pwning this one.

Keep up the infallible logic, my friend. They'll learn eventually.

Oh good, a cheerleader-puppet. How effective.

The only thing TFC is doing is "pwning" the spotlight since he's the prime pedophile here, and defending his perversion is more of an interest to him than any of us are interested in persuading him of anything. Frankly, most of us agree that TFC due to his bias and mental dysfunction is unable to ever be persuaded that his desires are wrong. It's no more worth it than it would be to argue to Stalin that genocidal urges are wrong.

No, pedophilia is a mental illness. You can repeat "its the exact same as being gay or straight" all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you're making an erroneous and quite offensive analogy just in an attempt to make pedophilia somehow more acceptable.

Its a sexual preferance. Instead of liking adults, they like children.

Its a sexual preferance. Instead of liking adults, they like children.

If a guy likes male children, they're homosexual pedophiles. If female, they're heterosexual pedophile. If both, bisexual pedophile. See? Sexuality encompasses all sexual preferences without needing to turn every perversion or kink into its own "sexual preference."

I mean one could say that a rapist, instead of liking adults, like nonconsenting sex partners. So "rapism" is yet another alternative to the three sexualities? Or how about sado-masochism? Yet another 'prefernece' that you'll claim is its own sexuality? How about auto-eroticism, bestiality, liking brunettes vs blondes? All of them their own "preference" that is somehow different from homo-, hetero- or bi-sexuality? Hogwash.

The DSM-IV classifies pedophilia under several disorders and as such its a mental illness.

Speaking of renouncing humanity..
Rant on, evil one. :D

It is those who do not act upon their desires that I am attempting to salvage. It is for those who might eventually act upon their desires if alternatives such as my suggestions are not provided that I am attempting to salvage. In other words, those that do not actually commit the crimes. Do you see what I mean now?

I see it... you must consider, however, that acting upon impulses is a personal choice. I have urges (NOT pedo-related) that I sometimes have a very hard time controlling, but I always do.

We are all responsible for our own actions in the end.

This is an often overlooked fact when it comes to paedophiles and paedophilism. Many paedophiles will make the case that sexual attraction to children is like any other sexuality, and I agree...to a point. Obviously, we have scientific knowledge that specifically states that children cannot truly concieve of what giving consent means. Their brains have not fully developed to the point to where they can understand that at all.

But, on that same token, we can't just write off paedophiles completely. As stated in the title, they are people as well. So, rather than blindingly crucifying and castrating them all, as some people might suggest, we need to develop some form of solution, to allow paedophiles to operate in society without putting our children in harm AND without removing rights from the paedophiles.

Right away, I see a few possible solutions. One is to provide them with some form of pornography to masturbate to, in order to lessen the sexual drive that removes reason from their minds and makes them rape children. The only form of pornography I can think of that does not involve actual, live children would be lolicon: drawn, Japanese-anime style art that involves children, but is not modeled on actual occurances, but purely from the artist's imagination. Quite frankly, this art disgusts me, but it's the only kind I can think of that wouldn't hurt children and yet provide something to the paedophile.

Another possibility would be some form of virtual reality technology that the paedophile could delve into, to indulge themselves in sexual acts with virtual children rather than real children. Again, this would lessen the sexual drive, though it would depend on how far virtual reality technology has evolved thus far, and how expensive it would be.

If eventually possible, we could alter whatever it is in their brains that makes them attracted to children in the first place. Of course, this opens up a huge range of possible misuse, from ridding society of homosexuality, to preventing people from being attracted to someone of another ethnicity, so I would stay away from this suggestion.

That is all I have at the moment. What do others suggest?

I know you are trying to make people see the other side of the coin here. But I whole heartedly disagree with you. Children are the most vulnerable side of society. In Ireland the unborn child has more rights constitutionally than an actual child. British studies (that I read a few years ago and do not have a link for) cited strong evidence to prove paedophiles cannot be rehabilitated. There is no excuse in my mind for this(molesting children) and forgiveness is out of the question. Paedophilia is disgusting, the suggestions you proposed( and I'm not attacking you) would only indulge the scum, can you imaginer have to programme a simulation like that. And indulgence would only sper them on. Paedophiles should either be put to death or locked up where they do not see the sun ever again. They are not human beings.

Oh good, a cheerleader-puppet. How effective.

The only thing TFC is doing is "pwning" the spotlight since he's the prime pedophile here, and defending his perversion is more of an interest to him than any of us are interested in persuading him of anything. Frankly, most of us agree that TFC due to his bias and mental dysfunction is unable to ever be persuaded that his desires are wrong. It's no more worth it than it would be to argue to Stalin that genocidal urges are wrong.

Given that he does NOT act on his preferences because he has ADMITTED that doing so would be wrong, I find your claims dubious.


I mean one could say that a rapist, instead of liking adults, like nonconsenting sex partners. So "rapism" is yet another alternative to the three sexualities? Or how about sado-masochism? Yet another 'prefernece' that you'll claim is its own sexuality?

The difference is that these preferenes aren't PHYSICAL ATTRACTIONS, as homosexuality and pedophilia are.

The DSM-IV classifies pedophilia under several disorders and as such its a mental illness.

You know what else was a mental disorder under DSM? Homosexuality.

There is no excuse in my mind for this(molesting children) and forgiveness is out of the question. Paedophilia is disgusting, the suggestions you proposed( and I'm not attacking you) would only indulge the scum, can you imaginer have to programme a simulation like that. And indulgence would only sper them on. Paedophiles should either be put to death or locked up where they do not see the sun ever again. They are not human beings.

When will you get it through your feeble, raisin-sized brain the fact that most pedophiles do NOT molest children?

You know what else was a mental disorder under DSM? Homosexuality.

Not since the 70's.

When will you get it through your feeble, raisin-sized brain the fact that most pedophiles do NOT molest children?

A good way to tell someone has a strong point is to size up their post on a scale from 1 to 100 and then subtract 20 points every time the insult the intellegence of the other poster. This post gets a four. It's not in your behave in such a manner.

It should be noted that sexualities are naturally occurring (in other words, they are the result of genetics). Pedophelia can be linked to childhood trauma and this is the reason for its current status as a psychological disorder. The link is almost universal. It may be able to considered a fetish, but it definitely cannot be classified as a sexuality.

Given that he does NOT act on his preferences because he has ADMITTED that doing so would be wrong, I find your claims dubious.

Given that he admits to having this preference, I find his claim that he hasn't acted on them dubious.

I mean, seriously. You think he WOULD admit, "Yes, I've molested children" on this forum if he did? Har.

The difference is that these preferenes aren't PHYSICAL ATTRACTIONS, as homosexuality and pedophilia are.

My fat hairy ass they aren't.


You know what else was a mental disorder under DSM? Homosexuality.

Oh, I guess we can just argue that any disorder the DSM currently identifies, doesn't exist. I mean hey, schizophrenia isn't a mental disorder after all, cuz the DSM used to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. Hooray for bullshit arguments!

When will you get it through your feeble, raisin-sized brain the fact that most pedophiles do NOT molest children?

Gosh, I don't know. The brilliance and wit displayed here just is too much for my raisin-sized brain to handle. I guess you're right - pedophilia is natural and desirable and children can consent to having sex, because it's only nasty, mean 'psychology' or 'society' that makes child-fucking such a bad thing. That was a pretty good argument there. I suggest next time you call me a "poopie head," then I'll just be putty in your fucking palm.

Given that he admits to having this preference, I find his claim that he hasn't acted on them dubious.

I mean, seriously. You think he WOULD admit, "Yes, I've molested children" on this forum if he did? Har.

Here is where you are wrong. You have nothing to base your claim on. Nothing. Being attracted to a group does not force to force yourself upon that group. He may or may not act on his predilictions but the fact that he admits it would injure children if he did so and that he thinks doing so would be wrong should be applauded. Resisting these urges is not likely easy. You shouldn't ignore the fact that he is giving reasons for doing so.

I do. I've written symphonies and novels before.

Oh wait, you're referring to imagining yourself having sex with children. I fail to see how that refutes my argument at all.

Simply by the fact that the exact same process you suggest reinforces the thoughts and behavior in the presence of erotic materials is capable of happening without erotic materials.

I'm surprised a smart fellow like you couldn't figure that out. After all, a composer and a novelist, I should think, would be able to follow such a simple line of reasoning without me having to connect all the dots for him.

They're not the same argument, because masturbation is a psychological reinforcement that is quite unlike pressing buttons and playing a fucking video game. Sexual gratification is a far greater psychological reward than whatever anyone gets from a video game. If you don't see the key difference, I suggest it's due to you being a child-fucker who can't see past your own dick and its desire to implant itself into adolescents.

So you're basicly arguing that the process is the same, but there's a difference in degree? Yes, the reinforced reward isn't sexual, but there is a reinforced reward. Plenty of hormones in the endocrine system serve quite nicely to make playing violent video games an enjoyable experience, and you said that if you simulate something immoral, and enjoy it, that reinforces the immoral activity. It's the same arguement in video games or in pornography, and in both instances it's a load of bullshit.

No, pedophilia is a mental illness. You can repeat "its the exact same as being gay or straight" all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you're making an erroneous and quite offensive analogy just in an attempt to make pedophilia somehow more acceptable.
Why are you so offended? Just because it falls in the same general classification isn't a value judgement. Even if it were classified as a sexuality, you'd still be free to think I'm the scum of the earth anyway.
Oh good, a cheerleader-puppet. How effective.

Well, it lifts my spirits anyway. Even if it is a puppet account, it still tells me someone thinks I'm doing a good job. (Or at least wants me to think I am so they can see me continue to make a jackass of myself.) Either way, it's nice to know someone cares.

The only thing TFC is doing is "pwning" the spotlight since he's the prime pedophile here, and defending his perversion is more of an interest to him than any of us are interested in persuading him of anything.

"Prime Pedophile", huh? I like the sound of that. Maybe I've finally managed to displace DSN and start to repair some of the damage he's done around here.

Frankly, most of us agree that TFC due to his bias and mental dysfunction is unable to ever be persuaded that his desires are wrong. It's no more worth it than it would be to argue to Stalin that genocidal urges are wrong.
Really? What topic were those statements made in? Or were you communicating via TGs? Or maybe you're talking out of your ass and there really was no such declared concensus between you and "most" of the forum.
I see it... you must consider, however, that acting upon impulses is a personal choice. I have urges (NOT pedo-related) that I sometimes have a very hard time controlling, but I always do.

We are all responsible for our own actions in the end.
I don't think anyone here is arguing for letting child molesters off the hook for their actions, except possibly those people who keep calling pedophilia a mental illness. (After all, insanity is a valid criminal defense.)
Pedo's should be castrated and eradicated :mp5:
That seems redundant.
I know you are trying to make people see the other side of the coin here. But I whole heartedly disagree with you. Children are the most vulnerable side of society. In Ireland the unborn child has more rights constitutionally than an actual child. British studies (that I read a few years ago and do not have a link for) cited strong evidence to prove paedophiles cannot be rehabilitated. There is no excuse in my mind for this(molesting children) and forgiveness is out of the question. Paedophilia is disgusting, the suggestions you proposed( and I'm not attacking you) would only indulge the scum, can you imaginer have to programme a simulation like that. And indulgence would only sper them on. Paedophiles should either be put to death or locked up where they do not see the sun ever again. They are not human beings.
You're mistakenly assuming that pedophile and child molester mean the same thing, or perhaps that they are two diferent levels of progress down the same road. You're wrong. 90% of child molesters do not demonstrate arrousal oriented toward children. That is to say 90% of all child molesters aren't pedophiles. Further, pedophiles aren't some subset of child molesters. I'd no more consider molesting a child than you would consider raping an adult.

When will you get it through your feeble, raisin-sized brain the fact that most pedophiles do NOT molest children?
Please calm down. I appreciate you being on my side and all, but you do neither of us any good by losing your temper. You have to repeat things to people, sometimes a lot, if you want them to really understand them. Unlearning learned prejudice is hard, and if you want to help someone accomplish that, you have to be patient with them.
Not since the 70's.

Interesting. What changed after the 70s? Might that have been the gay rights movement? Growing social acceptance? Seems to me that homosexuality was damn unpopular back when it was still included in the DSM. Tell me again how this is different.
It should be noted that sexualities are naturally occurring (in other words, they are the result of genetics).

I hate to keep asking this, but when did they discover the gay gene?

Pedophelia can be linked to childhood trauma and this is the reason for its current status as a psychological disorder. The link is almost universal.

And what childhood trauma did I experience, exactly, that made me this way? I'd like to hear this one.

It may be able to considered a fetish, but it definitely cannot be classified as a sexuality.
Whatever. Classification as a sexuality or not really doesn't concern me so much as the defining it as a mental illness. After all, it's far too easy for someone to simply ignore the words of a crazy person, even if their words make a disturbing amount of sense.
Given that he admits to having this preference, I find his claim that he hasn't acted on them dubious.

I mean, seriously. You think he WOULD admit, "Yes, I've molested children" on this forum if he did? Har.

You're right of course. If I were a criminal, I wouldn't admit it. Of course that does rather beg the question of why I've identified myself as a pedophile in the first place. After all, that's quite a risk too.

My fat hairy ass they aren't.

I suppose the point was that homo/hetero/pedo sexuality all reffer to an attraction to observable physical properties of the person desired, while rapism (as you so eloquently put it) is about the prefered kind of action used in fulfilling one's sexuality.

Oh, I guess we can just argue that any disorder the DSM currently identifies, doesn't exist. I mean hey, schizophrenia isn't a mental disorder after all, cuz the DSM used to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. Hooray for bullshit arguments!

The DSM has indeed proven itself political, and thus any mental disorder can be questioned because of their previous inclusion of homosexuality. This isn't to say that nothing in there is accurate, only that it must be verrified that it should be classified as a mental disorder based on more than just the word of the DSM.

I guess what I'm getting at is that the DSM's viewpoint has proven flawed in the past, and that you would do well to come up with another source or some justification for pedophilia being a mental illness if you wish to continue to put forward that hypothesis.
Here is where you are wrong. You have nothing to base your claim on. Nothing. Being attracted to a group does not force to force yourself upon that group. He may or may not act on his predilictions but the fact that he admits it would injure children if he did so and that he thinks doing so would be wrong should be applauded. Resisting these urges is not likely easy. You shouldn't ignore the fact that he is giving reasons for doing so.
Thanks. I appreciate that.

Yes, paedophiles are people. People who rape children. Most countries have courts and laws that deal with them.

Interesting. What changed after the 70s? Might that have been the gay rights movement? Growing social acceptance? Seems to me that homosexuality was damn unpopular back when it was still included in the DSM. Tell me again how this is different.

Research. They did research and discovered that sexuality is set by birth and not caused by social damage as was originally thought. They discovered that it is set in the same way that heterosexuality is set. They discovered that it is another form of sexuality.

They did the same tests with pedophelia. Guess what the results were. And that's how this is different. A 'sexuality' that is caused by trauma isn't ever going to be classified as a sexuality.

I hate to keep asking this, but when did they discover the gay gene?

Yeah, they didn't figure out that blues eyes were genetic until they found the gene for it. False argument. Finding the specific gene is not required to prove it is genetic.


And what childhood trauma did I experience, exactly, that made me this way? I'd like to hear this one.

I don't know. You tell me. The burden of proof is on you. Can you show me any evidence that this a genetic response and not a reaction to trauma? You're the one trying to change conventional thought.


Whatever. Classification as a sexuality or not really doesn't concern me so much as the defining it as a mental illness. After all, it's far too easy for someone to simply ignore the words of a crazy person, even if their words make a disturbing amount of sense.

You admit it injures children, but you want to put it in the same category as sexuality, which regardless of what sexuality you are does not hurt anyone. Yeah, can't figure out why anyone would want to cure a prediliction that cannot be expressed without injuring someone.

Thanks. I appreciate that.
I'm a rational agent. You're not doing anything wrong by discussing this. In fact, I think it will be to your benefit and the benefit of others. Persecution forces these issues into the shadows and that is not in anyone's interest. I was molested. One, I would agree it has nothing to do with sex. I do think having a sexual attraction that cannot be dealt with causes drastic and often dangerous outcomes. In the current climate, I think many pedophiles are afraid to deal with this issue.

That is all I have at the moment. What do others suggest?

So the sick bastards have impulses. That's immaterial. So does everyone else on this planet. Sometimes I might just have an impulse to run some moron off the road off a cliff, but it doesn't mean I have to follow through on that impulse. And if I do, I had better accept the consequences for that action. Murder is illegal. The fact that that driver may have flipped me off before I killed him doesn't make it any less illegal. Pedophilia is illegal. And immoral. And disgusting. We all have choices and we DO NOT have to follow those base impulses. We are all responsible for our actions, and if you allow that because he is "just following his nature", then really, by extension, anything goes and there is no right or wrong.

And then what will you do when he or she does that to YOUR child?

I can't believe you even said that, expecting anything but overt hostility.

So the sick bastards have impulses. That's immaterial. So does everyone else on this planet. Sometimes I might just have an impulse to run some moron off the road off a cliff, but it doesn't mean I have to follow through on that impulse. And if I do, I had better accept the consequences for that action. Murder is illegal. The fact that that driver may have flipped me off before I killed him doesn't make it any less illegal. Pedophilia is illegal. And immoral. And disgusting. We all have choices and we DO NOT have to follow those base impulses. We are all responsible for our actions, and if you allow that because he is "just following his nature", then really, by extension, anything goes and there is no right or wrong.

And then what will you do when he or she does that to YOUR child?

I can't believe you even said that, expecting anything but overt hostility.
Being a pedophile is not in and of itself illegal. It's only illegal to act on it.

He is talking about preventing it. I don't agree with his argument. I don't think it's well-formed, but that's not the point.

Yes, paedophiles are people. People who rape children. Most countries have courts and laws that deal with them.
Did you read even the opening post. The word for people who rape children is "child molester". Pedophile describe people like me who are sexually attracted to children.
Research. They did research and discovered that sexuality is set by birth and not caused by social damage as was originally thought. They discovered that it is set in the same way that heterosexuality is set. They discovered that it is another form of sexuality.

They did the same tests with pedophelia. Guess what the results were. And that's how this is different. A 'sexuality' that is caused by trauma isn't ever going to be classified as a sexuality.

Okay, I'll guess that it's set the exact same way hetero/homo sexuality are set. Was there some important, ground breaking study I should be reading?

Yeah, they didn't figure out that blues eyes were genetic until they found the gene for it. False argument. Finding the specific gene is not required to prove it is genetic.

Kind of the only way to prove something is genetic, isn't it?

I don't know. You tell me. The burden of proof is on you. Can you show me any evidence that this a genetic response and not a reaction to trauma? You're the one trying to change conventional thought.

You mean other than it running in families? No, I'm afraid I can't point out the pedophile gene any more than you can identify the gay gene.

You admit it injures children, but you want to put it in the same category as sexuality, which regardless of what sexuality you are does not hurt anyone. Yeah, can't figure out why anyone would want to cure a prediliction that cannot be expressed without injuring someone.

I admit it injures children in our current society. Any inherent trauma is unproven one way or the other.

I'm a rational agent. You're not doing anything wrong by discussing this. In fact, I think it will be to your benefit and the benefit of others. Persecution forces these issues into the shadows and that is not in anyone's interest.

Agreed.

I was molested. One, I would agree it has nothing to do with sex. I do think having a sexual attraction that cannot be dealt with causes drastic and often dangerous outcomes.

Forgive me, but if your encounter had nothing to do with sex, why do you make the connection to having sexual attraction that can't be dealt with? I assume some connection because of the spatial proximity within the paragraph, so if none was intended, let me know.

In the current climate, I think many pedophiles are afraid to deal with this issue.
Indeed. It's dangerous to be on the radar.
So the sick bastards have impulses. That's immaterial. So does everyone else on this planet. Sometimes I might just have an impulse to run some moron off the road off a cliff, but it doesn't mean I have to follow through on that impulse. And if I do, I had better accept the consequences for that action. Murder is illegal. The fact that that driver may have flipped me off before I killed him doesn't make it any less illegal.

Agreed. "Because I wanted to" is not a valid, defensible reason for commiting an imoral, harmful act.

Pedophilia is illegal.

While they're working very hard to make thought-crime a reality, it isn't illegal to find children attractive just yet.

And immoral. And disgusting.

Matters of opinion. The same is said, even today, about homosexuality.

While I agree molesting a child is immoral, that's because it's harmful to the child, not because of "wicked thoughts" or somesuch.

We all have choices and we DO NOT have to follow those base impulses. We are all responsible for our actions, and if you allow that because he is "just following his nature", then really, by extension, anything goes and there is no right or wrong.

Again, I agree with you that people should be held responsible for their actions. Emphasis on actions. A person's thoughts are his/her own business.

And then what will you do when he or she does that to YOUR child?

I can't believe you even said that, expecting anything but overt hostility.
Um, Kyronea can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he ever meant to say it's all right if people molest children. The entire point of his proposal was an idea he had about how to make that less likely to happen. You may disagree with his proposal, but his intentions most certainly were not to excuse the rapists who prey on children.

Okay, I'll guess that it's set the exact same way hetero/homo sexuality are set. Was there some important, ground breaking study I should be reading?

I see, so you're just guessing here. So you have no evidence for your claims? Understood. Then forgive me while I give your argument the exact weight you've given it, none.

Kind of the only way to prove something is genetic, isn't it?

Nope. They proved blue eyes were genetic before finding the specific gene responsible. Your ignorance of genetics is not an argument.


You mean other than it running in families? No, I'm afraid I can't point out the pedophile gene any more than you can identify the gay gene.

I didn't ask for you to prove a gene. I asked for evidence. Please cite a study. Any study that suggests that that pedophelia isn't developed rather than being born with it. Alcoholism has a genetic link, but it still requires someone to abuse alcohol before manifesting. Show that developing pedophelia is not required. Or even a suggestive study.

If you're not trolling how about you post some evidence and stop ignoring what people say to present arguments that don't address their points. I'm quite certain you're capable of knowing whether an argument actually addressing a point, so I'm assuming you're doing it on purpose. If not, forgive me for giving you that credit.


I admit it injures children in our current society. Any inherent trauma is unproven one way or the other.

Uh-huh. The burden is on you to show that it's a result of our society. I've seen no evidence from you whatsoever. In fact, it seems like you're making all of this up, but feel free to prove me wrong. See, comparing it to other things that are established is not enough. You have to actually show that it's an accurate comparison. You haven't.


Agreed.

Forgive me, but if your encounter had nothing to do with sex, why do you make the connection to having sexual attraction that can't be dealt with? I assume some connection because of the spatial proximity within the paragraph, so if none was intended, let me know.

I didn't connect them. I said that acting that pedophilia is inherently not sex because it is not consentual. If you can show me how acting on pedophelia can be done without children, then you'll have a point.


Indeed. It's dangerous to be on the radar.

Yes, and it prevents pedophiles from dealing with their predilictions that if acted upon are harmful to others and if not are generally harmful to them.

Wow. For once, a thread I've made has caused discussion to continue on topic for fifteen pages. Incredible.

Also, it's nice to see that I was right about my assumption regarding paedophiles. I speak, of course, of The Five Castes here. Up until he showed his face, I was merely assuming what I had said: that paedophiles are not automatically child molesters, and what have you. Admittedly an appropriate, logical assumption, but an assumption nonethless. I must applaud The Five Castes for proving every single point I was trying to make.

The Five Castes, from your unique perspective, what should we as a society do to help you and others like you, those that recognize their sexual attraction is wrong and wish to find a way to fix it or otherwise allow them to function in society? Forgive me if you have already answered this question, but the sheer number of pages in this thread prevents me from finding it amongst all of the posts.

I see, so you're just guessing here. So you have no evidence for your claims? Understood. Then forgive me while I give your argument the exact weight you've given it, none.

Oh well, that moment of amiability was nice while it lasted.

You asked me to guess what these studies you claim to have read found. I made a guess. If you're saying they found something different, I'd really like to see it. Not neccisarily because I disbelieve you, but because the information apparently pertains to me and my psychological makeup, and I value self-awareness.

Nope. They proved blue eyes were genetic before finding the specific gene responsible. Your ignorance of genetics is not an argument.

It's an arguement for my inability to provide evidence about genetic predispositions. I genuinely don't know what has to be done to prove a genetic link for anything, since apparently finding the gene isn't it as I had assumed.

I didn't ask for you to prove a gene. I asked for evidence. Please cite a study. Any study that suggests that that pedophelia isn't developed rather than being born with it. Alcoholism has a genetic link, but it still requires someone to abuse alcohol before manifesting. Show that developing pedophelia is not required. Or even a suggestive study.

What? What point would there be in proving anything about someone who doesn't become a pedophile? I'm really not sure what you're asking here.

If you're asking me to provide evidence that pedophilia runs in familys, which I believe is suggestive of a genetic link, I really don't have such a study on hand at the moment. I've heard it around, often used as evidence of this "cycle of abuse" rather than suggesting a genetic link.

If you're not trolling how about you post some evidence and stop ignoring what people say to present arguments that don't address their points. I'm quite certain you're capable of knowing whether an argument actually addressing a point, so I'm assuming you're doing it on purpose. If not, forgive me for giving you that credit.

You want me to put up evidence, put up some of your own. I've never seen evidence of a genetic link to homosexuality that couldn't also be attributed to upbringing, and just because that's the popular opinion doesn't mean it doesn't need to be proved once asserted.

I personally don't give a shit if pedophilia is genetic or not, and I have no idea how we got side tracked like this. The only reason I asked for the evidence was because someone was apparently trying to make a moral statement by refferencing genetic predeterminism. Rather than talk about the value of genetic predeterminism in deciding moral questions, I felt it was simply more expedient to question the existence of this unproven gay gene.

Uh-huh. The burden is on you to show that it's a result of our society. I've seen no evidence from you whatsoever. In fact, it seems like you're making all of this up, but feel free to prove me wrong. See, comparing it to other things that are established is not enough. You have to actually show that it's an accurate comparison. You haven't.

You don't listen well, do you? This was about what I had admited. So far I've admited that society's reaction, even if there weren't any inherent biological or psychological trauma, would cause harm to the child involved. Do you deny that if there weren't trauma, the overreaction of society would create it?

I told you before I'm undecided on the question of psychological trauma, since I feel social trauma would mask any real inherent mental trauma, and physical trauma depends on the specific acts you're trying to perform.

Do you get it now?

I didn't connect them. I said that acting that pedophilia is inherently not sex because it is not consentual. If you can show me how acting on pedophelia can be done without children, then you'll have a point.

I don't even know what you're asking me here.

Yes, and it prevents pedophiles from dealing with their predilictions that if acted upon are harmful to others and if not are generally harmful to them.
I agree. That's a major problem. Now, what should be done? Lessen the stygma? Accept that we're dealing with people?

Wow. For once, a thread I've made has caused discussion to continue on topic for fifteen pages. Incredible.

40 pages at default settings.

Also, it's nice to see that I was right about my assumption regarding paedophiles. I speak, of course, of The Five Castes here. Up until he showed his face, I was merely assuming what I had said: that paedophiles are not automatically child molesters, and what have you. Admittedly an appropriate, logical assumption, but an assumption nonethless. I must applaud The Five Castes for proving every single point I was trying to make.

The Five Castes, from your unique perspective, what should we as a society do to help you and others like you, those that recognize their sexual attraction is wrong and wish to find a way to fix it or otherwise allow them to function in society? Forgive me if you have already answered this question, but the sheer number of pages in this thread prevents me from finding it amongst all of the posts.
I should probably start by saying I don't want to be "fixed" in either sense of the word. I am who I am, and altering a fundamental aspect of my personality would result in "me" being lost to be replaced by another consiusness that isn't the same person. I don't believe this is something they can cure, since pedophilia has proven extremely resistent to the therapies that have been attempted thus far. (They're about as effective at curing pedophilia as they are at curing gay.) Still, even if there were a cure, for the reasons I mentioned (which are as close to religious as an agnostic like me gets) I would die before accepting such a treatment. (And of course, like any guy, I'd rather not have my nads snipped.)

As for what I would propose, the first and most important thing would be an increased level of social acceptance. People need to realise we aren't all either child molesters or wannabe child molesters. As Jocabia mentioned in her posts, the need to hide this interest leads to problems. It creates considerable interpersonal dificulty when even your family can't be trusted with this information. It makes it even harder when, by telling them, some states make them chose between reporting you for suspicion of child abuse, or being guilty of a fellony themselves.

I feel your suggestion about virtual CP (including lolicon) is sound, though your virtual reality suggestion is a tad outside the current realm of possibility, I think. There's no need, as some suggest, to spend government monies subsidising the virtual child porn industry. There's a market, and people willing to manufacture materials for that market. The only thing limiting those people is the question of legality. Virtual child porn is illegal under the doctrine of incitement. (Though as I keep hearing in all those miniskirt threads, there's no such thing as incitement to rape.) Limiting the definition of child porn to images of actual children would, I think, make a big difference.

Some have stated that this would make a pedophile more likely to act on their sexual urges, and that pedophiles are better off repressing their sexuality and doing their best not to think about it. This is a mistake of the highest order. The sex drive in human beings is a very powerful thing. Ignoring it and hoping it goes away is not the least bit productive. Rather than "keep it on our minds" these sorts of images would offer a legitimate outlet for sexual release, since obviously actual sex is out of the question.

Most important however is to get rid of this opressive stygma. I fear that for some pedophiles, the media depiction of us all as inevidable child molesters becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. How long could you last being told you were crazy, and the most horrible kind of monster imaginable, before you cracked under that pressure? Society shouldn't be making it this challenging to maintain a moral center.
They deserve nothing more than to belong in a Pig Pen. They are not fit for anything BUT a Pig Pen. That is where id like to see them. They wont be dead, just naked, and humilated, in a discusting horrid situation, where if they try to leave they are tourterd to death. If they die in the Pig Pen, then there body is left to rot for a few days before its finnally burned. While that body is there, we feed the rest of the Pedoist nothing, to see if they will eat the body. It would be great. Of course random beatings would take place.
What an appropriate nation name you have.

What an appropriate nation name you have.

Yup, if that step is not taken. It will become legal. Then children all over the world will suffer, then beasiality is next.

<screed>Any more posts like this will result in a two week forumban for the poster. Keep it civil, people. If you can't control yourself, don't post.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

Yup, if that step is not taken. It will become legal. Then children all over the world will suffer, then beasiality is next.
And what's wrong with beastiality? With this one, I should think the question of consent isn't even at issue, since after all, we kill animals for food and for fun.

All in all, I think you'll see bestiality accepted before pedophilia is.

Oh well, that moment of amiability was nice while it lasted.

You've offered no evidence for your comparison to homosexuality. I pointed that out. It has nothing to do with being amicable.


You asked me to guess what these studies you claim to have read found. I made a guess. If you're saying they found something different, I'd really like to see it. Not neccisarily because I disbelieve you, but because the information apparently pertains to me and my psychological makeup, and I value self-awareness.

I think you're being intellectually dishonest. Are you telling me that you believe that they have not attempted to test whether or not pedophelia is a normal sexuality like homosexuality? Are you telling me that the fact that pedophelia is still listed as a disorder isn't an indicator for you? Like I've said repeatedly, you keep making a false comparison to homosexuality while their is no evidence it works like homosexuality or heterosexuality.


It's an arguement for my inability to provide evidence about genetic predispositions. I genuinely don't know what has to be done to prove a genetic link for anything, since apparently finding the gene isn't it as I had assumed.

Then stop making claims for something you have no evidence for. Stop comparing homosexuality and pedophelia. You have no evidence for the comparison being an apt comparison.


What? What point would there be in proving anything about someone who doesn't become a pedophile? I'm really not sure what you're asking here.

Okay, so you don't understand how the study of a disease is done. Fine. See, for diseases that are found to have a genetic factor, we tend to study why they do or do not manifest. Homosexuality is not a disease because it always manifests from the genetics and it is not harmful. Pedophelia is harmful because the only way for the urges to ACTUALLY be satisfied is harmful to the child. It does not always manifest and it is not purely or even proven to be mostly genetic. All evidence I've ever seen links it to childhood trauma. Any genetic element does not appear to manifest without trauma. That's the point and to the study of pedophelia it's very significant.


If you're asking me to provide evidence that pedophilia runs in familys, which I believe is suggestive of a genetic link, I really don't have such a study on hand at the moment. I've heard it around, often used as evidence of this "cycle of abuse" rather than suggesting a genetic link.

Yes, but child abuse isn't considered to be genetic so much as the things that cause it are passed down socially.


You want me to put up evidence, put up some of your own. I've never seen evidence of a genetic link to homosexuality that couldn't also be attributed to upbringing, and just because that's the popular opinion doesn't mean it doesn't need to be proved once asserted.

You're the one arguing against the accepted norm. You're claiming the DSM is wrong. Show some evidence. You're comparing homosexuality to pedophelia. Show some evidence.

I'm stating the normally accepted psychological position. A position you're aware of. The onus is on you to show that you're new claim has any validity. For the record, I also won't prove that the moon is orbit around the earth. If you want to claim it isn't, provide proof or expect your argument to be given no weight.


I personally don't give a shit if pedophilia is genetic or not, and I have no idea how we got side tracked like this. The only reason I asked for the evidence was because someone was apparently trying to make a moral statement by refferencing genetic predeterminism. Rather than talk about the value of genetic predeterminism in deciding moral questions, I felt it was simply more expedient to question the existence of this unproven gay gene.

I brought up the fact that the comparison between homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and pedophelia is not an apt one because all evidence suggests that sexualities are set by our genetics and the manifestation of our genetics through normal hormonal actions and manifested pedophelia is widely-held and in all study been shown to be linked directly to childhood trauma. They are widely different. I'm stating the accepted norms and the reason why pedophelia remains in the DSM while homosexuality does not. IF pedophelia should be removed from the DSM, show some evidence or stop spuriously making the comparison.

You don't listen well, do you? This was about what I had admited. So far I've admited that society's reaction, even if there weren't any inherent biological or psychological trauma, would cause harm to the child involved. Do you deny that if there weren't trauma, the overreaction of society would create it?

I listen fine. You don't understand my point. You haven't shown any indication that in a different society that the harm to the child wouldn't manifest. The onus is on you to show that reality is different than the accepted norm. Right now, your stating as if it were true without an ounce of evidence. You're attributing the harm to the child to society and you're not showing any evidence.


I told you before I'm undecided on the question of psychological trauma, since I feel social trauma would mask any real inherent mental trauma, and physical trauma depends on the specific acts you're trying to perform.

Yes, you keep saying that. Show me evidence.


Do you get it now?

I always got it. I'm asking you for evidence. You've been making claims for a dozen pages without any evidence.


I don't even know what you're asking me here.

I'm not asking you anything. I made a statement.

I agree. That's a major problem. Now, what should be done? Lessen the stygma? Accept that we're dealing with people?
I don't care about the stigma. What should be done is that pedophiles should be encouraged to seek help (which is contrary to what you're suggesting). I'm not claiming that pedophelia should be accepted. It just shouldn't be dangerous for pedophiles to seek treatment and currently it is.

I also think we need to change our definition of sex offender. A seventeen-year-old having sex with his fifteen-year-old girlfriend should not be on a sex offender list. Nor should a person who didn't physically abuse someone. I don't agree with people like PeeWee Herman ending up on the sex offender list. The sex offender list should reserved for people who molest small children (let's say under 12) and rapists.

It should be noted that sexualities are naturally occurring (in other words, they are the result of genetics). Pedophelia can be linked to childhood trauma and this is the reason for its current status as a psychological disorder. The link is almost universal. It may be able to considered a fetish, but it definitely cannot be classified as a sexuality.

psuedo scientific bull crap.

psuedo scientific bull crap.

A profound argument if I've ever heard one. If evidence is on your side, present it. Otherwise, I'll have to assume the entire text of your argument is "I don't understand it so it's bull crap".

Quick, someone get George Carlin to find a rectangular state and fence it off.

You've offered no evidence for your comparison to homosexuality. I pointed that out. It has nothing to do with being amicable.

It just seemed that we were having a discussion before, and now we're back to an arguement.

I think you're being intellectually dishonest. Are you telling me that you believe that they have not attempted to test whether or not pedophelia is a normal sexuality like homosexuality? Are you telling me that the fact that pedophelia is still listed as a disorder isn't an indicator for you? Like I've said repeatedly, you keep making a false comparison to homosexuality while their is no evidence it works like homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Honestly, I wasn't aware there existed such a thing as a "normal sexuality", let alone that they could test for it.

Regardless, the link isn't that homosexuality and pedophilia supposedly work the same way, I'm no shrink. My point was that because the DSM screwed up before, mislabeling homosexuality for political reasons, taking their word as gospel isn't advisable.

Then stop making claims for something you have no evidence for. Stop comparing homosexuality and pedophelia. You have no evidence for the comparison being an apt comparison.

I don't believe I ever even made the mistake of even trying to prove a genetic link to pedophilia until you specificly asked me to do so.

Okay, so you don't understand how the study of a disease is done. Fine. See, for diseases that are found to have a genetic factor, we tend to study why they do or do not manifest. Homosexuality is not a disease because it always manifests from the genetics and it is not harmful.

If it always manefested from the genetics, the twin rates would be 100% rather than, I believe the study I read put the number at, 50%. Or was that not what you were talking about.

Pedophelia is harmful because the only way for the urges to ACTUALLY be satisfied is harmful to the child.

I feel you are incorrect there. Masturbation counts as satisfying a sexual urge. Or if you only count actual sex as satisfying those urges, I'll just ask how it's harmful if the urges aren't satisfied.

It does not always manifest and it is not purely or even proven to be mostly genetic.

Oh, don't sell your evidence short. You've actually claimed that there was evidence that it wasn't genetic. (Just as unproven as the converse as far as this thread is concerned by the way.)

All evidence I've ever seen links it to childhood trauma. Any genetic element does not appear to manifest without trauma. That's the point and to the study of pedophelia it's very significant.

Unless I misread what you're trying to say, you're saying that pedophilia always manefests as a result of childhood trauma. I didn't experience childhood trauma.

Yes, but child abuse isn't considered to be genetic so much as the things that cause it are passed down socially.

Like I said, there's been a suggestion of it running in families, but that alone obviously isn't what counts for evidence of a genetic factor, is it? What then is needed to assume a genetic factor?

You're the one arguing against the accepted norm. You're claiming the DSM is wrong. Show some evidence. You're comparing homosexuality to pedophelia. Show some evidence.

Again, my claim was that the DSM is unreliable and political. Nothing more. I feel I have provided evidence to that effect.

I'm stating the normally accepted psychological position. A position you're aware of. The onus is on you to show that you're new claim has any validity. For the record, I also won't prove that the moon is orbit around the earth. If you want to claim it isn't, provide proof or expect your argument to be given no weight.

I don't recall asking you to prove the moon orbits the earth, I asked you to provide evidence (of any sort) that homosexuality had a genetic link, and thus was different from pedophilia which you claimed (again without evidence) did not have a genetic link. It would be helpful to know what these sorts of studies look like if I'm supposed to find one for you. Since you claim to have read them before, I assumed you would have an easier time showing me what to look for.

I brought up the fact that the comparison between homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality and pedophelia is not an apt one because all evidence suggests that sexualities are set by our genetics and the manifestation of our genetics through normal hormonal actions and manifested pedophelia is widely-held and in all study been shown to be linked directly to childhood trauma. They are widely different. I'm stating the accepted norms and the reason why pedophelia remains in the DSM while homosexuality does not. IF pedophelia should be removed from the DSM, show some evidence or stop spuriously making the comparison.

Bullshit. The reason homosexuality is not in the DSM has nothing to do with supposed genetic determinism. If it did, schitsophrenia, which also has a strong genetic component, would also have been removed. The reason for them dropping homosexuality was because they determined that it wasn't harmful, and that it didn't impair a person's ability to be economicly productive. This genetics crap is a side arguement at best, and a deliberate red herring at worst.

I listen fine. You don't understand my point. You haven't shown any indication that in a different society that the harm to the child wouldn't manifest. The onus is on you to show that reality is different than the accepted norm. Right now, your stating as if it were true without an ounce of evidence. You're attributing the harm to the child to society and you're not showing any evidence.




Yes, you keep saying that. Show me evidence.

Again, you miss the point. I didn't deny inherent mental harm. Are you reading the same things I'm writing? I've stated again and again that the social harm is sufficient reason not to act. I've also stated that I'm undecided on the idea of inherent mental harm, since social harm would mask it. And you're going to need some compelling evidence to prove physical harm results from a child touching an adult with his/her hands (should you decide to try and contradict my statements on physical harm).

I always got it. I'm asking you for evidence. You've been making claims for a dozen pages without any evidence.

I need to provide evidence that it's traumatic to be put through the legal system? I need to provide evidence that a person you care about being forcably taken away from you and locked up for something you enjoyed together would be traumatic? I ask this because that's exactly what my assertion has been.

I'm not asking you anything. I made a statement.

It looked like a question. In that case, I'll rephrase. What were you stating there?

I don't care about the stigma. What should be done is that pedophiles should be encouraged to seek help (which is contrary to what you're suggesting). I'm not claiming that pedophelia should be accepted. It just shouldn't be dangerous for pedophiles to seek treatment and currently it is.

What sort of help do you reccomend? Did they develop a real treatment in the past couple of months since I last looked into the matter? So far the only "treatments" I've seen avalible were castration (not an option I'm keen to volenteer for) and a nasty little "treatment", proven ineffective again and again, called aversion therapy.

If you're curius about it, here's a link to a general article on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversion_therapy

I also think we need to change our definition of sex offender. A seventeen-year-old having sex with his fifteen-year-old girlfriend should not be on a sex offender list. Nor should a person who didn't physically abuse someone. I don't agree with people like PeeWee Herman ending up on the sex offender list. The sex offender list should reserved for people who molest small children (let's say under 12) and rapists.
What you're advocating is a change in the laws governing sexual consent. I think I'll ask you how you feel about the idea of removing aribtrary standards like the age of consent entirely, and judging whether people can or can't offer meaningful consent on an individual basis. Would you support replacing the age of consent with a test of a person's knowledge of sex and its potential consequences and of their cognitive capabilities? I rather envision a licensing system where anyone who wants to have sex has to take the test, and if they can't pass it, it's treated as statutory rape for anyone to have sex with them, but if they can pass it, they're allowed sexual self-determination. Assuming for the moment that such a test were feasable, would you support the replacement of the age of consent?

It just seemed that we were having a discussion before, and now we're back to an arguement.

If it makes it an argument to ask you to stop saying offensive things about homosexuality without evidence, then it's an argument.

How's this? Pedophelia has been linked an extremely low IQ. Now, I've got no evidence for this and I'm just making random claims, but, hey, why should anyone care because it's just a discussion, right? Support your claims or stop making them.


Honestly, I wasn't aware there existed such a thing as a "normal sexuality", let alone that they could test for it.
You've never heard the term normal and abnormal used in psychology? Really? Wow, you must really be arguing this after really making an effort to be sure what you were saying was based on evidence. I'm impressed. How could I not be? I mean you're just making things up, but hey keep putting the burden of evidence on me. Maybe no one will notice.


Regardless, the link isn't that homosexuality and pedophilia supposedly work the same way, I'm no shrink. My point was that because the DSM screwed up before, mislabeling homosexuality for political reasons, taking their word as gospel isn't advisable.

And homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophelia so stop trying to act as if a mistake about homosexuality has anything to do with it. Pedophelia is not a sexuality and you've not presented any evidence that it is.

They been wrong lots of times before. However, in sciences we don't just assume things are wrong because they've been wrong before. We present evidence or we admit we don't have any. You don't have any.

I don't believe I ever even made the mistake of even trying to prove a genetic link to pedophilia until you specificly asked me to do so.

You compared it to homosexuality repeatedly. They aren't comparable. AT ALL.


If it always manefested from the genetics, the twin rates would be 100% rather than, I believe the study I read put the number at, 50%. Or was that not what you were talking about.

Um, no. You clearly don't understand epigenetics. Many things that are genetic differ in twins. Not all of your genes are expressed in the same way or at all. This is why we can tell identical twins apart. Starting with the same genetics does not make us 100% the same. You really should be more educated on this subject if you're going to make the kinds of wild claims you're making.

I feel you are incorrect there. Masturbation counts as satisfying a sexual urge. Or if you only count actual sex as satisfying those urges, I'll just ask how it's harmful if the urges aren't satisfied.

Masturbation is rarely considered to be enough. We are not naturally abstinent creatures.


Oh, don't sell your evidence short. You've actually claimed that there was evidence that it wasn't genetic. (Just as unproven as the converse as far as this thread is concerned by the way.)

I don't have to prove the accepted norm or we'd spend all of our time providing evidence. You're claiming things should change. Provide some support for your claims or they WILL be considered worthless.

You're committing the fallacy of shifting of burden of proof. You want to change the societal norm, make a case and support it. I'll wait.


Unless I misread what you're trying to say, you're saying that pedophilia always manefests as a result of childhood trauma. I didn't experience childhood trauma.

I don't believe you. Sorry, but it's in your interest to not view it that way. Please provide verifiable evidence or stop making spurious claims. And I actually didn't say always. It is almost universal. The fact that it is not universal could very well expose the fact that it's impossible to evidence all trauma. It does not prove an exception. Obviously, there is much reason why collecting such data is difficult. However, the incredibly high rate of correllation is more than suggestive.


Like I said, there's been a suggestion of it running in families, but that alone obviously isn't what counts for evidence of a genetic factor, is it? What then is needed to assume a genetic factor?

They perform studies of children throughout their life cycle to see when such predilictions begin to manifest. The ability to study such things is remarkably advanced.

Again, my claim was that the DSM is unreliable and political. Nothing more. I feel I have provided evidence to that effect.

You have. Where is that evidence? I've seen claims, but no evidence at all. It's based on scientific study and our understanding of ALL sciences change over time. However, if you want to claim that science is wrong you have to provide some proof. You've shown NONE.

All your 'evidence' is a claim you didn't support, that homosexuality changed status as a result of politics rather than new evidence, which is patently false. The DSM is a medical manual based on science. Does politics affect science? Sure, but that doesn't mean that we can dismiss science as a result of politics without any evidence.

Provide evidence ANY evidence. Show ANY, ANY scholarly study that agrees with any of your claims.


I don't recall asking you to prove the moon orbits the earth, I asked you to provide evidence (of any sort) that homosexuality had a genetic link, and thus was different from pedophilia which you claimed (again without evidence) did not have a genetic link. It would be helpful to know what these sorts of studies look like if I'm supposed to find one for you. Since you claim to have read them before, I assumed you would have an easier time showing me what to look for.

You want me to provide studies that show homosexuality is part of normal genetic development? Hmmm... alright. I agree to do that. However, I'll only provide if you admit that your comparison to pedophelia is completely and utterly unsupported. Deal?


Bullshit. The reason homosexuality is not in the DSM has nothing to do with supposed genetic determinism. If it did, schitsophrenia, which also has a strong genetic component, would also have been removed. The reason for them dropping homosexuality was because they determined that it wasn't harmful, and that it didn't impair a person's ability to be economicly productive. This genetics crap is a side arguement at best, and a deliberate
red herring at worst.

Homosexuality used to be thought to be a form of deviancy formed as a result of truama in their rearing. It was found to be developed naturally in the same way as homosexuality. You keep comparing pedophelia to the homosexuality but you refuse to do the work. I can't figure out if you're lazy or dishonest.


Again, you miss the point. I didn't deny inherent mental harm. Are you reading the same things I'm writing? I've stated again and again that the social harm is sufficient reason not to act. I've also stated that I'm undecided on the idea of inherent mental harm, since social harm would mask it. And you're going to need some compelling evidence to prove physical harm results from a child touching an adult with his/her hands (should you decide to try and contradict my statements on physical harm).

I recognize that you blame social harm. You talk about how it masks any psychological harm if it exists. You question the existence of an accepted trauma with no evidence. You act as if another type of trauma is masking it with no evidence. I read what you wrote. You keep accusing me of not knowing what you're saying, but my guess is that you're just trying to avoid actually presenting any evidence for your spurious claims.

Here's a tip - because I don't agree with ideas you completely made up and have NO evidence for, doesn't mean I don't understand them. You want a change to standard understaind of psychology, but you've provided no reason for such a change to occur. You might be surprised by this but in order to change a medical textbook based on scientific study, you have to present *gasp* scientific evidence, but, hell, I'll settle for ANY evidence. You've got none.

I need to provide evidence that it's traumatic to be put through the legal system? I need to provide evidence that a person you care about being forcably taken away from you and locked up for something you enjoyed together would be traumatic? I ask this because that's exactly what my assertion has been.

You do realize that most molested children are never put through the legal system, yes? I wasn't.

Many molesters are never locked up. Many molesters are never forcibly taken away. Many times people don't find out about the molestation of their children until their children are much old.

The things you claim are not a necessary part of the relationship and certainly not the cause of the trauma. Yes, you need to provide evidence that the trauma that is evidenced is a result of these acts that only sometimes happen.


It looked like a question. In that case, I'll rephrase. What were you stating there?

Seriously, you can't follow a simple statement? Pedophiles have a prediliction that if acted upon hurts children and if not acted up generally hurts them. What is so complicated about that?

What sort of help do you reccomend? Did they develop a real treatment in the past couple of months since I last looked into the matter? So far the only "treatments" I've seen avalible were castration (not an option I'm keen to volenteer for) and a nasty little "treatment", proven ineffective again and again, called aversion therapy.

If you're curius about it, here's a link to a general article on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversion_therapy

I don't know why you bother with this argument. Therapy helps pedophiles deal with their urges in more positive ways. You're talking about some of the positive ways you deal with it. If you believe it cannot be dealt with positively then why insist their is a difference between it and child molestation, because child molestation would be inevitable.


What you're advocating is a change in the laws governing sexual consent.

Nope. Just a change in the classification of the crimes. Please follow along. I said that I was talking about them appearing on the sexual predator lists. I said nothing about not making it a crime. Please respond to what is said.


I think I'll ask you how you feel about the idea of removing aribtrary standards like the age of consent entirely, and judging whether people can or can't offer meaningful consent on an individual basis.

Yes. And then after that we can bring peace and love to the world. /sarcasm

What you're advocating is unnecessary and completely unmanageable.

Would you support replacing the age of consent with a test of a person's knowledge of sex and its potential consequences and of their cognitive capabilities?

Nope. Knowledge gives us nothing about whether or not an act will be traumatic. It's not about understanding, it's about maturity. I don't know of a maturity test. Do you? We could do this with everything that has an age limit. Doing so would be absurd and unmanageable.


I rather envision a licensing system where anyone who wants to have sex has to take the test, and if they can't pass it, it's treated as statutory rape for anyone to have sex with them, but if they can pass it, they're allowed sexual self-determination. Assuming for the moment that such a test were feasable, would you support the replacement of the age of consent?

Yes, we should license a basic right. Again, absurd. Sex isn't a privelege. Your argument would do more damage than good. We already have difficulty getting people to birth control and whatnot. Sex tests? Laughable.

Now, here's what I'm going to do. I'll provide evidence if after reading it you'll admit that you don't know what you're talking about when you say pedophelia and homosexuality are comparable in any way. Or you can provide evidence for your claims. Anything else is not worth my time because you're just making crap up to justify your urges.

A profound argument if I've ever heard one. If evidence is on your side, present it. Otherwise, I'll have to assume the entire text of your argument is "I don't understand it so it's bull crap".

If it wasn't bull crap,,,

I would understand it.

You assumed correctly

If it wasn't bull crap,,,

I would understand it.

You assumed correctly

More profound arguments. Wow, you do wonders for your argument.

The list of things that qualify as bull crap under that rather loose definition includes a massive number of things, unfortunately. I'd hate to speculate as to what would fall on that list, but human sexuality appears to be right on the top of that list. Take a class so we can reduce the amoung of bull crap in the world, my friend.

More profound arguments. Wow, you do wonders for your argument.

The list of things that qualify as bull crap under that rather loose definition includes a massive number of things, unfortunately. I'd hate to speculate as to what would fall on that list, but human sexuality appears to be right on the top of that list. Take a class so we can reduce the amoung of bull crap in the world, my friend.

How about,,,,

Why don't you try to explain the magic behind pedaphilia? How is it that a single well placed touch can ruin a person for life? Tell me how the pedaphilia virus spreads by a mechanism similer to where werewolves and vampires. Do tell the magic beyond the loss of empathy and the twisted mind set of all the pedophiles who just want to go out and hurt helpless and innocent people.

Santa Cluase is more pluasable.

Come on Jocabia do tell.

I suggest we lock them up and throw away the key.

But we'll do it nicely if you insist.


We'll give them a window.

I agree. when you go to porn sites, you have to be 18+ to join

How about,,,,

Why don't try to explain the magic behind pedaphilia? How is it that a single well placed touch can ruin a person for life? Tell me how the pedaphilia virus spreads by a mechanism similer to where wolves and vampires. Do tell the magic beyond the loss of empathy and the twisted mind set of all the pedophiles who just want to go out and hurt people.

Santa Cluase is more pluasable.

Come on Jocabia do tell.

I did explain. You said you couldn't understand it.

If you actually analyze your predilictions you'll have to stop lying to yourself about whether or not it hurts people. So you have to ignore any argument based on real science because it harms your pathetic argument about how it's that people are just out to get you.

I never suggested that pedophiles want to hurt people. In fact, many pedophiles like yourself try to convince themselves that they don't. You're a prime example and thanks for being one.

And everyone who challenges your little world you get angry at. It's got to be everyone else's fault because, otherwise, you might have to take a little responsibility. And you didn't come here to change anyone's mind or to address these issues. You came to preach and you're pissed at me because I actually know better. Sorry. If you'd like I can try to forget everything I know so your arguments sound sensible. Would that help?

I did tell. You're not interested. Because if you actually analyze your predilictions you'll have to stop lying to yourself about whether or not it hurts people. I never suggested that pedophiles want to hurt people. In fact, many pedophiles like yourself try to convince themselves that they don't. You're a prime example and thanks for being one. And everyone who challenges your little world you get angry at. It's got to be everyone else's fault because, otherwise, you might have to take a little responsibility. And you didn't come here to change anyone's mind or to address these issues. You came to preach and you're pissed at me because I actually know better. Sorry. If you'd like I can try to forget everything I know so your arguments sound sensible. Would that help?

You still didn't explain the life ruining touch or the pedaphilia virus.

Come on, DSN. You've got so much to say when no one has an answer that isn't just angry and flamey. Now, you've got an educated response and nothing to say. If you're not careful people might figure out that you didn't come for a discussion but instead to troll so you could justify your persecuation complex. Where's all your 'reasonable' arugments? Don't tell you haven't got a better argument than calling everything that disagrees with you "bull crap" and then acting like the person whose argument you ignored needs to add more. There must be more to this. Where is it?

I can not believe you have just repeated the exact same paragraph again. I believe this is spamming, is it not?
You know you keep throwing this out but even if this is remotely true it doesn't mean that you now excuse all molesters from here on out because of some possible questionable testimony 20 years ago

Since you love this so much, perhaps you could also provide some kind of sourse for this?
I don't think you see the relevance of this...

Young people can be manipulated easily. It was said earlier in this thread, and it's how paedophiles can lure children. But it can be used by the authorities as well. This case ilustrates how even obviously embellished testemony from children can be taken and ran with by a mob, and be used as the basis for convictions. The same would happen with a manditory death sentence for paedophiles. Oh, you don't like this guy? Little Sarah, just say he molested you. He'll be gone in a week. People don't care about how plausible a scenario is, once they're full of rage and the desire for revenge. Therefore, I say lock them up forever, but killing is not justified or the best option in this case: there's too many pitfalls and chances for error with the death penalty.

Anywho, yea I'm for locking paedophiles up forever, but not killing them. And for those who have the attraction but havn't acted yet, treatment to help them become productive members of society.

You still didn't explain the life ruining touch or the pedaphilia virus.

Like I said, you're trolling. You pretend like you've come to discuss this, but the only people you'll talk to about this is people who agree with you or people who are flaming. Why don't you just admit that you're not confident enough in your position to actually discuss it with someone educated on the subject? Come on, offer some support for changing the societal norm. Any support. Or stop trolling.

I don't think you see the relevance of this...

Young people can be manipulated easily. It was said earlier in this thread, and it's how paedophiles can lure children. But it can be used by the authorities as well. This case ilustrates how even obviously embellished testemony from children can be taken and ran with by a mob, and be used as the basis for convictions. The same would happen with a manditory death sentence for paedophiles. Oh, you don't like this guy? Little Sarah, just say he molested you. He'll be gone in a week. People don't care about how plausible a scenario is, once they're full of rage and the desire for revenge. Therefore, I say lock them up forever, but killing is not justified or the best option in this case: there's too many pitfalls and chances for error with the death penalty.

Anywho, yea I'm for locking paedophiles up forever, but not killing them. And for those who have the attraction but havn't acted yet, treatment to help them become productive members of society.

Excellent point. It can very much become the new form of the Salem Witch trials. It's important to recognize our shortcomings here, which is not the same as accepting the behavior.

Im all for execution of all pedophiles who have acted on their urges...most have no problem with killing a child who he thinks is a threat..and these children are ruined for life..so why should these subhumang bastards live? if and only if they have not acted on their impulses and seek out treatment..then I have more sympathy for them and agree with whatever is available. Psychiatrists ,psychologists have just about given up on these predatory ANIMALS as untreatable. Burn the bastards!

Excellent point. It can very much become the new form of the Salem Witch trials. It's important to recognize our shortcomings here, which is not the same as accepting the behavior.
As I explained earlier in this thread, that exact kind of situation occurred to my father, as well as many others throughout the 1980s(possibly that whole "Satanically ritually abused" crap DSN was going on about.)

I do have to object to the way you word your points, Jocaiba. Trauma is a word that is all-too-often blown up in proportion: people assume that if you have experienced trauma, it is huge and thus massivly impacting. From personal experience, I can say that even a tiny amount can change you drastically. My older half-brother Brian exposed me to pornography when I was nine, jump-starting sexuality for me. I daresay it has in many ways changed how I view a variety of situations. I will not speak upon specific details, as I would prefer to keep those private, but feel free to use your imagination. The whole point to this is that people often don't realize that even the tiniest thing can be trauma. The key is for people to stop assuming that trauma MUST mean something really bad. For instance, I could have quite easily become a paedophile myself due to when I was exposed to sexuality. Seeing other nine year olds as potential sex parteners when I was nine could have stayed with me even today. Luckily, that didn't happen.

So, in essence, I ask those of you, such as The Five Castes and Dark Shadowy Nexus, to reexamine your childhoods and see if there was any minor trauma that you might have overlooked. Frankly, I doubt that paedophilia is genetic, hence the point I made in my original post, in that it is a sexuality to a point. But, paedophilia does not appear to be disappearing anytime soon, and we should treat it as such.

(If this post sounds as though I am rambling incoherently, please forgive me. I have been awake for nigh 29 hours now.)

Come on, DSN. You've got so much to say when no one has an answer that isn't just angry and flamey. Now, you've got an educated response and nothing to say. If you're not careful people might figure out that you didn't come for a discussion but instead to troll so you could justify your persecuation complex. Where's all your 'reasonable' arugments? Don't tell you haven't got a better argument than calling everything that disagrees with you "bull crap" and then acting like the person whose argument you ignored needs to add more. There must be more to this. Where is it?

Witch Hunts know of them? The ignorant seek to purge themselves of their imagined boogy men? There have been plenty throught history. Tell me this does not look the same?

If it makes it an argument to ask you to stop saying offensive things about homosexuality without evidence, then it's an argument.

How's this? Pedophelia has been linked an extremely low IQ. Now, I've got no evidence for this and I'm just making random claims, but, hey, why should anyone care because it's just a discussion, right? Support your claims or stop making them.

Actually, I have seen a study which does link pedophilia to low IQ. Indicentally, it also links it to being left handed.

Here's the study:
http://www.binik-lab.com/pdf/17.pdf

While I question the methodology of the study, mainly on the grounds of it using prisoner populations as it's primary group, the study does support your claim.

As for offensive things I'm supposedly saying about homosexuality, I wasn't aware of any. Unless pointing out that a genetic link is unproven is somehow offensive.

You've never heard the term normal and abnormal used in psychology? Really? Wow, you must really be arguing this after really making an effort to be sure what you were saying was based on evidence. I'm impressed. How could I not be? I mean you're just making things up, but hey keep putting the burden of evidence on me. Maybe no one will notice.

What are the grounds for a sexuality being normal? That a majority of people posess it? What?

And homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophelia so stop trying to act as if a mistake about homosexuality has anything to do with it. Pedophelia is not a sexuality and you've not presented any evidence that it is.

They been wrong lots of times before. However, in sciences we don't just assume things are wrong because they've been wrong before. We present evidence or we admit we don't have any. You don't have any.

My grounds for calling it a sexuality is the fact that it has to do with what features a given person finds attractive. If that isn't how sexuality is defined, then I'll agree that pedophilia isn't a sexuality, but that was always how I understood the word sexuality to be used.

You compared it to homosexuality repeatedly. They aren't comparable. AT ALL.

So they aren't both defined by a sexual interest which deviates from the accepted norms? Maybe I missed something.

Um, no. You clearly don't understand epigenetics. Many things that are genetic differ in twins. Not all of your genes are expressed in the same way or at all. This is why we can tell identical twins apart. Starting with the same genetics does not make us 100% the same. You really should be more educated on this subject if you're going to make the kinds of wild claims you're making.

You're the one who said homosexuality always manefested from the genetics. If this isn't what you meant, you should have been clearer.

Masturbation is rarely considered to be enough. We are not naturally abstinent creatures.

Nor are we naturally monogomistic creatures, yet marriages do manage to hold together.

I don't have to prove the accepted norm or we'd spend all of our time providing evidence. You're claiming things should change. Provide some support for your claims or they WILL be considered worthless.

You're committing the fallacy of shifting of burden of proof. You want to change the societal norm, make a case and support it. I'll wait.

In other words: "I can demand all the proof I want of you, but I don't have to prove a damn thing." You'll forgive me if I follow your example rather than your suggestion.

I don't believe you. Sorry, but it's in your interest to not view it that way. Please provide verifiable evidence or stop making spurious claims. And I actually didn't say always. It is almost universal. The fact that it is not universal could very well expose the fact that it's impossible to evidence all trauma. It does not prove an exception. Obviously, there is much reason why collecting such data is difficult. However, the incredibly high rate of correllation is more than suggestive.

In other words: "I don't believe you, but even if you're telling the truth, it's just because you don't understand your own life. I'm right and you're wrong." I really expected better.

They perform studies of children throughout their life cycle to see when such predilictions begin to manifest. The ability to study such things is remarkably advanced.

I don't see the qualifications for a genetic factor in there. That is what I was asking for, was it not?

You have. Where is that evidence? I've seen claims, but no evidence at all. It's based on scientific study and our understanding of ALL sciences change over time. However, if you want to claim that science is wrong you have to provide some proof. You've shown NONE.

All your 'evidence' is a claim you didn't support, that homosexuality changed status as a result of politics rather than new evidence, which is patently false. The DSM is a medical manual based on science. Does politics affect science? Sure, but that doesn't mean that we can dismiss science as a result of politics without any evidence.

Provide evidence ANY evidence. Show ANY, ANY scholarly study that agrees with any of your claims.

I'm not even sure what you're asking me for. Am I to prove that the inclusion, and subsequent removal of homosexuality from the psychology manuals was the result of political forces rather than academic forces? Given the current popular view, I feel this time the burdon would be on you to justify an other than accepted viewpoint. Science never proved that being gay was harmful (unless you have some evidence) so how could homosexualty's classification be anything but political?

You want me to provide studies that show homosexuality is part of normal genetic development? Hmmm... alright. I agree to do that. However, I'll only provide if you admit that your comparison to pedophelia is completely and utterly unsupported. Deal?

Considering I don't think I've even tried to make a comparison of the type you're criticising, deal.

Homosexuality used to be thought to be a form of deviancy formed as a result of truama in their rearing. It was found to be developed naturally in the same way as homosexuality. You keep comparing pedophelia to the homosexuality but you refuse to do the work. I can't figure out if you're lazy or dishonest.

Again, how it forms has nothing to do with whether it's harmful or not, and thus has nothing to do with whether it should or shouldn't be classified as a mental disorder. This discussion of how these things develop is a side issue.

I recognize that you blame social harm. You talk about how it masks any psychological harm if it exists. You question the existence of an accepted trauma with no evidence. You act as if another type of trauma is masking it with no evidence. I read what you wrote. You keep accusing me of not knowing what you're saying, but my guess is that you're just trying to avoid actually presenting any evidence for your spurious claims.

I accuse you of not knowing what I'm saying because my intention was never to prove these claims. My intention was to point out the underlying rationalle for me abstaining from pursuing sexual activities of this sort. Of course if you want to convince me that my rationalle for not having sex with kids is flawed, go right ahead.

Here's a tip - because I don't agree with ideas you completely made up and have NO evidence for, doesn't mean I don't understand them. You want a change to standard understaind of psychology, but you've provided no reason for such a change to occur. You might be surprised by this but in order to change a medical textbook based on scientific study, you have to present *gasp* scientific evidence, but, hell, I'll settle for ANY evidence. You've got none.

You don't want evidence. Any study I could put forward would be immediately attacked. Of course if you want to prove that claim wrong, I'm sure you've heard of the Rind meta-analysis. I feel your request for "ANY evidence" is disengenuous.

You do realize that most molested children are never put through the legal system, yes? I wasn't.

Many molesters are never locked up. Many molesters are never forcibly taken away. Many times people don't find out about the molestation of their children until their children are much old.

The things you claim are not a necessary part of the relationship and certainly not the cause of the trauma. Yes, you need to provide evidence that the trauma that is evidenced is a result of these acts that only sometimes happen.

I'm afraid you've mistaken a few choice examples for the sum total of what I reffer to as social condemnation.

Besides which, you sound like you're still describing something that would still be considered rape even without age of consent legislation. If so, we haven't been discussing the same things.

Seriously, you can't follow a simple statement? Pedophiles have a prediliction that if acted upon hurts children and if not acted up generally hurts them. What is so complicated about that?

That's pretty clear, and incidentally something I agree with. However you worded it originally confused me.

I don't know why you bother with this argument. Therapy helps pedophiles deal with their urges in more positive ways. You're talking about some of the positive ways you deal with it. If you believe it cannot be dealt with positively then why insist their is a difference between it and child molestation, because child molestation would be inevitable.

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you've meant by "seek help". Usually when that's throw around it would mean "go to a shrink and stop being a pedophile". In the manner (if you'll forgive the expression) of the ex-gay therapies. If this isn't what you meant, I apologise for my assumption.

Nope. Just a change in the classification of the crimes. Please follow along. I said that I was talking about them appearing on the sexual predator lists. I said nothing about not making it a crime. Please respond to what is said.

So you do feel that these people should be classified as criminals? The 18bf/17gf? I just assumed, obviosly incorrectly, that you saw something wrong with the classification of them as criminals. Apparently you just feel it's wrong to classify them as sex offenders.

Yes. And then after that we can bring peace and love to the world. /sarcasm

What you're advocating is unnecessary and completely unmanageable.

Was that a yes, or was that part of the sarcasm too? I mean it's like I've asked if world peace was a good idea, but couldn't figure out whether your sarcasm was directed at the idea itself or the feasability. (And no, I'm not connecting this with world peace, just that I would be similarly baffled by that sort of ambiguety if that were the subject.)

Nope. Knowledge gives us nothing about whether or not an act will be traumatic. It's not about understanding, it's about maturity. I don't know of a maturity test. Do you? We could do this with everything that has an age limit. Doing so would be absurd and unmanageable.

I believed I mentioned a test of a person's cognitive capacities, not just a test of factual knowledge. And yes, I would think we should do this with everything that has an age limit. Driving, voting, drinking, all of that.

Yes, we should license a basic right. Again, absurd. Sex isn't a privelege. Your argument would do more damage than good. We already have difficulty getting people to birth control and whatnot. Sex tests? Laughable.

A right is it? People have a right to have sex? That's an absurd additude. Ever hear the phrase "your rights end at the tip of my nose"? You can't have a "right" to do something involving another person.

Besides, if it's a basic right like you claim it is, I should think denying it on arbitrary grounds like age is far worse than denying it on a nonarbitrary standard like my proposed test.

Now, here's what I'm going to do. I'll provide evidence if after reading it you'll admit that you don't know what you're talking about when you say pedophelia and homosexuality are comparable in any way. Or you can provide evidence for your claims. Anything else is not worth my time because you're just making crap up to justify your urges.
All right. I'll admit the only way pedophilia and homosexuality are comparable is that they are both defined by sexual attractions which deviate from those of the majority, they were both listed together in the DSM decades ago, and that there's a lot of prejudice against people with both sexualities. Other than that, they're completely different. Happy?
Come on, DSN. You've got so much to say when no one has an answer that isn't just angry and flamey. Now, you've got an educated response and nothing to say. If you're not careful people might figure out that you didn't come for a discussion but instead to troll so you could justify your persecuation complex. Where's all your 'reasonable' arugments? Don't tell you haven't got a better argument than calling everything that disagrees with you "bull crap" and then acting like the person whose argument you ignored needs to add more. There must be more to this. Where is it?
You know, Jocabia, I agree with you that DSN's arguementation is based on emotion rather than reason, but I seem to recall you making all these same claims about me not too long ago, including me being a troll who didn't have a reasoned arguement and that I was just trying to justify my urges as not being harmful. I didn't shy away from your statements. I asked you to evidence them. If I were afraid you were right, why would I ask to see the research myself? Wouldn't that shatter my happy little delusions? Or do you have a condesending answer to this as well?

and these children are ruined for life..

Children don't get 'ruined'..

As I explained earlier in this thread, that exact kind of situation occurred to my father, as well as many others throughout the 1980s(possibly that whole "Satanically ritually abused" crap DSN was going on about.)

I do have to object to the way you word your points, Jocaiba. Trauma is a word that is all-too-often blown up in proportion: people assume that if you have experienced trauma, it is huge and thus massivly impacting. From personal experience, I can say that even a tiny amount can change you drastically.

I agree. I never said otherwise. And if my points are harsh it's because I'm tired of people making insulting arguments relating pedophelia and homosexuality. I have yet to see any evidence for any of the wild assertions on either side that they are in any way related other than the fact that have to do with attraction.

Homosexuality/bisexuality/heterosexuality have to do with the sex of the person you are attracted to. They are a result of genetic expression. Pedophelia is a result of childhood trauma according to all evidence, as is bestiality. They do not bear comparison to any sexualities and the comparison between non-consentual attraction and consentual attraction is insulting. They are more comparable to a person who fantasizes about rape than to people who are attracted to other adults.

My older half-brother Brian exposed me to pornography when I was nine, jump-starting sexuality for me. I daresay it has in many ways changed how I view a variety of situations. I will not speak upon specific details, as I would prefer to keep those private, but feel free to use your imagination. The whole point to this is that people often don't realize that even the tiniest thing can be trauma. The key is for people to stop assuming that trauma MUST mean something really bad. For instance, I could have quite easily become a paedophile myself due to when I was exposed to sexuality. Seeing other nine year olds as potential sex parteners when I was nine could have stayed with me even today. Luckily, that didn't happen.

That's actually my point. Please indicate where I said otherwise or even worded it in a way where it could be logically inferred.


So, in essence, I ask those of you, such as The Five Castes and Dark Shadowy Nexus, to reexamine your childhoods and see if there was any minor trauma that you might have overlooked. Frankly, I doubt that paedophilia is genetic, hence the point I made in my original post, in that it is a sexuality to a point. But, paedophilia does not appear to be disappearing anytime soon, and we should treat it as such.

(If this post sounds as though I am rambling incoherently, please forgive me. I have been awake for nigh 29 hours now.)

You're not rambling incoherently. It's a very valid point, though I don't think any comparison to sexuality is valid and no one has shown any evidence that it is.

As I explained earlier in this thread, that exact kind of situation occurred to my father, as well as many others throughout the 1980s(possibly that whole "Satanically ritually abused" crap DSN was going on about.)

I do have to object to the way you word your points, Jocaiba. Trauma is a word that is all-too-often blown up in proportion: people assume that if you have experienced trauma, it is huge and thus massivly impacting. From personal experience, I can say that even a tiny amount can change you drastically. My older half-brother Brian exposed me to pornography when I was nine, jump-starting sexuality for me. I daresay it has in many ways changed how I view a variety of situations. I will not speak upon specific details, as I would prefer to keep those private, but feel free to use your imagination. The whole point to this is that people often don't realize that even the tiniest thing can be trauma. The key is for people to stop assuming that trauma MUST mean something really bad. For instance, I could have quite easily become a paedophile myself due to when I was exposed to sexuality. Seeing other nine year olds as potential sex parteners when I was nine could have stayed with me even today. Luckily, that didn't happen.

So, in essence, I ask those of you, such as The Five Castes and Dark Shadowy Nexus, to reexamine your childhoods and see if there was any minor trauma that you might have overlooked. Frankly, I doubt that paedophilia is genetic, hence the point I made in my original post, in that it is a sexuality to a point. But, paedophilia does not appear to be disappearing anytime soon, and we should treat it as such.

(If this post sounds as though I am rambling incoherently, please forgive me. I have been awake for nigh 29 hours now.)
If you're going to define trauma that broadly, there is no one on this board who hasn't experienced some "traumatic" event. I assumed that Jocabia meant something that would be easily identified as traumatic, likely with emphasis on sexual trauma. Apparently she experienced this kind of trauma and I didn't. If I were to follow her reasoning, she should be the one who's a pedophile and not me. It just doesn't add up.

no they are not.

they are sick dement monsters.

I agree. I never said otherwise. And if my points are harsh it's because I'm tired of people making insulting arguments relating pedophelia and homosexuality. I have yet to see any evidence for any of the wild assertions on either side that they are in any way related other than the fact that have to do with attraction.

You keep saying it's insulting to make the comparison. The same could be said from the other prospective. After all, I'm straight, not gay, so the comparison could be construed as insulting to me just as much as it's insulting to gays.

The reason gays find the comparison insulting is that they've been accused, unfairly I might add, of being a threat to children. Ignorant people have tried to tie homosexuality to child abuse. The comparison that's been made was a statement that being gay makes a person more likely to be a pedophile. The insulting comparison was never that both homosexuality and pedophilia are abnormal sexual attractions.

Or did I miss something?

Homosexuality/bisexuality/heterosexuality have to do with the sex of the person you are attracted to. They are a result of genetic expression. Pedophelia is a result of childhood trauma according to all evidence, as is bestiality. They do not bear comparison to any sexualities and the comparison between non-consentual attraction and consentual attraction is insulting. They are more comparable to a person who fantasizes about rape than to people who are attracted to other adults.

So you're saying that the only men who gay people ever fantasise about are also gay? I never really baught into the whole "gaydar" idea, so I'd always rejected that assumption.

Attraction doesn't need to be consentual. Sex does, but attraction doesn't.

That's actually my point. Please indicate where I said otherwise or even worded it in a way where it could be logically inferred.

Well, it wouldn't help. You've already got an example of me misreading an "obvious" statement of yours. Any attempt by me to point out how the misunderstanding could have resulted would be futile, since your words are so obvious and I'm so dense. Hell, I even gave you a study that "proves" it.

You're not rambling incoherently. It's a very valid point, though I don't think any comparison to sexuality is valid and no one has shown any evidence that it is.
Nor any evidence that it isn't.

I agree. I never said otherwise. And if my points are harsh it's because I'm tired of people making insulting arguments relating pedophelia and homosexuality. I have yet to see any evidence for any of the wild assertions on either side that they are in any way related other than the fact that have to do with attraction.

Homosexuality/bisexuality/heterosexuality have to do with the sex of the person you are attracted to. They are a result of genetic expression. Pedophelia is a result of childhood trauma according to all evidence, as is bestiality. They do not bear comparison to any sexualities and the comparison between non-consentual attraction and consentual attraction is insulting. They are more comparable to a person who fantasizes about rape than to people who are attracted to other adults.



That's actually my point. Please indicate where I said otherwise or even worded it in a way where it could be logically inferred.




You're not rambling incoherently. It's a very valid point, though I don't think any comparison to sexuality is valid and no one has shown any evidence that it is.
Ah, alright then. As for that blob of text that you asked about: I was speaking in general rather than at you. As I said, I am quite tired. Shifting the target of my thoughts was not clear to anyone apart from me, it seems.

I am going to get really bashed for this but i will say it anyways. My personal feelings on the matter are being set aside make a point about the studies, not pedophilia itself, but there is actually no sufficient proof that sexual encounters as a child harm the psychological development of that child. Rape, yes there is evidence that rape causes psychological dammage in all people regardless of age, gender, or anything else. However consentual sexual relationships, even involving those we consider to be unable to give proper consent, has never had sufficient evidence of causing psychological damage. I am not saying it never has, as doublessly it has in some, just as consentual sex among adults has been known to cause psychological effects, but consistancy has never been proven.
Studies as to the psychological damage of pedophilia have been done the same as studies as to the psychological damage of any type of sex, wrongly. When they did studies as to the damageing nature of homosexuality in early psychology it was first and formost important that the subject under study have a concept as to the nature of their homosexual tendencies before the study the effects of these can take place. In other words simply a person can't really feel the psychological effects of something they don't fully understand. This meant that the Homosexual under study was given therapy to understand the nature of homosexuality being an ugly, unnatural aberation of normal mental activity. That they were diseased, and that their actions were sick, disgusting, and a horrible thing. Only after they were able to grasp this could the study of the psychological effects of homosexuality be studied in them. If they failed to grasp this they were just written off as being in denial and unable to grasp reality. Now this is no longer being done in psychological studies of this nature anymore, as it is a really inaccurate way of study because it condtions the patient into a specific mindset. They even stoped trying to use this method to study psychopaths by getting them to understand the nature of their actions. However it is still being used to study the victims of pedophilia and ephibophilia.
The studies involve conditioning children that quite often don't understand the nature of the crime that has been commited, or that a crime has occured, or in cases they don't realize any wrongdoing has occured at all. This means that they are conditioning a child into believing that this person has horrible abused and scared them. Rape victimes are almost always afraid of their victimizer, and can easily understand this. However there is a class of victime that doesn't understand this as up to that time they didn't believe that anything wrong was happening. Psychological damage for these victims often doesn't occur until the conditioning is complete and the psychologists, therapists, ect have finished their job of getting the child to believe that they have been horribly abused and taken advantage of by someone that they in often cases trusted, cared for, and believed cared for them.
The point here being that the psychological damage isn't really in the sexual nature of the relationship, but the feeling of revolt, betrayal, and abuse that comes from this conditioning. I am not saying that it wan't a crime commited against them, I am saying that the studies are flawed because the post relationship conditioning is often the cause of the victims latter psychological inability to to have relationships of trust and caring with other people. The therapy that happens after these events has to be gone about in an entirely different way in order to save the victim from further psychological damage, because in many cases the illusion of the relationship is pychologically more healthy for them than the realization of societies views on that relationship.
Ancient Rome functioned fully well with perfectly sane and psychologically balanced philosophers, thinkers, and law makers, that suffered from what we would consider child molestation today. In that civilization it was considered normal and acceptable for children to be in a sexual relationship with adults. The question I am putting forth is simply this: Is the sexual relationship the actual cause of the psychological scaring of these people, or is it actually their realization of societies views of the relationship that they believed to be healthy and loving that causes the psychological trama? It may not be a question that we like asking, and may not be a question we like the answer to, but it is still a perfectly valid question from a psychological standpoint. This question doesn't even really have to change your views any, I still believe that child molesters should be executed, I am just a bit more worried about other ways we are scaring children.

Actually, I have seen a study which does link pedophilia to low IQ. Indicentally, it also links it to being left handed.

Here's the study:
http://www.binik-lab.com/pdf/17.pdf

While I question the methodology of the study, mainly on the grounds of it using prisoner populations as it's primary group, the study does support your claim.

I wasn't actually making the claim. It was a joke. Also, it shows correllation not an actual link. As you said the methodology is flawed because it realies on people who were active and got caught so it is not even remotely random. The lower IQ is a trend found in the general population of prisons so it could be more accurately linked to ending up in prison than to pedophelia.

Meanwhile, you've shown you know what evidence looks like.


As for offensive things I'm supposedly saying about homosexuality, I wasn't aware of any. Unless pointing out that a genetic link is unproven is somehow offensive.

Comparing pedophelia and/or bestiality to a healthy human attraction that is often discriminated against is offensive. I know you understand that.


What are the grounds for a sexuality being normal? That a majority of people posess it? What?

Nope. The grounds for normal psychology is whether or not it is healthy. Pedophelia and bestiality are more comparable rape fantasy because the objects of the fantasy are incapable of informed consent.


My grounds for calling it a sexuality is the fact that it has to do with what features a given person finds attractive. If that isn't how sexuality is defined, then I'll agree that pedophilia isn't a sexuality, but that was always how I understood the word sexuality to be used.

Sexuality psychologically is not that simple.

Sexuality

Sexuality is a central aspect of being human throughout life and encompasses sex, gender identities and roles, sexual orientation, eroticism, pleasure, intimacy and reproduction. Sexuality is experienced and expressed in thoughts, fantasies, desires, beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviours, practices, roles and relationships. While sexuality can include all of these dimensions, not all of them are always experienced or expressed. Sexuality is influenced by the interaction of biological, psychological, social, economic, political, cultural, ethical, legal, historical, religious and spiritual factors.

Meanwhile, the usage we're talking about is related to sexual orientation.


So they aren't both defined by a sexual interest which deviates from the accepted norms? Maybe I missed something.

If you bastardize a comparison you can compare anything. Pedophelia and murder are comparable because they are both considered nearly universally undesirable.

They are not equal in any way. One of them is healthy activity. One is not. Black people were considered outside the accepted norms at one time, but that doesn't make being black comparable to pedophelia.


You're the one who said homosexuality always manefested from the genetics. If this isn't what you meant, you should have been clearer.

I did and I meant it. I can't help if you don't understand how genetics work.


Nor are we naturally monogomistic creatures, yet marriages do manage to hold together.

False. We are naturally monogomistic. Throughout the world societies developed with and because of lifelong mating. Monogomy is not a new concept in human sexuality and I have seen no evidence that it solely a result of societal pressures.


In other words: "I can demand all the proof I want of you, but I don't have to prove a damn thing." You'll forgive me if I follow your example rather than your suggestion.

Again, you're trying to change societal norms so the burden of proof is on you. Start a thread on whether or not sexual orientation is genetic and I'll gladly prove it. However, that is not the point of this thread. You are shifting the burden of proof.

See, this is how things work. You make an assertion, like comparing the attitude towards a healthy sexual orientation to the attitude toward pedophelia and then claim it as evidence that pedophelia is a healthy sexual orientation. You provide proof. I analyze your proof and accept it, debunk it or provide counter evidence. That's called a debate. What you are doing is making wild assertions and than suggesting that unless someone proves them wrong they stand. That is a logical fallacy and the general practice of trolls.


In other words: "I don't believe you, but even if you're telling the truth, it's just because you don't understand your own life. I'm right and you're wrong." I really expected better.

In other words, I don't accept your personal experiences as valid evidence considering I have no reason to believe it's true nor any way to analyze whether you are telling the truth or relaying it accurately. Internet claims are worth the paper they're written on, or something like that.

I don't see the qualifications for a genetic factor in there. That is what I was asking for, was it not?

Yes, I noticed your shifting the burden of proof. I consider your assertions debunked. However, it would be nice if you simply admit your talking out of a dark smelly place. You don't get the bastardize the subject ot get away from providing evidence for your claims. Start a thread on the genetics behind sexual orientation and I'll be glad to offer lots of evidence.


I'm not even sure what you're asking me for. Am I to prove that the inclusion, and subsequent removal of homosexuality from the psychology manuals was the result of political forces rather than academic forces? Given the current popular view, I feel this time the burdon would be on you to justify an other than accepted viewpoint. Science never proved that being gay was harmful (unless you have some evidence) so how could homosexualty's classification be anything but political?

Science did prove pedophelia was harmful.

There was scientific support for homosexuality being harmful. It was debunked. The scientific change was on the frontier of societal change, not the other way around. Homosexuality is widely accepted as normal while that is only beginning to happen in society. If social changes drove the scientific changes then they must have travelled back in time. You claimed the removal was political rather than scientific. I asked you for proof. What is so hard about that? If it was political, you should be able to show how and why it was political as well as the fact that the previous scientific evidence was just thrown out rather than being debunked by newer studies.



Considering I don't think I've even tried to make a comparison of the type you're criticising, deal.

No, you have to admit your claim. You did it again. You compared the placement of pedophelia in the DSM to the placement of homosexuality. We're not going to have a discussion if you're going to be dishonest.

Again, how it forms has nothing to do with whether it's harmful or not, and thus has nothing to do with whether it should or shouldn't be classified as a mental disorder. This discussion of how these things develop is a side issue.

No, it isn't. It has a lot to do with it. If you just want to spew out things to support your predilictions without actually analyzing the cause of pedophelia then you're not really trying to address the issue.


I accuse you of not knowing what I'm saying because my intention was never to prove these claims. My intention was to point out the underlying rationalle for me abstaining from pursuing sexual activities of this sort. Of course if you want to convince me that my rationalle for not having sex with kids is flawed, go right ahead.

You still push blame on society rather than it being naturally harmful. It's a claim and it's unsupported. While you use the damage it causes as a reason to not do it and I agree with that, you rationalize the damage as not being your fault which is dangerous.


You don't want evidence. Any study I could put forward would be immediately attacked. Of course if you want to prove that claim wrong, I'm sure you've heard of the Rind meta-analysis. I feel your request for "ANY evidence" is disengenuous.

Nice. The standard argument of trolls. You put up an assertion. Show evidence for the assertion. If it's sound evidence I'll incorporate into my world view. If it's not, I'll debunk it. You're using every excuse in the book. "It's on you to prove my assertions wrong." "I'm not making assertions." "But... but... you'll just end up debunking my evidence."

In other words, you don't want to expose your 'evidence' to the world because you won't be able to pretend you have any after it's debunked. Nice.

I'm afraid you've mistaken a few choice examples for the sum total of what I reffer to as social condemnation.

No, you used examples becuase you're avoiding actually proving your assertions and then you claim it's my fault because I can't find a way to twist your 'evidence' into support for your assertion.

Besides which, you sound like you're still describing something that would still be considered rape even without age of consent legislation. If so, we haven't been discussing the same things.

No, I'm not. I'm advocating the current accepted psychological attitude. You're trying to suggest it's wrong, but so far we've only seen wild assertions and every effort possible to avoid supporting them. You've proven you know what support looks like. Provide some.


Perhaps I've misunderstood what you've meant by "seek help". Usually when that's throw around it would mean "go to a shrink and stop being a pedophile". In the manner (if you'll forgive the expression) of the ex-gay therapies. If this isn't what you meant, I apologise for my assumption.

I think like alcoholism, it's not something that ever truly goes away.


So you do feel that these people should be classified as criminals? The 18bf/17gf? I just assumed, obviosly incorrectly, that you saw something wrong with the classification of them as criminals. Apparently you just feel it's wrong to classify them as sex offenders.

Nope. I think that some things can be discouraged without ruining people's lives. Classifying them as sex offenders is ruining their lives. Whether or not these activities should be discourages is completely beside the point.


Was that a yes, or was that part of the sarcasm too? I mean it's like I've asked if world peace was a good idea, but couldn't figure out whether your sarcasm was directed at the idea itself or the feasability. (And no, I'm not connecting this with world peace, just that I would be similarly baffled by that sort of ambiguety if that were the subject.)

Part of the sarcasm. The idea is not feasible and a ridiculous thing to ask for.


I believed I mentioned a test of a person's cognitive capacities, not just a test of factual knowledge. And yes, I would think we should do this with everything that has an age limit. Driving, voting, drinking, all of that.

Cognitive faculties are not an accurate measure either. You're still missing the point and I fear you're doing it on purpose.

A right is it? People have a right to have sex? That's an absurd additude. Ever hear the phrase "your rights end at the tip of my nose"? You can't have a "right" to do something involving another person.

Yup. You can have a right to do something involving another person who consents to it. Like a right to marriage. Your definition of a right is absurd.

Besides, if it's a basic right like you claim it is, I should think denying it on arbitrary grounds like age is far worse than denying it on a nonarbitrary standard like my proposed test.

We deny all kinds of basic rights on the basis of age and should. The state denies rights for compelling reasons. Marriage is considered a right and it has an age requirement. The right to vote. The right to self-determination. You're making things up again.

All right. I'll admit the only way pedophilia and homosexuality are comparable is that they are both defined by sexual attractions which deviate from those of the majority, they were both listed together in the DSM decades ago, and that there's a lot of prejudice against people with both sexualities. Other than that, they're completely different. Happy?

Yes. Then I suppose it's no longer necessary to argue about the fundamental differences. Glad to hear it.

You know, Jocabia, I agree with you that DSN's arguementation is based on emotion rather than reason, but I seem to recall you making all these same claims about me not too long ago, including me being a troll who didn't have a reasoned arguement and that I was just trying to justify my urges as not being harmful. I didn't shy away from your statements. I asked you to evidence them. If I were afraid you were right, why would I ask to see the research myself? Wouldn't that shatter my happy little delusions? Or do you have a condesending answer to this as well?

I do think you're trolling. I've said several times in this argument and I've explained why. That's why you're desperately trying to avoid evidencing your claims. You display all the characteristics of a troll and none of the characteristics of someone interested in debate.

You try to ride on the coattails of a legitimate movement like a quest for homosexual rights with no reasoning why such a thing should be reasonable. When asked for support for the plethora of assertions you've made in this thread your answer is to deny making them, shift the burden of proof, or complain that your evidence will simply be debunked. All of this is evidence you didn't come to actual enter a debate or discussion but to preach.

As I explained earlier in this thread, that exact kind of situation occurred to my father, as well as many others throughout the 1980s(possibly that whole "Satanically ritually abused" crap DSN was going on about.)

I do have to object to the way you word your points, Jocaiba. Trauma is a word that is all-too-often blown up in proportion: people assume that if you have experienced trauma, it is huge and thus massivly impacting. From personal experience, I can say that even a tiny amount can change you drastically. My older half-brother Brian exposed me to pornography when I was nine, jump-starting sexuality for me. I daresay it has in many ways changed how I view a variety of situations. I will not speak upon specific details, as I would prefer to keep those private, but feel free to use your imagination. The whole point to this is that people often don't realize that even the tiniest thing can be trauma. The key is for people to stop assuming that trauma MUST mean something really bad. For instance, I could have quite easily become a paedophile myself due to when I was exposed to sexuality. Seeing other nine year olds as potential sex parteners when I was nine could have stayed with me even today. Luckily, that didn't happen.

So, in essence, I ask those of you, such as The Five Castes and Dark Shadowy Nexus, to reexamine your childhoods and see if there was any minor trauma that you might have overlooked. Frankly, I doubt that paedophilia is genetic, hence the point I made in my original post, in that it is a sexuality to a point. But, paedophilia does not appear to be disappearing anytime soon, and we should treat it as such.

(If this post sounds as though I am rambling incoherently, please forgive me. I have been awake for nigh 29 hours now.)


Porn mags are commonly found by children.

What you are saying is,,,,

There are things that can be seen, heard, or said, that are damaging. This is the consept of forbidden knoledge. This forbidden knowledge argument was used by the Catholic church to suppot the inquasition and the banning of books. Forbiden knowledge is a stupid consept and your so called "harm" is imagined.

Jacobia said

Comparing pedophelia and/or bestiality to a healthy human attraction that is often discriminated against is offensive. I know you understand that.

Healthy lol.

You would know? You listen to the John Tesh show right?

You keep saying it's insulting to make the comparison. The same could be said from the other prospective. After all, I'm straight, not gay, so the comparison could be construed as insulting to me just as much as it's insulting to gays.

Only if you consider being compared to someone with a healthy sexual identity as insulting, I suppose. Meanwhile, you're the one who offered up the comparison. If it's insulting to you, then don't make it.


The reason gays find the comparison insulting is that they've been accused, unfairly I might add, of being a threat to children. Ignorant people have tried to tie homosexuality to child abuse. The comparison that's been made was a statement that being gay makes a person more likely to be a pedophile. The insulting comparison was never that both homosexuality and pedophilia are abnormal sexual attractions.

You're wrong. There is also the claim that if homosexuality is accepted then pedophelia and bestiality are right behind. Homosexuality is not harmful. Pedophelia and bestiality are attractions to people who cannot consent. Homosexuality cannot be considered even remotely related.


Or did I miss something?

You missed something.


So you're saying that the only men who gay people ever fantasise about are also gay? I never really baught into the whole "gaydar" idea, so I'd always rejected that assumption.

No, I'm saying they fantasize about people who can and do consent to their practices. With pedophelia, bestiality and rape fantasy the object of the fantasy is non-consenting by nature. Again, rather than offering evidence you just keep trying to twist things, troll.


Attraction doesn't need to be consentual. Sex does, but attraction doesn't.

I didn't say it had to be. I said pedophelia, bestiality and rape fantasy have to do with attraction to non-consent. In all three cases the attraction is to objects that cannot consent. Homosexuality fantasize about consentual sex and are attracted to individuals that can and often do consent.


Well, it wouldn't help. You've already got an example of me misreading an "obvious" statement of yours. Any attempt by me to point out how the misunderstanding could have resulted would be futile, since your words are so obvious and I'm so dense. Hell, I even gave you a study that "proves" it.

Actually, he wasn't intending to suggest I'd said otherwise. He simply didn't make paragraphs, so your point is spurious. Meanwhile, that study was fallacious and you knew it when you put it up. But since rather than provide proof for your assertions you simply trying to make weak connections to bad science, I'm not shocked by this.

Nor any evidence that it isn't.

Again, shifting the burden of proof. You have the burden here. Keep trying to troll your way around it, but if you want to change things you have give proof that your view is legitimate.

Jacobia said

Comparing pedophelia and/or bestiality to a healthy human attraction that is often discriminated against is offensive. I know you understand that.

Healthy lol.

You would know? You listen to the John Tesh show right?

Are you still trolling? Afraid you might learn something you don't want to admit to yourself?

Porn mags are commonly found by children.

What you are saying is,,,,

There are things that can be seen, heard, or said, that are damaging. This is the consept of forbidden knoledge. This forbidden knowledge argument was used by the Catholic church to suppot the inquasition and the banning of books. Forbiden knowledge is a stupid consept and your so called "harm" is imagined.

Nudity is not dangerous to children, nor is knowledge of sex. Much like they can understand surgery, but having them witness surgery would be traumatic. More spurious comparisons on your part. Educating children and exposing them to graphic sex are not the same.

So it's clear what we're discussing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

It should be noted that it is listed as a paraphillia and homosexuality is not.

Here is a discussion of the causes of pedophillia and then do not hold the link to child sexual abuse to be sound. They do link it to childhood trauma and rarely to solely genetic factors and even in those rare cases there are other more plausible explanations.

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/freund_etiological.htm

So it's clear what we're discussing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

It should be noted that it is listed as a paraphillia and homosexuality is not.

Here is a discussion of the causes of pedophillia and then do not hold the link to child sexual abuse to be sound. They do link it to childhood trauma and rarely to solely genetic factors and even in those rare cases there are other more plausible explanations.

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/freund_etiological.htm

From your link

The Abused Abuser Theory

One of our two solely etiological studies was about the abused abuser theory of pedophilia. The majority of professionals (and particularly of semi-professionals) working in the area of pedophilia believes that this propensity is due primarily, if not exclusively, to an individual’s developmental experience rather than to a pre-experiential innate or physiologically acquired condition. The prevailing version of this conjecture supposes that pedophilia, or at least an individual’s proneness to sexually offend in adulthood, is due to having been sexually abused in childhood by an adult. The main problem with this conjecture is its dependence on self-reports about childhood sexual abuse among accused or charged sex offenders against children. It has been shown that a large proportion of such offenders fabricate childhood sexual abuse as an excuse or form of exoneration for their behavior (Hindman, 1988).

As I've said before,,,,,,,,,,,
imaginary

From your link

The Abused Abuser Theory

One of our two solely etiological studies was about the abused abuser theory of pedophilia. The majority of professionals (and particularly of semi-professionals) working in the area of pedophilia believes that this propensity is due primarily, if not exclusively, to an individual’s developmental experience rather than to a pre-experiential innate or physiologically acquired condition. The prevailing version of this conjecture supposes that pedophilia, or at least an individual’s proneness to sexually offend in adulthood, is due to having been sexually abused in childhood by an adult. The main problem with this conjecture is its dependence on self-reports about childhood sexual abuse among accused or charged sex offenders against children. It has been shown that a large proportion of such offenders fabricate childhood sexual abuse as an excuse or form of exoneration for their behavior (Hindman, 1988).

As I've said before,,,,,,,,,,,
imaginary

Yes, nice job taking it out of context. It merely points out that abuse is not the only requirement in terms of trauma. The link to genetics is weak as it discusses.

Same area -

Under these conditions it would be a mistake to conclude that an association between pedophilia and a self-report indicating sexual abuse in childhood, settles the problem of causation of pedophilia. Further etiological possibilities will have to be investigated.

Because of the demonstrated possibility of a physiological disposition towards pedophilia, the following discusses research into the physiological aspects, which has been and is largely omitted, in particular by learning theorists and "anthropological" ethologists (Feierman, 1990). First, however, a reminder to avoid misunderstandings. The popular division of etiologies into "innate" and learned (experiential) is misleading and should instead be replaced by examining the nature of the involvement of each component. However, the difference between females and males in regard to pedophilia (mentioned earlier) makes it very likely that there is a strong physiological factor.

See, they say that SEXUAL ABUSE does not settle causation. It does not iexclude traumatic events. It also doens't say it's a factor. They only say that more investigation into causes must be done. Also, it kind of destroys any claims that current theories aren't based on actual science.

Meanwhile, you present more evidence that you're not actually attempting to address this logically. You read an entire document and you ignored everything that plays against you and took a section out of context you THINK justifies your predilictions.

snip

Eh try this study out. Let's see you go "oh studies are great I love science"

http://www.mhamic.org/sources/halletal.htm

Self-reported and physiological sexual arousal to adult and pedophilic stimuli were examined among 80 men drawn from a sample of volunteers. Over 1/4 of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest or exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli. The hypothesis that arousal to pedophilic stimuli is a function of general sexual arousability factors was supported in that pedophilic and adult heterosexual arousal were positively correlated, particularly in the physiological data. Subjects who were highly arousable, insofar as they were unable to voluntarily and completely inhibit their sexual arousal, were more sexually aroused by all stimuli than were subjects who were able to inhibit their sexual arousal. Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior.

I hate the way the American goverment adds little extras to basic crimes.

Pedophilia is just rape to a minor, just as a hate crime is just assault and battery or even murder to another group differant from you.

This is foolish and only undermines America. We need to get down to the basic three crimes.

Rape.
Murder.
And theft.

Most people would agree the first two are terrible crimes, and I'd argue the third one is just as terrible. It can ruin your life, fraud, stolen iddenities, this ruin's peoples credit, thier livelyhood, and can really destroy everything they've worked so hard for. Capital punishment should not only be an option, but suggested, they can never be put back into society, they've proven they're in no mental shape to be.. So they should die. Or be used for expriements, one of the two, but i'm not going to waste hardworking citizen's tax money to keep some criminal alive, who contributes nothing to society, and has proven himself a human waste..

If it were up to me, child sex and labor laws would be dropped. I find it sickening how the goverment treats a seventeen year old as irresponsible for thier actions then when thier eighteen they're suddenly competant and capable.. That's not realistic..

Most crimes can fall into one of those three categories, those that don't, shouldn't constitute as a crime..

I hate the way the American goverment adds little extras to basic crimes.

Pedophilia is just rape to a minor, just as a hate crime is just assault and battery or even murder to another group differant from you.

This is foolish and only undermines America. We need to get down to the basic three crimes.

Rape.
Murder.
And theft.

Most people would agree the first two are terrible crimes, and I'd argue the third one is just as terrible. It can ruin your life, fraud, stolen iddenities, this ruin's peoples credit, thier livelyhood, and can really destroy everything they've worked so hard for. Capital punishment should not only be an option, but suggested, they can never be put back into society, they've proven they're in no mental shape to be.. So they should die. Or be used for expriements, one of the two, but i'm not going to waste hardworking citizen's tax money to keep some criminal alive, who contributes nothing to society, and has proven himself a human waste..

If it were up to me, child sex and labor laws would be dropped. I find it sickening how the goverment treats a seventeen year old as irresponsible for thier actions then when thier eighteen they're suddenly competant and capable.. That's not realistic..

Most crimes can fall into one of those three categories, those that don't, shouldn't constitute as a crime..
Come back and talk to me about this after you've had a couple of children. Pedophilia is not "just rape to a minor." It's one of the most henious crimes imaginable.

I do tend to agree with your frustration over laws as they pertain to teenagers though, but the legal system has to draw the line somewhere, since there's no surefire way of determining maturity. It there were, some people would never be allowed to vote, drive a car, or sign a legally binding contract.

I wasn't actually making the claim. It was a joke. Also, it shows correllation not an actual link. As you said the methodology is flawed because it realies on people who were active and got caught so it is not even remotely random. The lower IQ is a trend found in the general population of prisons so it could be more accurately linked to ending up in prison than to pedophelia.

Meanwhile, you've shown you know what evidence looks like.

Actually, it wasn't a joke either. It was a thinly veiled insult that you had no idea was actually connected to (as you said) a flawed study.

Comparing pedophelia and/or bestiality to a healthy human attraction that is often discriminated against is offensive. I know you understand that.

Simply put, making the comparison is insulting only because of the stygma against the things being compared. I know you understand that.

Nope. The grounds for normal psychology is whether or not it is healthy. Pedophelia and bestiality are more comparable rape fantasy because the objects of the fantasy are incapable of informed consent.

Unfortunately for you, the concept of "healthy" in the field of mental health relies on simple majoritarianism. The word healthy, when talking about a person's patterns of thinking, is entirely subjective.

Sexuality psychologically is not that simple.

Sexuality

Sexuality is a central aspect of being human throughout life and encompasses sex, gender identities and roles, sexual orientation, eroticism, pleasure, intimacy and reproduction. Sexuality is experienced and expressed in thoughts, fantasies, desires, beliefs, attitudes, values, behaviours, practices, roles and relationships. While sexuality can include all of these dimensions, not all of them are always experienced or expressed. Sexuality is influenced by the interaction of biological, psychological, social, economic, political, cultural, ethical, legal, historical, religious and spiritual factors.

Meanwhile, the usage we're talking about is related to sexual orientation.

Judging from that definition, being attracted to children seems to fit well within the borders of what is and is not sexuality.

They are not equal in any way. One of them is healthy activity. One is not. Black people were considered outside the accepted norms at one time, but that doesn't make being black comparable to pedophelia.

I know this is hard for you, but would you kindly not include things in your quote blocks that I didn't actually say?

I did and I meant it. I can't help if you don't understand how genetics work.

Though if you're honestly interested in making me understand that my comparison is invalid, it would seem reasonable that you would make some effort to explain it.

False. We are naturally monogomistic. Throughout the world societies developed with and because of lifelong mating. Monogomy is not a new concept in human sexuality and I have seen no evidence that it solely a result of societal pressures.

Okay, that I can debunk.

http://www.discover.com/issues/may-99/features/war/

That article is a good read about the natural, biological goals of men and women.

Please provide some evidence for your claims. It's embarasing for you if you keep demanding evidence of me without following your own advice.

Again, you're trying to change societal norms so the burden of proof is on you. Start a thread on whether or not sexual orientation is genetic and I'll gladly prove it. However, that is not the point of this thread. You are shifting the burden of proof.

See, this is how things work. You make an assertion, like comparing the attitude towards a healthy sexual orientation to the attitude toward pedophelia and then claim it as evidence that pedophelia is a healthy sexual orientation. You provide proof. I analyze your proof and accept it, debunk it or provide counter evidence. That's called a debate. What you are doing is making wild assertions and than suggesting that unless someone proves them wrong they stand. That is a logical fallacy and the general practice of trolls.

I take it that you don't consider the additudes people hold toward these things comparable? I mean I know you feel one is justified and the other isn't, but aren't the additudes similar enough that it would be trivial to demand proof?

In other words, I don't accept your personal experiences as valid evidence considering I have no reason to believe it's true nor any way to analyze whether you are telling the truth or relaying it accurately. Internet claims are worth the paper they're written on, or something like that.

Why then, do you accept my claims that I've not molested children? You specificly defended me when that claim was questioned, but there is just as much evidence of me having been abused as me having molested a child.

Yes, I noticed your shifting the burden of proof. I consider your assertions debunked. However, it would be nice if you simply admit your talking out of a dark smelly place. You don't get the bastardize the subject ot get away from providing evidence for your claims. Start a thread on the genetics behind sexual orientation and I'll be glad to offer lots of evidence.

I presume you're reffering to the evidence of one Simon Levay? If so, I'll mention that he specifically stated, "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are 'born that way,' the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."

source:
http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-94/features/sexandthebrain346/

Or was there some other study you're getting this genetic factor from?

Science did prove pedophelia was harmful.

And you can link me to an article of some sort? I mean if it's proved my condition is harmful, that would lend credence to your classifying it as a disorder.

There was scientific support for homosexuality being harmful. It was debunked.

I wonder how much of that scientific evidence was related to GRIDS.

The scientific change was on the frontier of societal change, not the other way around. Homosexuality is widely accepted as normal while that is only beginning to happen in society.

I can only assume you mean that homosexuality is widely accepted as being normal in scientific circles.

If social changes drove the scientific changes then they must have travelled back in time. You claimed the removal was political rather than scientific. I asked you for proof. What is so hard about that? If it was political, you should be able to show how and why it was political as well as the fact that the previous scientific evidence was just thrown out rather than being debunked by newer studies.

All right. We'll play your little game.

"Among the most noted examples of controversial diagnoses is the classifying in the DSM-II of homosexuality as a mental disorder, a classification that was removed by vote of the APA in 1973 after three years of various gay activists groups demonstrating at APA meetings"

source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

That looks political to me, but if there weren't three years of demonstations, please correct me.

No, you have to admit your claim. You did it again. You compared the placement of pedophelia in the DSM to the placement of homosexuality. We're not going to have a discussion if you're going to be dishonest.

I did claim that the placement of both was a result of social convention rather than any real evidence of harm or danger, didn't I? My mistake. I simply was not aware of the studies you've mentioned that prove pedophilia is harmful. I really would like to read them.

No, it isn't. It has a lot to do with it. If you just want to spew out things to support your predilictions without actually analyzing the cause of pedophelia then you're not really trying to address the issue.

I'm afraid you are very wrong here. If I could find a study which did point out a strong genetic component to pedophilia, or even a deterministic genetic component, that wouldn't change anyone's feelings on whether it was acceptable or not. As you say, children (legally) cannot consent. That's not going to go away just because a study proves pedophilia is genetic, is it? This is very much a side debate, and I feel we're both wasting our time arguing it.

You still push blame on society rather than it being naturally harmful. It's a claim and it's unsupported. While you use the damage it causes as a reason to not do it and I agree with that, you rationalize the damage as not being your fault which is dangerous.

Again, I didn't say that there was no inate harm. I rather think there can't be evidence of inate harm because social trauma would mask if it is present. I don't shift the blame, since any pedophile who did act on this would expose the child to the damage I've been talking about.

The analogy, if you will, is to pushing a child onto train tracks. While it's possible that the child may have been electricuted if the tracks were set up that way, the fact of the matter is that there's a train on those tracks. The damage done by being hit by the train masks the damage that would otherwise be present if there were no train. Society is that train in my analogy, and just because I question whether the tracks are electrified, does not mean I endorce pushing children onto train tracks with moving trains barreling down them. Do you honestly think I blame the train for the damage it does when I point out that, if the train weren't there, there might not be any damage at all?

You have badly misinterpreted my viewpoint, and I hope this little analogy has helped to clarify it.

Nice. The standard argument of trolls. You put up an assertion. Show evidence for the assertion. If it's sound evidence I'll incorporate into my world view. If it's not, I'll debunk it. You're using every excuse in the book. "It's on you to prove my assertions wrong." "I'm not making assertions." "But... but... you'll just end up debunking my evidence."

In other words, you don't want to expose your 'evidence' to the world because you won't be able to pretend you have any after it's debunked. Nice.

As for your name calling, I've been called worse. Try being called a child molester, compared to that, troll is almost a compliment.

Still, I did offer you the chance to debunk some of my evidence when I pointed you toward Rind. It isn't my fault you failed to avail yourself of the chance to attack an easy target.

No, you used examples becuase you're avoiding actually proving your assertions and then you claim it's my fault because I can't find a way to twist your 'evidence' into support for your assertion.

Twist my evidence? Hardly. You want an article about the social components of this?

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

Please explain to me how this is not a problem.

No, I'm not. I'm advocating the current accepted psychological attitude. You're trying to suggest it's wrong, but so far we've only seen wild assertions and every effort possible to avoid supporting them. You've proven you know what support looks like. Provide some.

My mistake. It simply looked like you were talking about forcable or cohersive sexual abuse, rather than nominally consentual acts. Apparently you are talking about acts which are desired at the time by both parties.

I think like alcoholism, it's not something that ever truly goes away.

Are you suggesting I suffer from some form of compulsion? I feel your comparison to alcoholism is less valid than you claim my comparison to homosexuality is. Please, if you want me to prove my comparison is valid, kindly prove yours is.

Nope. I think that some things can be discouraged without ruining people's lives. Classifying them as sex offenders is ruining their lives. Whether or not these activities should be discourages is completely beside the point.

Wrong, that is quite on topic. They are sex offenders for the same reason child molesters (who's activities wouldn't otherwise be called rape) are sex offenders, because the law states that a person below a certain age cannot offer meaningful consent. Thus, if you disagree with them being classified as sex offenders, you should be offering a reason why the current legal status is that this is a crime of the same type as child molestation.

Part of the sarcasm. The idea is not feasible and a ridiculous thing to ask for.

I believe I asked if the reason you made that sarcastic remark was just because it wasn't feasable. I'm still confused as to your view.

Cognitive faculties are not an accurate measure either. You're still missing the point and I fear you're doing it on purpose.

What is maturity then? Unless you're going to go with the old fall back of 18 (or 16 or 24 or 21) years of life experience, I should think that cognitive faculties are the only thing we've got left.

Yup. You can have a right to do something involving another person who consents to it. Like a right to marriage. Your definition of a right is absurd.

To be honest, I consider your definition of a right as absurd. A person can have the right not to have sex with anyone they chose, and by waving that right, they offer the privledge of sex to the other person. By requiring consent, you're talking about something a person needs permission for, and thus isn't a right.

We deny all kinds of basic rights on the basis of age and should. The state denies rights for compelling reasons. Marriage is considered a right and it has an age requirement. The right to vote. The right to self-determination. You're making things up again.

I believe I already stated my views on those other denials of a person's basic human rights based on arbitrary age lines, did I not?

Yes. Then I suppose it's no longer necessary to argue about the fundamental differences. Glad to hear it.

Indeed. Maybe now we can start ignoring that red herring and come back to the real questions of this debate.

I do think you're trolling. I've said several times in this argument and I've explained why. That's why you're desperately trying to avoid evidencing your claims. You display all the characteristics of a troll and none of the characteristics of someone interested in debate.

Interesting. Let me see what I can find on those requied characteristics.

"In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion."
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

I see nothing in the entire article about failing to back up claims with evidence, however, this little bit seemed to apply to our discussion:

"Often, a person will post a sincere message about which he is emotionally sensitive. Skillful trolls know that an easy way to upset the person is to falsely claim that they are a 'troll.' "

You try to ride on the coattails of a legitimate movement like a quest for homosexual rights with no reasoning why such a thing should be reasonable. When asked for support for the plethora of assertions you've made in this thread your answer is to deny making them, shift the burden of proof, or complain that your evidence will simply be debunked. All of this is evidence you didn't come to actual enter a debate or discussion but to preach.
All right, let's get this all aired out. Can you please provide me with a list of claims I have made without proof so that I can retract or support where appropriate?
Only if you consider being compared to someone with a healthy sexual identity as insulting, I suppose. Meanwhile, you're the one who offered up the comparison. If it's insulting to you, then don't make it.

Personally, I see no reason why the comparison should be considered insulting either way. You've clearly missed my point.

You're wrong. There is also the claim that if homosexuality is accepted then pedophelia and bestiality are right behind. Homosexuality is not harmful. Pedophelia and bestiality are attractions to people who cannot consent. Homosexuality cannot be considered even remotely related.

So a dog who mounts a human woman isn't considered to have consented? Are dogs allowed to consent with one another? I think your inclusion of bestiality does your arguement more harm than good as it offers me more avenues to attack your prejudices from.

Still, as to the main thrust of your arguement, I should think by now it's obvious that the acceptance of homosexuals is not making my job of convincing people I shouldn't be crucified any easier. Just because some ignorant bigot decided to pull a slipery slope falacy a long time ago and the public baught into it does not make the comparison invalid.

You missed something.

I'll admit that I forgot about the umpteen thousand times people made that damn slippery slope arguement, and how that could make pedophilia a touchy topic for homosexuals. I guess I was too focused on the arguements that weren't falacies, just wrong.

No, I'm saying they fantasize about people who can and do consent to their practices. With pedophelia, bestiality and rape fantasy the object of the fantasy is non-consenting by nature. Again, rather than offering evidence you just keep trying to twist things, troll.

Difference is that in a "traditional" rape fantasy, even during the fantasy there is no consent. A pedophilic phantasy can easily involve consenting children. Even if there are no children who can or would consent to sex with the pedophile, it doesn't change the fact that the fantasy can be of a consenting nature. Much as someone with a horrible deformity could fantasise about sex with a consenting partner even if there were no one who would concent to it.

In light of this, please prove your comparison between pedophilia and rape fantasies is accurate.

I didn't say it had to be. I said pedophelia, bestiality and rape fantasy have to do with attraction to non-consent. In all three cases the attraction is to objects that cannot consent. Homosexuality fantasize about consentual sex and are attracted to individuals that can and often do consent.

And if no one ever consented to gay sex? Would that hypothetical situation put someone with homosexual fantasies in the same category as you put pedophilic fantasies?

Actually, he wasn't intending to suggest I'd said otherwise. He simply didn't make paragraphs, so your point is spurious. Meanwhile, that study was fallacious and you knew it when you put it up. But since rather than provide proof for your assertions you simply trying to make weak connections to bad science, I'm not shocked by this.

You've claimed bad science, but so far your "debunking" looks no different from DSN's debunking of your evidence.

Again, shifting the burden of proof. You have the burden here. Keep trying to troll your way around it, but if you want to change things you have give proof that your view is legitimate.
If you want to actually convince me that my view isn't legitimate, you're really going to have to do more than tell me it isn't.

Still, I've offered to address whatever specific points you feel I need to support better. Please, let me know what I need to shore up.
So it's clear what we're discussing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

It should be noted that it is listed as a paraphillia and homosexuality is not.

Why are you still listing the DSM's classifications as though they matter? I've told you several times that while homosexuality no longer appears listed as a paraphilia, it did at one time.

Here is a discussion of the causes of pedophillia and then do not hold the link to child sexual abuse to be sound. They do link it to childhood trauma and rarely to solely genetic factors and even in those rare cases there are other more plausible explanations.

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/freund_etiological.htm
"Epidemiological studies can currently be conducted only with individuals accused of offenses against children, and not with pedophiles proper. Only in rare cases are such sex offenders against children individually assessed and differentiated into true pedophiles and opportunistic offenders. At present, similar serious limitations hamper all systematic research on pedophilia."
From your source.

In other words, the study is about child molester epidemiology rather than the actual epidemiology of pedophilia, which it claims to be about, and that an actual study of pedophilia is impossible because of the lack of subjects who come forward volentarily.
I hate the way the American goverment adds little extras to basic crimes.

Pedophilia is just rape to a minor, just as a hate crime is just assault and battery or even murder to another group differant from you.

This is foolish and only undermines America. We need to get down to the basic three crimes.

Rape.
Murder.
And theft.

Most people would agree the first two are terrible crimes, and I'd argue the third one is just as terrible. It can ruin your life, fraud, stolen iddenities, this ruin's peoples credit, thier livelyhood, and can really destroy everything they've worked so hard for. Capital punishment should not only be an option, but suggested, they can never be put back into society, they've proven they're in no mental shape to be.. So they should die. Or be used for expriements, one of the two, but i'm not going to waste hardworking citizen's tax money to keep some criminal alive, who contributes nothing to society, and has proven himself a human waste..

If it were up to me, child sex and labor laws would be dropped. I find it sickening how the goverment treats a seventeen year old as irresponsible for thier actions then when thier eighteen they're suddenly competant and capable.. That's not realistic..

Most crimes can fall into one of those three categories, those that don't, shouldn't constitute as a crime..
While I agree with you in theory, your arguement is weakened by the fact that you didn't actually include assault in your list of "real crimes". I should think that rape is merely a particular kind of assault. Definately a more intimate and traumatic form of assault, but still fitting the general definition of assault.

Pedophilia is not "just rape to a minor." It's one of the most henious crimes imaginable.



Your imagination.

Paedophiles are people too.
Maybe. But they not very nice people.

Actually, it wasn't a joke either. It was a thinly veiled insult that you had no idea was actually connected to (as you said) a flawed study.

No, it wasn't an insult. It was a demonstration of why you shouldn't make those types of comparisons. That you took it as an insult demonstrates my point. Perhaps you'll be more considerate in the future.


Simply put, making the comparison is insulting only because of the stygma against the things being compared. I know you understand that.

Not because of stigma. Because you are comparing consentual and nonconsentual sexual proclivities.


Unfortunately for you, the concept of "healthy" in the field of mental health relies on simple majoritarianism. The word healthy, when talking about a person's patterns of thinking, is entirely subjective.

Proof, please?


Judging from that definition, being attracted to children seems to fit well within the borders of what is and is not sexuality.

Yes, except we are using a specific use as I stated. That is a combination of uses. But then... you knew that.


I know this is hard for you, but would you kindly not include things in your quote blocks that I didn't actually say?

I made a mistake with the HTML. Meanwhile, our friendly troll ignores the point to complain. How typical.

Good job at dropping that argument. Actually please do. You were trying to prevent a discussion anyway.


Though if you're honestly interested in making me understand that my comparison is invalid, it would seem reasonable that you would make some effort to explain it.

So I have to teach you what epigenetic means? Hmmm... are you admitting you're not eductated enough to draw the conclusions you're drawing? About time.

Meanwhile, here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

It has to do with gene expression versus just the base DNA. In other words, starting with the same genes does not make you genetically identically and as is studied in steady-state systems can pass on different information.


Okay, that I can debunk.

http://www.discover.com/issues/may-99/features/war/

That article is a good read about the natural, biological goals of men and women.

Um, an unsourced article is your 'debunking'? How about an actually study instead of an editorial?

And in traditional trolling style, you're willing to provide evidence for anything BUT your claims about pedophelia. Glad to see you're staying true to form. Anything that draws the debate away from the subject, huh?


Please provide some evidence for your claims. It's embarasing for you if you keep demanding evidence of me without following your own advice.

You made a claim with no evidence. I made a counter claim with no evidence. Unless, editorial unsourced articles count. I will continue to use the exact level of evidence that you use since the burden of proof is on you as the person trying to change the accepted thought on pedophillia.

Now here is a sourced reference. Testis size indicates we are biological engineered toward monogomy as does the fact that over the course of evolution sexual dimorphism has been decreasing. But then you knew that right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_Monogamy

Quit shifting the burden of proof. Until you prove your claims my counter claims require no proof to debunk yours. I'll wait for your sourced evidence for your claims.


I take it that you don't consider the additudes people hold toward these things comparable? I mean I know you feel one is justified and the other isn't, but aren't the additudes similar enough that it would be trivial to demand proof?

Anything to get out of providing proof for your claims about pedophillia, huh? Trolling, according to your definition.



Why then, do you accept my claims that I've not molested children? You specificly defended me when that claim was questioned, but there is just as much evidence of me having been abused as me having molested a child.

I don't condemn you because I don't believe you. I simply don't accept it as evidence. The difference is a person was attacking you as a child molester in the absense of evidence which requires him to believe you when you say you're a pedophile but not when you say you're not a child molester. It's an odd choice.

I find all internet claims dubious without support. I see no support for accepting your anecdotal evidence regarding the origin of your pedophillia, and thus I don't. And given all available evidence I find your claims counter to them so I have reason to disbelieve you.

I also find no support for you being a child molester and whether you're a pedophile doesn't matter.


I presume you're reffering to the evidence of one Simon Levay? If so, I'll mention that he specifically stated, "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are 'born that way,' the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work."

Ha. You'll do anything to avoid talking about pedophillia, huh? You want to talk about homosexuality either evidence a connection or start a new thread.

source:
http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-94/features/sexandthebrain346/

Or was there some other study you're getting this genetic factor from?

I hope you're aware there are many studies on this. Once again, start a thread or prove a connection in this thread. Stop trying to use homosexuality to avoid defending your assertions about pedophillia.


And you can link me to an article of some sort? I mean if it's proved my condition is harmful, that would lend credence to your classifying it as a disorder.

Shifting the burden of proof. So far the only offering any support for ANYTHING regarding pedophillia is me. You are avoiding it like the plague, or should I say, like the troll.


I wonder how much of that scientific evidence was related to GRIDS.

Uh-huh. Again provide a connection between homosexuality and pedophillia or start a new thread. All the trolls try to shif the subject whenever they get a real challenge. Again, evidence your claims or admit you have no evidence.


I can only assume you mean that homosexuality is widely accepted as being normal in scientific circles.

Yup. which actually proves my point. It has never been widely accepted anywhere in America as normal except in scientific circles.


All right. We'll play your little game.

"Among the most noted examples of controversial diagnoses is the classifying in the DSM-II of homosexuality as a mental disorder, a classification that was removed by vote of the APA in 1973 after three years of various gay activists groups demonstrating at APA meetings"

source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

That looks political to me, but if there weren't three years of demonstations, please correct me.

I already corrected you. Meanwhile, start a thread on this or provide a connection, troll. Stop trying to change the subject to avoid evidencing your claims. That political activity was occurring is correllaiton, not causation.


I did claim that the placement of both was a result of social convention rather than any real evidence of harm or danger, didn't I? My mistake. I simply was not aware of the studies you've mentioned that prove pedophilia is harmful. I really would like to read them.

Shifting of the burden of proof. Nevermind, keep making claims with no evidence. That'll help your preaching.


I'm afraid you are very wrong here. If I could find a study which did point out a strong genetic component to pedophilia, or even a deterministic genetic component, that wouldn't change anyone's feelings on whether it was acceptable or not. As you say, children (legally) cannot consent. That's not going to go away just because a study proves pedophilia is genetic, is it? This is very much a side debate, and I feel we're both wasting our time arguing it.

It's a side debate so you won't evidence, but you're willing to hijack the subject about homosexuality. More trolling. Pedophillia being a naturally developed human paraphillia is significant. Much more significant than where homosexuality comes from. However, you pretend the origin of homosexuality is important to this thread while avoiding discussing pedophillia. Typical troll. Preaches about pedophillia when everyone is just posting angry flaming responses and then when the subject becomes about logic and evidence, they try to change the subject TO ANYTHING ELSE. I'm not helping you here. Provide evidence RELATED TO PEDOPHILLIA or quit trolling.


Again, I didn't say that there was no inate harm. I rather think there can't be evidence of inate harm because social trauma would mask if it is present. I don't shift the blame, since any pedophile who did act on this would expose the child to the damage I've been talking about.

You keep claiming this, but it is unevidenced. Social harm is not inevitable. I was forced, but I know of other children who were subject to child molestation but were not forced and as was common at the time the subject was swept under the rug. There was no reason for there to be social harm, yet...

Meanwhile, my anecdotal 'evidence' aside, provide evidence that social harm is so widely prevelant that innate harm cannot be reviewed or stop claiming it.


The analogy, if you will, is to pushing a child onto train tracks. While it's possible that the child may have been electricuted if the tracks were set up that way, the fact of the matter is that there's a train on those tracks. The damage done by being hit by the train masks the damage that would otherwise be present if there were no train. Society is that train in my analogy, and just because I question whether the tracks are electrified, does not mean I endorce pushing children onto train tracks with moving trains barreling down them. Do you honestly think I blame the train for the damage it does when I point out that, if the train weren't there, there might not be any damage at all?

No, I think you made an analogy that is not apt because you're trying to make a point. The train could hardly avoid the harm. Society can avoid the harm according to you. Thus you are blaming society.


You have badly misinterpreted my viewpoint, and I hope this little analogy has helped to clarify it.

So you don't think the stigma on this activity should change so that children aren't victimized by society? Because if you do, you are placing blame on society whether you recognize it or not.


As for your name calling, I've been called worse. Try being called a child molester, compared to that, troll is almost a compliment.

Particularly when troll is an appropriate analysis of what you're doing. But, hey, prove me wrong. Stick to the subject and support your points instead of avoiding everything having to do with the subject and trying to subjugate reasoned debate.

EX: You ask me to evidence the development of homosexuality even though you have since retracted your comparison to pedophillia, yet you refuse to show any evidence of the development of pedophillia which is of course the topic of the thread. You're trolling.


Still, I did offer you the chance to debunk some of my evidence when I pointed you toward Rind. It isn't my fault you failed to avail yourself of the chance to attack an easy target.

When you're evidence is a bunch of statements that are unsupported all it takes to 'debunk' them is to counter them. My counter argument has more support naturally because it's widely accepted. If you are trying to counter the accepted norm the burden is on you to show it is either unsupported or provably wrong. You've done neither.


Twist my evidence? Hardly. You want an article about the social components of this?

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

Please explain to me how this is not a problem.

Again, you give a limited example. This article does not discuss all of othe incidents of child molesting. Unless you can show that all or even close to all children who are molested suffer from societal stigma, then there would still be children available for study. You've evidenced that some suffer as a result of society. Great. If that had any logical bearing, it would be worthwhile.

I didn't argue that the social stigma doesn't exist, just that it isn't universal. Much of what the article said, I also said.


Are you suggesting I suffer from some form of compulsion? I feel your comparison to alcoholism is less valid than you claim my comparison to homosexuality is. Please, if you want me to prove my comparison is valid, kindly prove yours is.

Yes, I would take unhealthy URGES as something that is necessary to control in a healthy way. Again, you ask for evidence before providing any for your original assertions. You are trying to disrupt logical discussion of this subject. I think I saw that as part of the definition someone listed for a certain word. Now what word was that?


Wrong, that is quite on topic. They are sex offenders for the same reason child molesters (who's activities wouldn't otherwise be called rape) are sex offenders, because the law states that a person below a certain age cannot offer meaningful consent. Thus, if you disagree with them being classified as sex offenders, you should be offering a reason why the current legal status is that this is a crime of the same type as child molestation.

Again, anything to avoid actually supporting your assertions. ANYTHING, ANYTHING to disrupt the discussion, huh? Okay. We are talking about pedophillia. Pedophillia, whether a person acts on the urges or not, is not clinically defined by age of consent. It is defined clinically as relating to people who are attracted and fantasize about children of prepubescent or newly pubescent age. Pedophillia doesn't change by state. The legal status of sexual congress might have a bearing on this if you could show that this isn't a disorder. You haven't, so the legal status is incidental, really.

Meanwhile, the point you're making is not classified as or closely related to the actual definition of pedophillia. Again, quit trying to avoid the point.


I believe I asked if the reason you made that sarcastic remark was just because it wasn't feasable. I'm still confused as to your view.

It's not realistic. I'm not willing to discuss impossible fantasy solutions.


What is maturity then? Unless you're going to go with the old fall back of 18 (or 16 or 24 or 21) years of life experience, I should think that cognitive faculties are the only thing we've got left.

Um, no. The fact is hard to define is the point. Yes, it's the only we've got left if we not bark up the wrong tree. Cognitive abilities do not define maturity. I could not have handled sexual activity as a teenager, but there is no question that my cognitive abilities even then exceeded those of most adults ever in thier lives. Unless you have some magical test, I've never heard of.


To be honest, I consider your definition of a right as absurd. A person can have the right not to have sex with anyone they chose, and by waving that right, they offer the privledge of sex to the other pervson. By requiring consent, you're talking about something a person needs permission for, and thus isn't a right.

Great. I don't care what you think. I won't restrict the rights of everyone just so you can feel better about your proclivities, particularly when you avoid offering any proof of why I should want to do so.


I believe I already stated my views on those other denials of a person's basic human rights based on arbitrary age lines, did I not?

Again, who cares what you think. You still haven't done the work here. Forgive me if I don't think your opinion has very much value.


Indeed. Maybe now we can start ignoring that red herring and come back to the real questions of this debate.

Yes, the red herring you brought up and have been chasing hard since I entered the thread. Glad to hear it. No provide evidence actually related to pedophillia. Except if one just reads the rest of this post, we'll see that you keep on bringing it up to say "if they were wrong about one paraphillia..." You claim you're going to stop trying to hijack the thread with your slippery slope assertions and then go right back to it. Provide a link or talk about pedophillia.


Interesting. Let me see what I can find on those requied characteristics.

"In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion."
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

You are trying to disrupt the flow of discussion which is why you ask for evidence not related to the discussion, give evidence not related to the discussion, and refuse to support your assertions related to the discussion. Meanwhile, you make assertions you know will be inflammatory. Like I said, troll.


I see nothing in the entire article about failing to back up claims with evidence, however, this little bit seemed to apply to our discussion:

"Often, a person will post a sincere message about which he is emotionally sensitive. Skillful trolls know that an easy way to upset the person is to falsely claim that they are a 'troll.' "

Yep, except you are a troll by the definition you posted and not a skillful troll at that. Claims of evidence is not the issue. You engaged in a debate and when your assertions were challenged you did everything you could to disrupt a reasoned debate.


All right, let's get this all aired out. Can you please provide me with a list of claims I have made without proof so that I can retract or support where appropriate?

Seriously? Great.

1. Pedophillia is not innately or even likely not to be innately harmful.

2. Pedophillia does not belong in the DSM. It's inclusion is solely political.

3. Societal impact on victims of pedophillia is universal and thus makes it impossible to study any other impacts.

4. The subject of pedophillic attraction is capable of informed consent.

5. Homosexuality is clinically similar enough to pedophillia that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM has ANY bearing on the inclusion of pedophillia.

6. Pedophillia is a genetic paraphillia, not a result of nurture.

Personally, I see no reason why the comparison should be considered insulting either way. You've clearly missed my point.

No, I didn't miss your point. You are trying to ride on the back of homosexuality rather than doing the work to support your claims that pedophillia is not harmful.


So a dog who mounts a human woman isn't considered to have consented? Are dogs allowed to consent with one another? I think your inclusion of bestiality does your arguement more harm than good as it offers me more avenues to attack your prejudices from.

Nope. It's not. False argument and yet another attempt to subjugate a discussion of pedophillia. No, animals are not capable of informed consent. Desire is not consent. Even initiating does not equal consent. You have no avenue for attack. Unless you're claiming that an animal can tell us that it understands the consequences of sex with a human, is prepared for those consequences and that it is fully aware of what it is doing.

If we say that then you might as well argue an erection equals consent. Physiological responses like what happens when a dog humps a woman are not consent. Meanwhile, yet another attempt to change the subject. And even gloating that you can avoid a reasoned debate.

Meanwhile, you prove that your standards for consent are much lower than defined standards. Hmmm... that wouldn't enable your positions, now would it?

Still, as to the main thrust of your arguement, I should think by now it's obvious that the acceptance of homosexuals is not making my job of convincing people I shouldn't be crucified any easier. Just because some ignorant bigot decided to pull a slipery slope falacy a long time ago and the public baught into it does not make the comparison invalid.

You're the one who made the comparison basically using the same thinking in reverse. "If they were wrong about one paraphillia..." is your argument. Theirs is "if we allow them to change the status of one paraphillia..." Same argument made two different ways and just as false.


I'll admit that I forgot about the umpteen thousand times people made that damn slippery slope arguement, and how that could make pedophilia a touchy topic for homosexuals. I guess I was too focused on the arguements that weren't falacies, just wrong.

No, you were making the exact same argument. See my comparison above. It's the exact same slippery slope argument. If you'd like I'll quote all of the things that link you to that argument, like how you point out that homosexuality used to be a paraphillia and how you brought it up when someone brought up the DSM. The connection isn't at all tenuous.


Difference is that in a "traditional" rape fantasy, even during the fantasy there is no consent. A pedophilic phantasy can easily involve consenting children. Even if there are no children who can or would consent to sex with the pedophile, it doesn't change the fact that the fantasy can be of a consenting nature. Much as someone with a horrible deformity could fantasise about sex with a consenting partner even if there were no one who would concent to it.

You are fantasizing about children who cannot consent. In your fantasy there is no consent. A child may oblige but it cannot consent. You've already proven that you believe if they're not protesting or if they're compliant then they are consenting. You prove you don't actually care what informed consent entails.


In light of this, please prove your comparison between pedophilia and rape fantasies is accurate.

Shifting of the burden of proof. I showed how they are the same in terms of lack of consent. Children not being capable of consent is widely accepted. It's the reason you're complaining.

So show proof or we will continue to hold the norm. You cannot show that children are capable of consent so claiming your fantasies are about unicorns or something equally mythical isn't something I have to accept.



And if no one ever consented to gay sex? Would that hypothetical situation put someone with homosexual fantasies in the same category as you put pedophilic fantasies?

Nope. Homosexuals are capable of consent. Children are not. Pedophillia is a rape fantasy. Rape doesn't have to be violent. Rape simply requires that sex is not consentual. Pedophillia cannot be consentual.


You've claimed bad science, but so far your "debunking" looks no different from DSN's debunking of your evidence.

You don't understand peer review, huh? You posted a study. I showed the methodological flaws that debunk the conclusions. You admitted that their methology problems when you posted it. You debunked it yourself and I was simply more specific. Debunking doesn't require a counter study when your support is a flawed study and it can be shown to be flawed just by analyzing it.


If you want to actually convince me that my view isn't legitimate, you're really going to have to do more than tell me it isn't.

I see. So in other words, you came here to preach. Because you are willing to put up evidence as long as it doesn't speak to the actual subject. I was under the impression that this thread had the purpose of changing the norm. I'm happy with the norm. If you're unwilling to support your assertions that the norm should change why post? Nevermind. I know why.

Continue to shift the burden of proof. So far the only one who has posted any evidence directly related to this issue is me. But hey, why should you support your claims? You didn't come here for a discussion.


Still, I've offered to address whatever specific points you feel I need to support better. Please, let me know what I need to shore up.

Support better. Support at ALL.


Why are you still listing the DSM's classifications as though they matter? I've told you several times that while homosexuality no longer appears listed as a paraphilia, it did at one time.

Ah, more slippery slope bs. "If they were wrong about one paraphillia..." Again. show some support for them being related or stop making the claim. If you start a thread about it, I'll show you why homosexuality is not a paraphillia. This thread is about pedophillia so if you're going to say it's not a paraphillia or that paraphillias should not be in the DSM support your assertion.


"Epidemiological studies can currently be conducted only with individuals accused of offenses against children, and not with pedophiles proper. Only in rare cases are such sex offenders against children individually assessed and differentiated into true pedophiles and opportunistic offenders. At present, similar serious limitations hamper all systematic research on pedophilia."
From your source.

In other words, the study is about child molester epidemiology rather than the actual epidemiology of pedophilia, which it claims to be about, and that an actual study of pedophilia is impossible because of the lack of subjects who come forward volentarily.

Which is a good reason for encouraging pedophiles to come forward. I wish I'd thought of that. Oh, wait...

Meanwhile, I wasn't posting proof of my position. I was trying to further educate on the subject. There are some parts of pedophillia that are very much up in the air. However, all available evidence suggests that it is innately harmful and thus the classification. That's the accepted thought on this. The classification is evidence of this. Provide a study that shows or even suggests otherwise. So far we just have evidence that more study is necessary, but none for a reclassification. I already brought up that more study is necessary. You are arguing for reclassification. Hmmm... keeping arguing my case for me. This is fun.

I showed up in a thread trying to change the societal and psychological view of pedophillia and find a ton of assertions on your part and ask for evidence of them. Your reply, "no you do it." That's called the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. I gladly support my counter assertions or change them if you provide evidence. Something you've proven willing to do as long as it's not directly related to the topic.

Eh try this study out. Let's see you go "oh studies are great I love science"

http://www.mhamic.org/sources/halletal.htm

Self-reported and physiological sexual arousal to adult and pedophilic stimuli were examined among 80 men drawn from a sample of volunteers. Over 1/4 of the current subjects self-reported pedophilic interest or exhibited penile arousal to pedophilic stimuli that equaled or exceeded arousal to adult stimuli. The hypothesis that arousal to pedophilic stimuli is a function of general sexual arousability factors was supported in that pedophilic and adult heterosexual arousal were positively correlated, particularly in the physiological data. Subjects who were highly arousable, insofar as they were unable to voluntarily and completely inhibit their sexual arousal, were more sexually aroused by all stimuli than were subjects who were able to inhibit their sexual arousal. Thus, arousal to pedophilic stimuli does not necessarily correspond with pedophilic behavior.

What's your point? I said that already. I defended TFC for that reason, in fact.

Are you even engaging in a discussion or are you just trying to be inflammatory? It appears to be the latter.

Oh, studies are great. I love science.

Witch Hunts know of them? The ignorant seek to purge themselves of their imagined boogy men? There have been plenty throught history. Tell me this does not look the same?

Actually, I made that comparison. The fact that people have sometimes imagined this problem, doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. In fact, you haven't claimed the boogeymen are imiagined, but instead that the boogeymen are actually not harming the children they're molesting. A statement that is utterly unsupported. Linking it to mistaken prosecution, doesn't establish anything about the cases where the events did occur.

Meanwhile, at least try, a little bit, to act like you're aiming for a discussion here.

Excellent point. It can very much become the new form of the Salem Witch trials. It's important to recognize our shortcomings here, which is not the same as accepting the behavior.


You're trying to justify the behavior by claiming that people have been mistaken about the existence of the behavior in the past. They aren't even linked. It's like saying we should stop considering murder harmful because we wrongfully convicted people in the past.

What's your point? I said that already. I defended TFC for that reason, in fact.

Are you even engaging in a discussion or are you just trying to be inflammatory? It appears to be the latter.

Oh, studies are great. I love science.

Faints

TFC, I started a thread on monogamy if you want to discuss it there, so you can stay on topic here. Shall I start one on the development of homosexuality so you can stop trying to hijack the topic with your slippery slope fallacy or can we get started with supporting your actual claims throughout the thread?

Faints

What's shocking about finding out that I agree with a point I made. If you weren't so busy trying to find people to attack you for being a pedophile, you'd know that I don't treat it as equal to child molestation and that I don't think that pedophiles who do not act on their predilictions should be mistreated or scorned.

What's shocking about finding out that I agree with a point I made. If you weren't so busy trying to find people to attack you for being a pedophile, you'd know that I don't treat it as equal to child molestation and that I don't think that pedophiles who do not act on their predilections should be mistreated or scorned.

I had already dismissed you as another idiot. Than you posted that and I realized. Your not an idiot.

As to our big point of disagreement.

My reasoning is thus. I have never ever ever seen anyone attempt to explain the mechanisms of trauma when it comes to child adult sexual interaction that the child enjoyed at the time. I've seen weak attempts at explanations but never real explanations. It's like saying such and such a machine does this take my word for it. To demanstraite a blind is placed in front of the machine. You hear noises and a result is revealed. The trauma thing has an air of illusion to it. Just like the machine in the above example. The way it works with intergenerational sexual interactions is. We get people in already in treatment who claim sexual abuse and convicted adults who claim sexual abuse but no real controls with the general population. Are we are just supposed supposed to assume that the whole of the adult population that isn't in therapy or was never convicted was simply untouched?

I had already dismissed you as another idiot. Than you posted that and I realized. Your not an idiot.

That's okay. Most thinking people have dismissed you as a trolling pedophile.

My reasoning is thus. <snip>

No, your reasoning is that you're a fucking pedophile, so you advocate and defend your pedophilia. Case closed.

That's okay. Most thinking people have dismissed you as a trolling pedophile.



No, your reasoning is that you're a fucking pedophile, so you advocate and defend your pedophilia. Case closed.

While I don't dismiss the idea that I'm biased. I do have to wonder about you. This "case closed" thing. It rings of "shut up" of attempting to win a debate by not allowing the debate to get started.

I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Gee, what I surprize. Once again I have to wade into this thread. I'm going to keep this short and sweet, and people had better listen up, as I'm getting sick of this.

Now, I thought I was pretty crystal clear with this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11324446&postcount=599) post, but I guess not. Perhaps you all thought it was a bluff. Guess again.

Trostia: One week forumban. Yes, I know I said two weeks, but you weren't a complete flaming tool, so you get a lesser punishment.

Dark Shadowy Nexus: You are beginning to try my patience. I never expected to see this term used again, but -- congratulations -- you've managed it. You get a one week ban for trollbaiting. Yes, trollbaiting. Seriously dude, get another hobby.

1010102: Two week ban. Drive-by flaming is not acceptable.

I've had enough. Jocobia and The Five Castes seem to understand how debate works on an emotionally charged subject, and they are their debate is the only reason this thread hasn't been locked.

- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

Pedophilia is just rape to a minor

Pedophilia is NOT Child Molesting. Get your facts straight.

Wow this thread just kept going didn't it? I'm surprised, I don't see what there is to debate except to try to put some sense into Dark Shadowy Nexus which seems impossible from where I'm sitting. I don't feel like searching through the past 20 pages but I hope no one else is on his side of this issue.

Wow this thread just kept going didn't it? I'm surprised, I don't see what there is to debate except to try to put some sense into Dark Shadowy Nexus which seems impossible from where I'm sitting. I don't feel like searching through the past 20 pages but I hope no one else is on his side of this issue.

Yes, it would be much better if we all just close our eyes and pretend like pedophiles don't exist. That'll work. Just ask the Catholic Church.

Yes, it would be much better if we all just close our eyes and pretend like pedophiles don't exist. That'll work. Just ask the Catholic Church.

Pedophiles are quite impossible to ignore. It really get under my skin that people can try to excuse what people like these bastards do. As if we should feel pity for their desires. But there are plenty of people ready to excuse all kinds of shit so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Pedophiles are quite impossible to ignore. It really get under my skin that people can try to excuse what people like these bastards do. As if we should feel pity for their desires. But there are plenty of people ready to excuse all kinds of shit so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

Pedophillia is not the same as child molesting. Many times children are targets of opportunity and their molesters are not attracted to children. Also there is much evidence that there is really a much larger percentage of people who are pedophiles than child molesters by a long shot. You probably know a pedophile or two, but I doubt you know a child molester.

There aren't many in this thread that would excuse child molestation, but people who are attracted to children can't just shut it off any more than you can shut off your inability to deal with the difference between sex acts and attraction.

These people should be castrated, any person who agrees with anything these people say should be shot, stabbed and stomped.

That can be done in our fantasies but we have to show restraint for we are better then they are. Life imprisonment is good enough. They can enjoy the company of fellow inmates who don't care for people who hurt children. So... I suppose they will get what is coming to them anyway.

These people should be castrated, any person who agrees with anything these people say should be shot, stabbed and stomped.

Uh-huh. Again, we're talking about pedophiles, not child molesters. You want not only people who have not committed a crime to be castrated, but you want anyone who doesn't want them castrated to murdered and tortured? Hmmm... perhaps wanting to shoot, stab and stomp people is sign of a person being dangerous, but that's just me.

When I see such an unhealthy response to such things I have to ask why? And usually the answer isn't that they're angry because the people are dangerous. It's usually because they're afraid they might have more in common with the focus than they care to admit. I don't know that this is true of you, but it is my experience and if it is, you really need to seek help so that you can deal with any unhealthy predillictions.

Pedophillia is not the same as child molesting. Many times children are targets of opportunity and their molesters are not attracted to children. Also there is much evidence that there is really a much larger percentage of people who are pedophiles than child molesters by a long shot. You probably know a pedophile or two, but I doubt you know a child molester.

There aren't many in this thread that would excuse child molestation, but people who are attracted to children can't just shut it off any more than you can shut off your inability to deal with the difference between sex acts and attraction.

Do you mean drawing a line between those who are attracted to children and those who act on their desires? I would still worry as if I ever have kids myself I'd always have to worry if the guy would give in one day. I can certainly agree though that some child victims aren't targeted by any kind of attraction but is based on anger like "regular" rape. I haven't looked into studies or anything myself but are you saying there is a large population who has the desire for children but just doesn't act on it?

That can be done in our fantasies but we have to show restraint for we are better then they are. Life imprisonment is good enough. They can enjoy the company of fellow inmates who don't care for people who hurt children. So... I suppose they will get what is coming to them anyway.

You fantasize about torture, maiming and murdering and you're suggesting they are sick?

Pedophiles haven't necessarily committed a crime, my friend. Please learn the difference. Pedophiles are attracted to children. Most pedophiles never, ever act on it.

You fantasize about torture, maiming and murdering and you're suggesting they are sick?

Pedophiles haven't necessarily committed a crime, my friend. Please learn the difference. Pedophiles are attracted to children. Most pedophiles never, ever act on it.

Alright. I will try to adjust my vocabulary. Fantasize about torturing, maiming and murdering child molesters. ;)

I still don't believe that pedophiles can't help themselves but you can't blame people for thinking of doing something. However there is still the chance of them succumbing to their urges so... hard to seperate these two different groups of people.

Do you mean drawing a line between those who are attracted to children and those who act on their desires?

I'm not drawing a line. There is a line. I don't consider you a murderer because you just said you fantasize about it.

I would still worry as if I ever have kids myself I'd always have to worry if the guy would give in one day.

And I would worry that a person who fantasizes about murder is dangerours around my children as well. However, neither of us would likely know. Like I said, I'm certain you know a few pedophiles and aren't aware of it.

I can certainly agree though that some child victims aren't targeted by any kind of attraction but is based on anger like "regular" rape. I haven't looked into studies or anything myself but are you saying there is a large population who has the desire for children but just doesn't act on it?

Yup. Pedophillia isn't as uncommon as we'd like. If you know 20 people you probably know a pedophile and you know 20 people, I'm certain of it. It's not all that unlikely that you're related to a pedophile or that you would have a pedophillic response if tested.

Meanwhile, because of people like you and the other poster, pedophiles have to hide in the dark places making them infinitely more dangerous.

If a pedophile came to your house and you for whatever reason left him alone with your children, he couldn't stop you and tell you that he shouldn't be left alone with children, because it would put him in social and physical danger. He couldn't warn you that he's not comfortable with his ability to control himself because it would not just endanger his chance at leading a remotely normal life, but it would actually endanger his life. Make no mistake about it, people who threaten pedophiles like we've seen in this thread are part of the problem.

Alright. I will try to adjust my vocabulary. Fantasize about torturing, maiming and murdering child molesters. ;)

I still don't believe that pedophiles can't help themselves but you can't blame people for thinking of doing something. However there is still the chance of them succumbing to their urges so... hard to seperate these two different groups of people.

No more so than it has hard to separate you from a murderer.

Are most you fucking stupid?


Paedophilia is a result of them being abused them selves and thinking it is correct for them to do what they think is ok.

My final and fair solution is to have them take treatment, if the offend then they are chemical castrated and forced to take more treatment and banned from being near children, if they offend a second time it is execution, they had a second chance and blew it.


Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Zoo sexuality (As odd as it may be) Are types of persuasions that can not be changed, but I have NEVER in reading psychology about some one knowing they wanted to fuck other kids when they got older, and every one in the later 3 groups Knew as a child they where different, that means paedophilia is learnt not natural in the sense that it is inborn. Do you pull this shit out of your asses with no clue? I have been through this shit personally and I agree they will forever be a threat if they offend two times and must be shot, an adult animal can give consent not a child regardless of animal or human animal, they can go fuck an adult sheep (Providing the sheep allows them and are not forced) if it will stop them from touching a child, But I doubt even the sheep would let that kind of scum touch them even animals have standards higher then that!!

In a post that is so poorly written it's almost impossible to decipher, you call people stupid among other insults? What do you hope to accomplish? You really should take a bit more time in forming your posts if you actually hope to participate in a discussion.

Meanwhile, if I managed to translate your post to English properly, it appears you're suggesting that a sheep is capable of consent. It should be mentioned that by any standard that enables a sheep to consent, so can a child. They're either both wrong or neither by consent requirements.

Now that I got that out of my system.

I see some who are trying to defend this with absolutely no knowledge on it, and or its final consequences, this is whom I was referring as stupid.

As for the sheep comment they can, they are not a child; there are very obvious ways they show that they are willing to mate (FYI being observant and growing up around animals it is painfully obvious) That and unlike a child their reproductive systems are fully mature and hormones present, so again they are not children, just ask the people that where killed by dogs, your dealing with adults (when they are, a child is a child regardless of species!) that is a weak and stupid attempt to link the two and a rather poor fallacy, But hey if you want proof bend over a male dog, and he'll get the idea right fast (Most don't wait for you to offer FYI, my coat can verify that one).


Paedophilia is traumatic and causes psychological damage to the child at best at worst it causes both physical & psychological damage, there is no defensible position on the act (As most have covered) the drive to do it usually stems from them selves being abused, and this making them believe it is Ok, as to them claiming the child will enjoy it is anthropomorphism (I most likely spelt that horribly wrong).

Now as the originator has pointed out harm prevention could be implemented in some way it should, I would be weary of this approach as it may very well intensify the desire to experience it in real life, but then again we can say the same for violent games, some will some won't it comes to the persons ability to decipher reality from fantasy and how to act accordingly, there are no finite blanket statements.

How ever understanding for the ones who have crossed over the line there is a very high chance they them selves where abused and thus they deserve a second chance IE consoling and such, but if they throw away the chance and knowing full well then the fail safe would indeed be execution in a fast painless manner, as others have stated it is defense, if some one is going to rape or kill you, you'll dam well strike first, that or your prime for the darwine awards.

Now that I got that out of my system.

I see some who are trying to defend this with absolutely no knowledge on it, and or its final consequences, this is whom I was referring as stupid.[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm.... I'd probably just drop this line of argumentation if I were you.


As for the sheep comment they can, they are not a child

Yes, children have much more advanced abilities to understand, communicate and to gather information. Yep, sheep are not children.

; there are very obvious ways they show that they are willing to mate (FYI being observant and growing up around animals it is painfully obvious)

Interesting that you would suggest other people don't know while your definition of consent is decided by whether or not a creature is adult. A sheep has less cognitive ability and maturity than your average three-year-old. Sheeps have that ability to be willing, but they cannot give informed consent. A nine-year-old is far more capable of understanding what they are doing and the consequences than any sheep will ever be.

Nine-year-olds and sheep are both not capable of the level of consent we require. You are talking about willness, which has nothing to do with informed consent. A child can get an erection. It doesn't make him capable of understanding sex. A sheep can perform the act, that doesn't mean it is giving informed consent. And if you take away the informed part, sex acts with children would become legal.

Paedophilia is traumatic and causes psychological damage to the child at best at worst it causes both physical & psychological damage, there is no defensible position on the act (As most have covered) the drive to do it usually stems from them selves being abused, and this making them believe it is Ok, as to them claiming the child will enjoy it is anthropomorphism (I most likely spelt that horribly wrong).

No, it doesn't. Pedophillia is an attraction. You are talking about molestation. You accuse people of not being informed while the clinical term pedophillia has NOTHING to do with actually acting on one's predillictions.

Now, if you'd like to discuss the act, you're correct, but not all people who perform the act are pedophiles and most pedophiles never act.


Now as the originator has pointed out harm prevention could be implemented in some way it should, I would be weary of this approach as it may very well intensify the desire to experience it in real life, but then again we can say the same for violent games, some will some won't it comes to the persons ability to decipher reality from fantasy and how to act accordingly, there are no finite blanket statements.

Fair enough.

How ever understanding for the ones who have crossed over the line there is a very high chance they them selves where abused and thus they deserve a second chance IE consoling and such, but if they throw away the chance and knowing full well then the fail safe would indeed be execution in a fast painless manner, as others have stated it is defense, if some one is going to rape or kill you, you'll dam well strike first, that or your prim for the darwine awards.
who in the thread has requested understanding for people who have crossed over the line? This thread is about pedophillia and preventing child abuse. It is not about excusing the actual acts.

You've basically insulted everyone who doesn't hold your view and suggest they get educated on this issue. Based on your comments, I find it unlikely you're actually very educated on this subject at all. I think it's more likely that you think yours is the ONLY correct position so you use claims of expertise to dismiss anyone that disagrees with you. Not gonna work. You can either make your arguments and support them and thus show you've got a more sound position than others, or not. Otherwise, you're just another person on the internet calling people stupid.

I've had enough. Jocobia and The Five Castes seem to understand how debate works on an emotionally charged subject, and they are their debate is the only reason this thread hasn't been locked.

I appreciate that, thank you.

Jocabia, I'd like to start off by saying I think my style of posting has caused us some misunderstandings. Much like you seem to do, I generally just take the other person's post and respond to each subsection. The homosexuality thing seems to have balooned out of control primiarily because I kept replying to your annoyed responses to my posts. I think we need a fresh start because if I were to try replying to your most recent post in the same way we have been, all that will do is continue with the various side discussions that have nothing to do with the topic. To be honest, I was just as annoyed as you were that we were getting so far off topic.

In the interests of not completely disregarding what you've said, however, since I know some of the things in your post are useful, valid points, I'm taking the list of statements I need to either evidence or retract. I will do so now.

1. Pedophillia is not innately or even likely not to be innately harmful.
I stand by this statement because, assuming that the pedophile never molests, the only one who could possibly be harmed is the pedophile himself. The only harmful effect of pedophilia listed in the DSM is stress and interpersonal dificulty which also happens to be a reaction that people who regularly recieve death threats or who keep large secrets of other kinds are going to experience. Since this result comes from society's overreaction to the pedophile, I see no reason to believe that pedophilia is inately harmful. Should I now provide evidence that regular death threats cause stress?
2. Pedophillia does not belong in the DSM. It's inclusion is solely political.
There are two ways a person who is sexually attracted to children could fit the DSM's defintion of a pedophile. The first is to molest a child. Since I haven't done so, I don't fit the definition for that reason. The second is for the fact that I have sexual fantasies about children to cause marked stress or interpersonal difficulties. This essentially means that if someone doesn't feel stress or interpersonal dificulties (assuming we're talking about a non-offending pedophile), he isn't a pedophile according to the definition. Stress is already a well known psychological problem, and unless the DSM lists other major sources of stress, I don't see why the stress resulting from being arroused by children should have any place in it.
3. Societal impact on victims of pedophillia is universal and thus makes it impossible to study any other impacts.
Society impacts everyone in some way or another. It would be trivial to prove that someone who grows up in, and spends their entire life in, a given society will be effected by that society. This society has a major problem with pedophilia. It isn't just victums of child sexual abuse that are exposed to the constant condemnation of activites of this kind. There is a major cultural bias against dealing with children and sex, and I'm not just talking about having sex with children. Many parents have an incredibly hard time giving the obligatory "the birds and the bees" talk. Pedophiles are probably the single most reviled group this culture recognises. (Though I could be falling into the trap of "this is the worst kind of discrimination, the kind against me.) That stygma tends to rub off on people even remotely associated with pedophiles. (Take, for example the death threats leveled against the families of pedophiles in this thread.) It would seem inevidable that this stygma would rub off on the victums of child molestation. This is especially the case when you remember how studies about the "cycle of abuse" tell us that the victums of child sexual abuse are more likely to become abusers themselves. A person need not even be identified by the outside culture for the cultural issues to take effect. A person who hears about how their experience traumatises a person for life (even if the speaker didn't know the person had been throuh this experience) is not going to have as easy a time dealing with that experience as if he/she hadn't been exposed to that kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

If I said universal, I retract it, if only on the grounds that I don't believe in absolutes in anything. Certainly there are some children who are not exposed to the psychological torture that I speak about, but the fact that they exist hardly means that they can be studied. The problem is identifying them and diferentiating them from the overall population, something I at the moment, see no way of doing.
4. The subject of pedophillic attraction is capable of informed consent.
I stated, let me see what it was again, that the requirements for consent are that a person know what it is they are consenting to and all the possible consequences, and that they be able to base their decisions on avalible information. I stated that children can consent if this is all that is required of consent. You further added on the requirement of needing to feel sexual attraction, which I did not accept, merely talked about in a "for the sake of arguement" sort of way.

Getting back to the two assertions I made in this regard, first was that children are capable of knowing about sex and all the ramifications thereof. I believe this was the one that you were most oposed to. That they could understand the mechanics was a point you've already conceeded, so let's just talk about the consequences.

Let's start with the physical consenquences of pregnancy, disease, and let's throw in possible injury resulting from poor technique or too great a size mismatch. My primary response to these claims was that there was no reason sex needed to involve penetration of any sort, and that depending on the specific acts, the risk of injury or illness is comparable to the risk of injury or illness from playing a friendly game of basketball. There is the risk of jamming one's finger if the child touches an adult's penis, for example, but that would be about as far as the risk of that particular sexual activity goes. Since I can't prove that a child can comprehend injury, disease, or pregnancy, any more than you can prove your own comprehension of such things, I suppose I'll have to leave it at that.

Next, I assume is the social issues resulting from sex that the child would have to comprehend. The first would be that their behaving sexually is forbidden by this society. I feel they can understand that there are things they may (or may not) want to do which other people won't want them to do. They should be able to understand this, considering the number of "no no's" they're expected to deal with from their parents. Another social issue is that if the relationship were ever found out, the child would be separated from the adult. This one, since it's apparently used effectively as a threat by child molesters, one would assume is something the child understands.

The social issue of the child being exposed to the constant condemnation, is a tough one to explain. I think in this one, I might have to conceed the point. I mean how do you explain that everyone from their parents to their teachers to the people on TV will keep saying this is bad, and that the constant birage of negative press has driven people to suacide?

This of course reminds me of something I said earlier in the thread. A person cannot consent to be tortured, so it is true that a child cannot consent to sex because the result would be a lifetime of emotional torture.

Still, those are only issues in our current society, so let's move on, given the fact that I've conceeded the point as it reffers to our current society.

I guess now would be the time to move on to a child's ability to base his/her decisions on avalible information. I must say that this level of reasoning ability is something of a prerequisite for completing elementary school coursework. Take, for example, the elementary level story problem involving your imaginary rich uncle. "He offers you either ten dollars right now, or one dollar a day for the next year. Which should you chose?" Successful answering of that or similar story problems indicates the kind of reasoning ability I'm talking about, and if children don't have that level of reasoning ability, elementary school tests are even less fair than I had assumed when I was in elementary school.
5. Homosexuality is clinically similar enough to pedophillia that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM has ANY bearing on the inclusion of pedophillia.
I don't believe my assertions centered around the clinical aspects of either. We got side tracked on the clinical aspects for a while, but my original assertions were about the political aspects. I am currently not aware of any study which ever found homosexuality to be inately harmful, thus your assertions that homosexuality being removed from the DSM because such studies were properly reviewed and proven unsound rather than the accepted view that homosexuality was removed because its inclusion in the first place was based on cultural norms in the first place is certainly unfounded.

Perhaps you should make that thread about homosexuality you offered. I'm sure there are a lot of other people who would be interested in these studies that showed homosexuality to be inately harmful, and in your assertions that they were in no way politically modivated. I doubt I'd be the only one to challenge that claim.
6. Pedophillia is a genetic paraphillia, not a result of nurture.
Consider the statement retracted. I'll accept that nurture may well play a leading roll in the development of pedophilia.

So, on the whole, no external links. Sorry about that. That's what happens when I have to spend so much time clarifying what I actually said. It makes it hard to tell which aspects of what I really said you consider unproven.

I go by biological functionality, a child is not functional. far as consent it is not very functionally defined, consent is when both parties are both able and willing to partake in it, age alone does not determine this, some mature faster then others, when you consider age glide is rather a social convention, My gut action when I hear of a 20 year old with a 80 year old is that guy is screwd up, but then logic kicks in and says that is an artifact of shortly living in a sexually repressed house, it is simply two people enjoying each other.

"cannot give informed consent" what is it? it is willingness nothing more, we say a child can not, but they can easily say the words, so if all it is is words then it is meaningless, it must go by biological ability along with desire. Consent is when both are physically capable and willing far as I see it, it is this simple in nature. I think the bigger issue is how we define what is a child, My understanding is a child is not reproductively mature, but abstract we say a child is any thing under 14, in other countries it is 13, yet in others it is 17, so what is "age of consent" ? aside from some totally meaningless social construct? I strive to find the simple and logical answer, and that is back to nature, if they are sexually mature then they are obviously mature enough to decide, if they where taught well they will know what to do with their bodies.

Basically after puberty it is the persons choice, if the family has don their job the person will be competent to make their own chooses, which goes back to my saying animals are more then capable of deciding whether or not they want to partake in such an act,they are both hormonally and physically and mentally capable to decide if they want to, the sexuality of nature is just starting to come to light, and I am sure much much more will be laid out, I know from personal observation as I am sure plenty here know as well as I.


It so happens I will be going to the city to do some business there, I'll go see the counsellor I saw (I have no memory of the act but they sent me there telling me I should go, either case there they gave us tons of info of why it happened to us and such, very weird as I have no memory of it happening????? but either way I'll get the names of the reports I am generating my opinion from)

I think what we can all agree on if the person is not sexually mature then it is damaging as there bodies are not ready for it in any way, & this is the system I go by as chronological age is meaningless as a gauge of maturity of either physical or mental state. When you say child I think non mature physically, when you say adult I think mentally and sexually mature.

So for me consent means quite simply sexually mature and willing, and long as both partners enjoy the act with no damage then it is not a crime.

Now that I think of it what does this do to the so called definition of "Paedophilia" ? does this strictly mean prepubescent? or does it utilize strictly chronological measures? Ah got to love biology and abstract supposition.

I appreciate that, thank you.

Jocabia, I'd like to start off by saying I think my style of posting has caused us some misunderstandings. Much like you seem to do, I generally just take the other person's post and respond to each subsection. The homosexuality thing seems to have balooned out of control primiarily because I kept replying to your annoyed responses to my posts. I think we need a fresh start because if I were to try replying to your most recent post in the same way we have been, all that will do is continue with the various side discussions that have nothing to do with the topic. To be honest, I was just as annoyed as you were that we were getting so far off topic.

In the interests of not completely disregarding what you've said, however, since I know some of the things in your post are useful, valid points, I'm taking the list of statements I need to either evidence or retract. I will do so now.


I stand by this statement because, assuming that the pedophile never molests, the only one who could possibly be harmed is the pedophile himself. The only harmful effect of pedophilia listed in the DSM is stress and interpersonal dificulty which also happens to be a reaction that people who regularly recieve death threats or who keep large secrets of other kinds are going to experience. Since this result comes from society's overreaction to the pedophile, I see no reason to believe that pedophilia is inately harmful. Should I now provide evidence that regular death threats cause stress?

There are two ways a person who is sexually attracted to children could fit the DSM's defintion of a pedophile. The first is to molest a child. Since I haven't done so, I don't fit the definition for that reason. The second is for the fact that I have sexual fantasies about children to cause marked stress or interpersonal difficulties. This essentially means that if someone doesn't feel stress or interpersonal dificulties (assuming we're talking about a non-offending pedophile), he isn't a pedophile according to the definition. Stress is already a well known psychological problem, and unless the DSM lists other major sources of stress, I don't see why the stress resulting from being arroused by children should have any place in it.

Society impacts everyone in some way or another. It would be trivial to prove that someone who grows up in, and spends their entire life in, a given society will be effected by that society. This society has a major problem with pedophilia. It isn't just victums of child sexual abuse that are exposed to the constant condemnation of activites of this kind. There is a major cultural bias against dealing with children and sex, and I'm not just talking about having sex with children. Many parents have an incredibly hard time giving the obligatory "the birds and the bees" talk. Pedophiles are probably the single most reviled group this culture recognises. (Though I could be falling into the trap of "this is the worst kind of discrimination, the kind against me.) That stygma tends to rub off on people even remotely associated with pedophiles. (Take, for example the death threats leveled against the families of pedophiles in this thread.) It would seem inevidable that this stygma would rub off on the victums of child molestation. This is especially the case when you remember how studies about the "cycle of abuse" tell us that the victums of child sexual abuse are more likely to become abusers themselves. A person need not even be identified by the outside culture for the cultural issues to take effect. A person who hears about how their experience traumatises a person for life (even if the speaker didn't know the person had been throuh this experience) is not going to have as easy a time dealing with that experience as if he/she hadn't been exposed to that kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

If I said universal, I retract it, if only on the grounds that I don't believe in absolutes in anything. Certainly there are some children who are not exposed to the psychological torture that I speak about, but the fact that they exist hardly means that they can be studied. The problem is identifying them and diferentiating them from the overall population, something I at the moment, see no way of doing.

I stated, let me see what it was again, that the requirements for consent are that a person know what it is they are consenting to and all the possible consequences, and that they be able to base their decisions on avalible information. I stated that children can consent if this is all that is required of consent. You further added on the requirement of needing to feel sexual attraction, which I did not accept, merely talked about in a "for the sake of arguement" sort of way.

Getting back to the two assertions I made in this regard, first was that children are capable of knowing about sex and all the ramifications thereof. I believe this was the one that you were most oposed to. That they could understand the mechanics was a point you've already conceeded, so let's just talk about the consequences.

Let's start with the physical consenquences of pregnancy, disease, and let's throw in possible injury resulting from poor technique or too great a size mismatch. My primary response to these claims was that there was no reason sex needed to involve penetration of any sort, and that depending on the specific acts, the risk of injury or illness is comparable to the risk of injury or illness from playing a friendly game of basketball. There is the risk of jamming one's finger if the child touches an adult's penis, for example, but that would be about as far as the risk of that particular sexual activity goes. Since I can't prove that a child can comprehend injury, disease, or pregnancy, any more than you can prove your own comprehension of such things, I suppose I'll have to leave it at that.

Next, I assume is the social issues resulting from sex that the child would have to comprehend. The first would be that their behaving sexually is forbidden by this society. I feel they can understand that there are things they may (or may not) want to do which other people won't want them to do. They should be able to understand this, considering the number of "no no's" they're expected to deal with from their parents. Another social issue is that if the relationship were ever found out, the child would be separated from the adult. This one, since it's apparently used effectively as a threat by child molesters, one would assume is something the child understands.

The social issue of the child being exposed to the constant condemnation, is a tough one to explain. I think in this one, I might have to conceed the point. I mean how do you explain that everyone from their parents to their teachers to the people on TV will keep saying this is bad, and that the constant birage of negative press has driven people to suacide?

This of course reminds me of something I said earlier in the thread. A person cannot consent to be tortured, so it is true that a child cannot consent to sex because the result would be a lifetime of emotional torture.

Still, those are only issues in our current society, so let's move on, given the fact that I've conceeded the point as it reffers to our current society.

I guess now would be the time to move on to a child's ability to base his/her decisions on avalible information. I must say that this level of reasoning ability is something of a prerequisite for completing elementary school coursework. Take, for example, the elementary level story problem involving your imaginary rich uncle. "He offers you either ten dollars right now, or one dollar a day for the next year. Which should you chose?" Successful answering of that or similar story problems indicates the kind of reasoning ability I'm talking about, and if children don't have that level of reasoning ability, elementary school tests are even less fair than I had assumed when I was in elementary school.

I don't believe my assertions centered around the clinical aspects of either. We got side tracked on the clinical aspects for a while, but my original assertions were about the political aspects. I am currently not aware of any study which ever found homosexuality to be inately harmful, thus your assertions that homosexuality being removed from the DSM because such studies were properly reviewed and proven unsound rather than the accepted view that homosexuality was removed because its inclusion in the first place was based on cultural norms in the first place is certainly unfounded.

Perhaps you should make that thread about homosexuality you offered. I'm sure there are a lot of other people who would be interested in these studies that showed homosexuality to be inately harmful, and in your assertions that they were in no way politically modivated. I doubt I'd be the only one to challenge that claim.

Consider the statement retracted. I'll accept that nurture may well play a leading roll in the development of pedophilia.

So, on the whole, no external links. Sorry about that. That's what happens when I have to spend so much time clarifying what I actually said. It makes it hard to tell which aspects of what I really said you consider unproven.

See this is what I mean, the only thing is what do we call a child? obviously child can consent under the purposed definition of consent! but a retarded person could not! The concept of child is not sexually mature, if the person is sexually mature then the actions according to nature are all for go, but it is the idiocy of "modern" society and religious influences that screw things up.

What we need to do is toss out all the BS and simply ensure that A: The person is sexually mature, B: the person is actually able to mutually enjoy the encounter, C: NO damage will result from the encounter, if it meets the three criteria then how is it wrong? what crime is being committed? Oh right the crime of pleasure! Gawd forbid to animals enjoy each other (You may feel the need to state Humans but for me we're all just animals)

As long as the person is sexually mature and willing chronological age is irrelevant, this is the issue in society as if some parents would never allow their children even at the age or 99 to reproduce due tot heir own sexually repressed childhood. and the term of paedophilia simply says attracted to children but this is a variable as different societies call different ages children!

if a 12 year old was fully and sexually mature and she desired to be with a person much older then her self and both where happy no it would not be normal but nor would it be bad. same reason why it is totally illogical to see how a person and an adult animal can be bad providing both are happy and enjoying each other, it is a crime when it is one sided and causes harm.

the core of the issue me thinks is getting a fare more solid definition world wide, I have mine that is based within nature, but what is every one ells going by?

Interesting that you would suggest other people don't know while your definition of consent is decided by whether or not a creature is adult. A sheep has less cognitive ability and maturity than your average three-year-old. Sheeps have that ability to be willing, but they cannot give informed consent. A nine-year-old is far more capable of understanding what they are doing and the consequences than any sheep will ever be.

Nine-year-olds and sheep are both not capable of the level of consent we require. You are talking about willness, which has nothing to do with informed consent. A child can get an erection. It doesn't make him capable of understanding sex. A sheep can perform the act, that doesn't mean it is giving informed consent. And if you take away the informed part, sex acts with children would become legal.

While the thought of getting side tracked into a side conversation about bestiality like we did about homosexuality is unapplealing, I really do have to ask this question.

Why do we let sheep have sex with other sheep?

I go by biological functionality, a child is not functional.

Fair enough. Then you believe the age of consent is about 10, because that is when many women become functional.

far as consent it is not very functionally defined, consent is when both parties are both able and willing to partake in it, age alone does not determine this, some mature faster then others, when you consider age glide is rather a social convention, My gut action when I hear of a 20 year old with a 80 year old is that guy is screwd up, but then logic kicks in and says that is an artifact of shortly living in a sexually repressed house, it is simply two people enjoying each other.

I thought we were talking about 'educating people' and not about gut feelings.

Age does not set maturity, but our brains are actually still developing throughout much of childhood. Many children are quite literally not capable of consent often for physiological reasons and more often for emotionaly/psychological reasons. You oversimplify by a dramatic amount when you address this issue.


"cannot give informed consent" what is it? it is willingness nothing more, we say a child can not, but they can easily say the words, so if all it is is words then it is meaningless, it must go by biological ability along with desire.

Good thing you've made such an effort to educate yourself on this subject. Usually desire goes with 'biological ability' but informed consent does not. I can manipulate a child into sex as I can with a crazy person or someone handicapped, or even an animal. That's why we required someone that is not just capable of a sexual response, but also someone who understands sex and is prepared for the consequences. In the absense of a test, we use an age where most people would be capable of dealing with sexual issues.


Consent is when both are physically capable and willing far as I see it, it is this simple in nature. I think the bigger issue is how we define what is a child, My understanding is a child is not reproductively mature, but abstract we say a child is any thing under 14, in other countries it is 13, yet in others it is 17, so what is "age of consent" ? aside from some totally meaningless social construct? I strive to find the simple and logical answer, and that is back to nature, if they are sexually mature then they are obviously mature enough to decide, if they where taught well they will know what to do with their bodies.

You're repeating yourself and your statements are still not based on this 'education' you required a moment ago. Most children by your definition are capable of reproducing.


Basically after puberty it is the persons choice, if the family has don their job the person will be competent to make their own chooses, which goes back to my saying animals are more then capable of deciding whether or not they want to partake in such an act,they are both hormonally and physically and mentally capable to decide if they want to, the sexuality of nature is just starting to come to light, and I am sure much much more will be laid out, I know from personal observation as I am sure plenty here know as well as I.

Let's see, you attacked people for not really becoming informed on this subject and you're basically going off of what you've seen and you're apparently limited understanding of consent and sexual maturity. Many of your arguments are debunked in your average freshmen health class.

Again, personal observation is a terrible way to address such an issue. What you think you see and what really goes on in terms of psychology and physiology are often very different as evidenced by your statements here.


It so happens I will be going to the city to do some business there, I'll go see the counsellor I saw (I have no memory of the act but they sent me there telling me I should go, either case there they gave us tons of info of why it happened to us and such, very weird as I have no memory of it happening????? but either way I'll get the names of the reports I am generating my opinion from)

Did these reports tell you that people are reproductively mature until thirteen or fourteen, because if they did, they're wrong. Much of the information you're presenting is incorrect factually and if you explore this thread a bit you'd find out more about what pedophillia is, who it targets and what consent is and why our requirements are what they are. I highly recommend it before your next rant.


I think what we can all agree on if the person is not sexually mature then it is damaging as there bodies are not ready for it in any way, & this is the system I go by as chronological age is meaningless as a gauge of maturity of either physical or mental state. When you say child I think non mature physically, when you say adult I think mentally and sexually mature.

Being physically ready is meaningless in terms of the human psyche which is why we don't use it. But I'm sure any studies you've seen would tell you that.


So for me consent means quite simply sexually mature and willing, and long as both partners enjoy the act with no damage then it is not a crime.

We get it. You've said it a hald dozen times. Doesn't make it more accurate or less damaging to a child.


Now that I think of it what does this do to the so called definition of "Paedophilia" ? does this strictly mean prepubescent? or does it utilize strictly chronological measures? Ah got to love biology and abstract supposition.
Wait, you don't know the definition of pedophillia and you're attacking people for not educating themselves reasonably on the subject? Pedophillia is an attraction to prepubescent or newly pubescent children. Newly pubesent children are included because they would equally be harmed if a pedophile were to act on such predilictions. But you knew that, right?

I'm glad you're trying to get a grasp on an issue that obviously affected you personally. It's important that you understand. But you need to actually understand this issue rather than spouting off half-cocked like you did earlier and then ignoring all conventional wisdom on the subject and reducing human sexuality down to physiology. You've conflated pedophillia and bestiality. You've confused when children become capable of reproduction. You've not addressed our current consent requirements, what they mean nor why they exist, you don't really know how pedophillia is defined. Basically you've skirted every central issue to this phillia and you've attacked people for not being educated enough. I don't think you're attack was misinformed so much as it was badly directed. You're right. This is an emotional issue and people should seek to become educated. I'd start with the man in the mirror. Given your experiences, I would say it will be very good for you to better understand the issue.

Yes and a good one it is, After all how can they consent to each other?


Life is not so complicated, it is all the crap we add in that complicates things, we are oft to bright for our own good, as one once said "It is yet to be prov-en intelligence has any survival value" or to that effect.


Now that I think the informed part is of little value, you said sex with children would become legal, in current law yes but in logic no, as they are not reproductively capable and thus not good for them and thus not "right"

Where as the adult sheep is capable and willing and is not forced in any way there is no crime as both will mutually enjoy the encounter and both will not be injured as both are mature, I can not for the life of me see how this is at all complex? they know what the act is they know what the end result will be so they are informed, their instincts tell them exactly what it means.

While the thought of getting side tracked into a side conversation about bestiality like we did about homosexuality is unapplealing, I really do have to ask this question.

Why do we let sheep have sex with other sheep?

Because sheep are designed to have sex with other sheep. However, they don't really understand that they aren't having sex when they engage with humans. They aren't capable of understanding what is really going on. Sex with sheep is ingrained. However, if you allow us to go down the road of, they don't know it's wrong so why do we care, then we can also rape coma patients and the mentally-disabled. Animals cannot form consent. They aren't capable of understanding the acts we are engaging them in, nor can they understand the consequences of interspecies sex.

It's not unappealing. You've made every effort to discuss anything but pedophillia. Once again you ignored all the other points and all the other posts and took a chance to comment on some other subject. I suppose it's just coincidence I brought it up 24 hours before you did it tonight. Couldn't possibly be your pattern for jumping on anything that avoids the point of the thread. I think I saw somewhere something about 'disrupting the discussion' or something like that. Hmmmm... if you're not careful, one might conclude....

Yes and a good one it is, After all how can they consent to each other?

They don't.


Life is not so complicated, it is all the crap we add in that complicates things, we are oft to bright for our own good, as one once said "It is yet to be prov-en intelligence has any survival value" or to that effect.

This has nothing to do with intelligence. This has to do with while we don't require informed consent of other animals in their practices with one another, we require it of ourselves. Much like we don't consider it cruel for a cougar to tear apart a deer, but we don't allow people to do it.



Now that I think the informed part is of little value, you said sex with children would become legal, in current law yes but in logic no, as they are not reproductively capable and thus not good for them and thus not "right"

False, by your definition of children (13 or 14), they are reproductively capable.


Where as the adult sheep is capable and willing and is not forced in any way there is no crime as both will mutually enjoy the encounter and both will not be injured as both are mature, I can not for the life of me see how this is at all complex? they know what the act is they know what the end result will be so they are informed, their instincts tell them exactly what it means.

As you correctly pointed out, this issue is worth understanding. I highly recommend you read up on it. You keep repeating the same argument and it basically matches up with the knowledge available to just about any teenager. You suggested the issue requires a better understanding. I agree with you. I am, however, still waiting to see it.

Jocabia, while I see you saying that transspecies mating has consequences that sheep can't understand, the fact remains that mating within their species is equally incomprehensible to them. You've failed to explain why exactly we allow sheep to have sex with one another, given that they cannot possibly satisfy the standard of informed consent.

I say we kill them if they rape children.

I haven't read all, but I have some things I'd like to say.

First, there are more causes for raping children than pedophilia. I believe that, in most cases, it's more about power than about sex. If you like brutality, you also like raping, especially helpless people, which includes children - no matter the sexual orientation. That means, the people who rape children are not always pedophiles. I also think that sexual attraction towards 14, 15 year olds isn't pedophilia, they are youths, not children (even if I don't consider them able to always know the consequences of their actions). I also believe that all rapists ought to be castrated and locked away from society, but that most pedophiles aren't rapists.
I really have respect for those who have the urge to have sex with children but don't give in to it.

Second, I am not sure if pedophilia is comparable to homosexuality. People who rape always have severe problems, and mostly have gone through such experiences as rape themselves. I'm not sure if that is what is meant by pedophilia. If there is no link between pedophilia and having been abused in any form as child, than I accept it as natural.

Third, there is a difference between abuse and rape. People who sexually abuse children don't always do this by violence. I believe that some of the problems abused children have are society-made and could be cured by just accepting that one has had sex as a child - without perforce suffering of emotional damage. I don't want to euphemise anything, but a child, which gave his consent to sexual actions without regretting it while the actions took place, might regret it when growing older - but surely didn't suffer from violation.
What about pedophiles who don't want to harm children? There are many of them, who believe it's possible to have a loving relationship with a child (I don't believe that, but they do - and when accepting their belief, I really have no problems with these people).

Fourth, has ever anybody thought of pedophile women? If pedophilia is somehow natural like homosexuality and incurable, than there have to be pedophile women, too (and don't tell me it's physically impossible, it has been said before that you don't need a penis for sex).

I hope you have some answers, and excuse me for sticking up for them - I just don't want to be unfair.

Gwupigrubynudny-land,
First I have to ask how the hell you can remember the spelling of that name? Is that a non-english word or some abreviation of personal significance?

Anyway, as to your points, I'll address the last one first. There are female pedophiles. There's some question as to their numbers, but that mostly stems from the dificulties of studying pedophiles in general. (We kind of value our privacy since a lot of people throw death threats around and they tend not to be challenged much for doing so by the general public.)

There was a study posted here about the causes of pedophilia, but that article said itself that the study was of child molesters, and that actually studying pedophiles proper wasn't possible because, well, we have to hide our orientation.

As to your assertions about the nature of the harm and its source, I would tend to agree with you. Rape is rape, forced or cohersive, but the criminalization and stygmatization of mutually desired acts, I feel, does far more harm than good.

...that sexual attraction to children is like any other sexuality, and I agree...to a point.

Wrong; heterosexuality and homosexuallity are caused by genetics, whereas pedephilia is caused by the rare but serious mental aftereffects of abuse.

As stated in the title, they are people as well.

Interestingly enough, so was BTK.

So, rather than blindingly crucifying and castrating them all

We can crucify and castrate them? Cool!

Right away, I see a few possible solutions. One is to provide them with some form of pornography to masturbate to, in order to lessen the sexual drive that removes reason from their minds and makes them rape children.

That would actually increase their sex drives. The increased sex drive comes from suddenly going cold turkey. Note: Even with pornographic anime as you suggested, I still think it's pretty sick.

If eventually possible, we could alter whatever it is in their brains that makes them attracted to children in the first place. Of course, this opens up a huge range of possible misuse, from ridding society of homosexuality, to preventing people from being attracted to someone of another ethnicity, so I would stay away from this suggestion.

I would actually very much have to reccomend that. It wouldn't work to "rid the world of homosexuals" or "prevent people from being attracted to people of other ethnicities," because those are all genetic. (And the sexual reproduction system isn't concerned with what religion or race someone comes from.) Your solution could help, though, with pedaphilia, because that, as I previously stated, is something gone wrong with the mind as a result of abuse. I think that, while your solution should be explored, it is a long way off in the future. Nonetheless, good idea.

-But I prefer the crucifixion. ;)

Gwupigrubynudny-land,
First I have to ask how the hell you can remember the spelling of that name? Is that a non-english word or some abreviation of personal significance?

Actually, it's a made-up countryname from the highly absurd and simply insane movie 'The nine Lives of Tomas Katz' which I like very much. After looking the name some times up, I finally memorized it.

Anyway, as to your points, I'll address the last one first. There are female pedophiles. There's some question as to their numbers, but that mostly stems from the dificulties of studying pedophiles in general. (We kind of value our privacy since a lot of people throw death threats around and they tend not to be challenged much for doing so by the general public.)

There was a study posted here about the causes of pedophilia, but that article said itself that the study was of child molesters, and that actually studying pedophiles proper wasn't possible because, well, we have to hide our orientation.

As to your assertions about the nature of the harm and its source, I would tend to agree with you. Rape is rape, forced or cohersive, but the criminalization and stygmatization of mutually desired acts, I feel, does far more harm than good.

I really can't say I like the idea of pedophilia or that I have in any way something to do with it, but I find it highly interesting, in particular as many people tend to have prejudices and simply say 'uargh, how could you talk that way about _them_.' There are many pedophiles, which makes things worse, who claim to have a right to do what they like because they like it. Or because it isn't harmful. I have no clear position to what harm is done if the child wants it because nobody in his right mind would admit he wanted it. The common opinion is that nobody could possibly survive sexual experiences in childhood unharmed. But in some cultures this was normal or at least tolerated, so I can't believe there has to be harm done. It's a pity that most cases are violent or at least dishonest and manipulative so we'll never know how it really could be.

Fourth, has ever anybody thought of pedophile women? If pedophilia is somehow natural like homosexuality and incurable, than there have to be pedophile women, too (and don't tell me it's physically impossible, it has been said before that you don't need a penis for sex).

They exist and are generally viewed upon much more favourably than the male specimens. A stereotype is the hot schoolteacher sleeping with one of her pupils.

Jocabia, while I see you saying that transspecies mating has consequences that sheep can't understand, the fact remains that mating within their species is equally incomprehensible to them. You've failed to explain why exactly we allow sheep to have sex with one another, given that they cannot possibly satisfy the standard of informed consent.

Let's see that makes three significant hijacks. Start a thread about bestiality and stop hijacking this one. You prove over and over that you are a troll by the definition you posted. You'll do anything to prevent having to deal with a discussion about pedophillia. Not hard to figure out why you're afraid of an educated discussion about such things. You might find out your justifications are unfounded.

Meanwhile, I notice anytime anyone says anything ignorant in this discussion you jump all over them, but you avoid actually entering a discussion with a person educated on the subject. Repeatedly. Again, not hard to figure out why. Care to stop the effort to prevent an educated discussion and actually do what you said you'd do and support your points or were you being dishonest when you said that?

Jocabia, while I see you saying that transspecies mating has consequences that sheep can't understand, the fact remains that mating within their species is equally incomprehensible to them. You've failed to explain why exactly we allow sheep to have sex with one another, given that they cannot possibly satisfy the standard of informed consent.

You do realize that sheep are animals? That mating within their own species is what they do do reproduce? If a human had sex with a sheep or a child then both would not understand as both would never try the same. It doesn't matter though as we are dealing with a child and not an animal. Nice strawman though.

Let's see that makes three significant hijacks. Start a thread about bestiality and stop hijacking this one. You prove over and over that you are a troll by the definition you posted. You'll do anything to prevent having to deal with a discussion about pedophillia. Not hard to figure out why you're afraid of an educated discussion about such things. You might find out your justifications are unfounded.

Meanwhile, I notice anytime anyone says anything ignorant in this discussion you jump all over them, but you avoid actually entering a discussion with a person educated on the subject. Repeatedly. Again, not hard to figure out why. Care to stop the effort to prevent an educated discussion and actually do what you said you'd do and support your points or were you being dishonest when you said that?
I know this is hard for you to understand. Really I do, but the question has relevance to the topic at hand. Why are sheep, which, as you said, have less cognative capability than a three year old, allowed to have sex if they so chose, but those more compotent three year olds are denied the oportunity to have sex if they were to desire it?

Edit:
Incidentally, I actually did make another post in this topic, specifically addressed to you, which I intended to clarify some of the misunderstandings we've been having. It was post 668. I don't know if you missed it or were deliberately ignoring it so you could keep claiming I refused to discuss the topic with you, but assuming it was the former, I figured I'd let you know about it.

I cannot believe the emotionaly immature premise of this thread is even being entertained. Pedophilia is an emotionaly immature behaviour with deep rooted personal issues at it's core. I can not see where someone can responsibly defend the manipulation of a child. Unless they too are at the same emotionaly maturity as a child.

I cannot believe the emotionaly immature premise of this thread is even being entertained. Pedophilia is an emotionaly immature behaviour with deep rooted personal issues at it's core. I can not see where someone can responsibly defend the manipulation of a child. Unless they too are at the same emotionaly maturity as a child.
Indeed. It's very imature to manipulate a child, and force them to behave the way an adult wants them to, rather than the way the child wants to on his/her own.

Incidentally, denying children self-determination regarding their sex lives occurs whether you force sex on them, or forcably keep them from it.

I know this is hard for you to understand. Really I do, but the question has relevance to the topic at hand. Why are sheep, which, as you said, have less cognative capability than a three year old, allowed to have sex if they so chose, but those more compotent three year olds are denied the oportunity to have sex if they were to desire it?

Edit:
Incidentally, I actually did make another post in this topic, specifically addressed to you, which I intended to clarify some of the misunderstandings we've been having. It was post 668. I don't know if you missed it or were deliberately ignoring it so you could keep claiming I refused to discuss the topic with you, but assuming it was the former, I figured I'd let you know about it.

I did miss it. Sorry about that.

Meanwhile, it contains no links and thus no support. Again, what's the matter can't find any support for your claims? Again, you're quite happy to search out support and provide it as long as it's not related to the topic. Instead you pervert what I said, you altered what you said and basically did everything you could to avoid the conversation.

Example: I didn't say the placement of homosexuality as a phillia in the DSM wasn't politically motivated. I said it wasn't politics that removed it. It was debunking all support for keeping it in the text. Of course, you would want to stick to what I said. That might cause you to have to support your false claims.

And I mispoke on the first statement you made without support.

1. Adults having sexplay with children is not innately harmful. I was referring to acting on the urges not just the urges themselves.

The rest of the statements you promised to support got none, no coincidence there. Apparently, you weren't be honest when you said you were willing to support your assertions on this topic.

Indeed. It's very imature to manipulate a child, and force them to behave the way an adult wants them to, rather than the way the child wants to on his/her own.

Incidentally, denying children self-determination regarding their sex lives occurs whether you force sex on them, or forcably keep them from it.

Ha. Yes, adults should allow children to do anything they want. How dare they care for them and help them make healthy decisions.

I did miss it. Sorry about that.

Honest mistakes happen. Now that I know for sure that's what it was, I'm happy to let bygones be bygones.

Meanwhile, it contains no links and thus no support. Again, what's the matter can't find any support for your claims? Again, you're quite happy to search out support and provide it as long as it's not related to the topic.
I believe in that post I admited that there weren't any links to supporting evidence because the points themselves needed to be clarified so much that I had no way of knowing what you would feel is sufficiently "common sense" and what required specific, scientific support. I can't refference every sentence I write. To do so would be a waste of time on both our parts, thus I need to know what exactly is in question.

Honest mistakes happen. Now that I know for sure that's what it was, I'm happy to let bygones be bygones.

I believe in that post I admited that there weren't any links to supporting evidence because the points themselves needed to be clarified so much that I had no way of knowing what you would feel is sufficiently "common sense" and what required specific, scientific support. I can't refference every sentence I write. To do so would be a waste of time on both our parts, thus I need to know what exactly is in question.

You can add links to claims you make. You refuse to do so. AT ALL. It could just be wild coincidence, but I'm not much of a believer in wild coincidence.

Example: I didn't say the placement of homosexuality as a phillia in the DSM wasn't politically motivated. I said it wasn't politics that removed it. It was debunking all support for keeping it in the text. Of course, you would want to stick to what I said. That might cause you to have to support your false claims.

Again, you are saying there were broadly accepted scientific studies which stated homosexuality was harmful? If so, I think you really should make a thread about them. The studies have to exist for them to be debunked, and I would be fastenated to see what bad science modivated by irrational hate looks like in this instance. Still, you're correct in stating that the homosexuality thing was a major side track which doesn't contribute significantly to our discussion.

And I mispoke on the first statement you made without support.

1. Adults having sexplay with children is not innately harmful. I was referring to acting on the urges not just the urges themselves.

That does make your statements in the other thread a lot easier to reconsile.

Still, I never said adults having sexplay with children is not inately harmful. I said it had not been proven to be inately harmful. Recall my train analogy? Just because it hadn't been proven that the tracks were electrified does not mean they weren't. I had really hoped it would clarify my viewpoint, but apparently you decided it wasn't worth interpreting once you decided it wasn't accurate every insignificant detail.

The rest of the statements you promised to support got none, no coincidence there. Apparently, you weren't be honest when you said you were willing to support your assertions on this topic.
I replied to this viewpoint in my reply to your unedited post.
Ha. Yes, adults should allow children to do anything they want. How dare they care for them and help them make healthy decisions.
This isn't about helping them make healthy decisions, Jocabia. It's about preventing them from making any decisions. Whether you agree with society's view or not, could you please admit that society doesn't allow children to decide anything regarding this matter?

Again, you are saying there were broadly accepted scientific studies which stated homosexuality was harmful? If so, I think you really should make a thread about them. The studies have to exist for them to be debunked, and I would be fastenated to see what bad science modivated by irrational hate looks like in this instance. Still, you're correct in stating that the homosexuality thing was a major side track which doesn't contribute significantly to our discussion.

Yes, I am saying those studies existed and they were bad science. There have dozens of threads about it. And you're welcome to start a thread and I'll likely participate. There's generally a thread about it every couple of days.

Meanwhile, since you don't know what bad science to support irrational hate looks like, I'll take that as an admission that you're aware that the placement of pedophilia in the DSM-IV is not there based on such things. Good. Then we're done here.


That does make your statements in the other thread a lot easier to reconsile.

[QUOTE=The Five Castes]Still, I never said adults having sexplay with children is not inately harmful. I said it had not been proven to be inately harmful. Recall my train analogy? Just because it hadn't been proven that the tracks were electrified does not mean they weren't. I had really hoped it would clarify my viewpoint, but apparently you decided it wasn't worth interpreting once you decided it wasn't accurate every insignificant detail.

So let's say I find one person who was harmed by the sexplay that was not hyperbolized by their parents or society or even addressed at the time. If I find one, then that would be evidence it was innately harmful. Evidence you claim doesn't exist. If I provide that, will you accept that it's innately harmful or provide compelling evidence it's not?


I replied to this viewpoint in my reply to your unedited post.

Yes, you spewed more crap about why you can't or shouldn't support your statements. You've danced around. You avoided. You've changed the subject. But one thing you've NEVER done is support any of your claims on this topic.

This isn't about helping them make healthy decisions, Jocabia. It's about preventing them from making any decisions. Whether you agree with society's view or not, could you please admit that society doesn't allow children to decide anything regarding this matter?
No, it isn't. People aren't preventing them from making any decisions. The laws are in place to protect them from people who would exploit them. People who have appears on and off throughout these threads. People who think the only requirements for consent should be the capability to have sex.

Yes, I am saying those studies existed and they were bad science. There have dozens of threads about it. And you're welcome to start a thread and I'll likely participate. There's generally a thread about it every couple of days.

Apparently they don't come in the form of "Science says homosexuality is bad!!!111" or I probably would have noticed them by now. I've actually never seen such a claim before you made it, and it has managed to get me curius.

Meanwhile, since you don't know what bad science to support irrational hate looks like, I'll take that as an admission that you're aware that the placement of pedophilia in the DSM-IV is not there based on such things. Good. Then we're done here.

Is that a goodbye? I'm sorry to see that, since I feel there was a lot left unresolved.

Feel free to take my sarcastic remark as an admission, though. You've really done a standup job of misrepresenting my viewpoints this entire conversation. Why should the end be any different?

So let's say I find one person who was harmed by the sexplay that was not hyperbolized by their parents or society or even addressed at the time. If I find one, then that would be evidence it was innately harmful. Evidence you claim doesn't exist. If I provide that, will you accept that it's innately harmful or provide compelling evidence it's not?

If you can find a person who was not exposed to social condemnation, or the hyperbolization of pedophilia or of sex in general that is rampant in this society, but who was harmed in a way that were tracable back to the experience, then yes. I would accept such an example as strong evidence suggesting inate mental trauma.

And yes, I do believe that evidence doesn't exist. If it did, should think someone would have brought it up in all the times I've argued this subject. Still, if you can provide it, I would be happy to go over it in detail and if it's everything you claim, I'll add it to my list of reasons not to have sex with kids, which I endevor to publicise every time this debate comes up.

Yes, you spewed more crap about why you can't or shouldn't support your statements. You've danced around. You avoided. You've changed the subject. But one thing you've NEVER done is support any of your claims on this topic.

Interestingly enough, I've seen someone else spewing crap about why he shouldn't support his statements. Let me see if I can get some quotes together:

You made a claim with no evidence. I made a counter claim with no evidence. Unless, editorial unsourced articles count. I will continue to use the exact level of evidence that you use since the burden of proof is on you as the person trying to change the accepted thought on pedophillia.

Quit shifting the burden of proof. Until you prove your claims my counter claims require no proof to debunk yours.

I'm not helping you here.

When you're evidence is a bunch of statements that are unsupported all it takes to 'debunk' them is to counter them. My counter argument has more support naturally because it's widely accepted. If you are trying to counter the accepted norm the burden is on you to show it is either unsupported or provably wrong.

Again, you ask for evidence before providing any for your original assertions.

I was under the impression that this thread had the purpose of changing the norm. I'm happy with the norm.

Meanwhile, I wasn't posting proof of my position.

Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

No, it isn't. People aren't preventing them from making any decisions. The laws are in place to protect them from people who would exploit them. People who have appears on and off throughout these threads. People who think the only requirements for consent should be the capability to have sex.
Are you aware of what statory rape means? In an instance of statutory rape, questions of what anyone wanted at the time are rendered irrelavent because any sex is rape by definition. These laws specifically spell out that a child cannot say yes to sex. Please admit that this denies them a decision, even if you happen to agree with denying them that decision.

Apparently they don't come in the form of "Science says homosexuality is bad!!!111" or I probably would have noticed them by now. I've actually never seen such a claim before you made it, and it has managed to get me curius.

Is that a goodbye? I'm sorry to see that, since I feel there was a lot left unresolved.

Feel free to take my sarcastic remark as an admission, though. You've really done a standup job of misrepresenting my viewpoints this entire conversation. Why should the end be any different?

If you can find a person who was not exposed to social condemnation, or the hyperbolization of pedophilia or of sex in general that is rampant in this society, but who was harmed in a way that were tracable back to the experience, then yes. I would accept such an example as strong evidence suggesting inate mental trauma.

And yes, I do believe that evidence doesn't exist. If it did, should think someone would have brought it up in all the times I've argued this subject. Still, if you can provide it, I would be happy to go over it in detail and if it's everything you claim, I'll add it to my list of reasons not to have sex with kids, which I endevor to publicise every time this debate comes up.

Interestingly enough, I've seen someone else spewing crap about why he shouldn't support his statements. Let me see if I can get some quotes together:















Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

Are you aware of what statory rape means? In an instance of statutory rape, questions of what anyone wanted at the time are rendered irrelavent because any sex is rape by definition. These laws specifically spell out that a child cannot say yes to sex. Please admit that this denies them a decision, even if you happen to agree with denying them that decision.
Hilarious. Because I hold you to supporting your statements BEFORE I debunk them, I'm not fulfilling my need.

You: I declare X to be true.
Me: No, it's not. Support it.
You: No, you support it.
Me: Unnecessary, I don't have to show support to debunk something that has no support.
You: Then neither do I.
Me: Great. Then the status quo remains. Deal with it.

Yep, how dare I expect you to support your statements? How dare I? What gives me the right on a debate forum to expect to stop pulling things out of your butt?

Your claims have the value you place on them with support. Seeing as you cannot see fit to give them any support they have no weight. And if you think claims with no weight is going to change anyone's mind on the status quo or do little more than inspire a bit of tittering at your inability to support your wild claims, well, you're clearly not aware of how the world works.

I went back over a week. You want to know how much support you provided on topic. None. Not one link. Nothing regarding any of your claims just links to things that would draw us off-topic. Check my posts. Have fun. You'll find two with in the first hour I was in the thread. Informational links to show some of the currently held thought. If the weight of evidence is what wins an argument, and it is, you lost a week ago.

Hilarious. Because I hold you to supporting your statements BEFORE I debunk them, I'm not fulfilling my need.

You: I declare X to be true.
Me: No, it's not. Support it.
You: No, you support it.
Me: Unnecessary, I don't have to show support to debunk something that has no support.
You: Then neither do I.
Me: Great. Then the status quo remains. Deal with it.

Yep, how dare I expect you to support your statements? How dare I? What gives me the right on a debate forum to expect to stop pulling things out of your butt?

Your claims have the value you place on them with support. Seeing as you cannot see fit to give them any support they have no weight. And if you think claims with no weight is going to change anyone's mind on the status quo or do little more than inspire a bit of tittering at your inability to support your wild claims, well, you're clearly not aware of how the world works.

I went back over a week. You want to know how much support you provided on topic. None. Not one link. Nothing regarding any of your claims just links to things that would draw us off-topic. Check my posts. Have fun. You'll find two with in the first hour I was in the thread. Informational links to show some of the currently held thought. If the weight of evidence is what wins an argument, and it is, you lost a week ago.
You just don't get it.

I didn't claim that children are not inherently harmed by sexual activities. I claimed that this was unproven. The respons to claims that something is unproven is not, and cannot reasonably be "prove it was never proven". The reasonable refutation of such a statement is "It was prove here".

The worst of it is that your comments in the other thread suggest that you feel largely the same as I do on this subject, believing that the current hysteria does more harm than good, but in this thread, you've repeatedly expressed satisfaction with the status quo apparently for no other reason than because I am advocating for change.

The fact is that I've conceeded the point that children are harmed by sexual encounters with adults. You seem to think that I'm a danger because I hold a different view on the source of that damage than you do. Somehow you've gotten the impression that I'm trying to twist the view that society contributes to the harm inflicted on molested children into some sort of justification for child molesters. This is patently offensive.

If you need to feel like you've won, go ahead. The fact is that we don't disagree significantly, except for the fact that we strongly disagree on the nature of arguementation, which, face facts, is exactly what your problem has been with me the entire time. You've refused to hear a single point I've made, instead drowing them out with your constant demands of "prove it" and "this isn't relavent" while all the while perpetuating a discussion of the things you've called irrelavent.

My arguement, such as it is, can be boiled down to the following points. If you have any intention of continuing this debate, you might consider addressing them instead of continuing to spout about irrelavencies of form.

1) That the current hysteria causes far more harm than good.
1)a) That the current hysteria heaps psychological trauma onto the victum of child molestation above and beyond any caused by the initial act.
1)b) That the current hysteria causes pedophiles who might become a danger to avoid seeking help for their stress because there is a legitimate fear for their health and safety if they were identified.

2) That a pedophile should not act on his/her sexual attraction.
2)a) That some sexual acts would represent a risk of physical harm to the child involved.
2)b) That the social trauma that would be inflicted upon a child cannot be dismissed or avoided.
2)c) That it has not been proven conclusively one way or the other if children are intrinsicly psychologically traumatised by sex involving adults, and that the chance of this being true in the absence of conclusive evidence either way should be sufficient reason to err on the side of caution.

What we've been arguing most of this debate is a hypothetical.
3) If it were proven that children are not inherently harmed by sex, and if society stopped heaping on it's additional trauma, sexual acts which do not cause physical harm could morally be engaged in with willing children.
3)a) Children are capable of desiring sexual activity. I provided this link to that effect:
http://ssw.unc.edu/fcrp/cspn/vol7_no2/normal.htm
3)b) Children can be informed about sexual activities and their consequences.
3)b)i) There is no inate, emotional bond created by copulation, and thus there is no need to be prepared for it. If there were such an inate bond created, one night stands could not happen, as both parties would feel the connection and would stay together longer than one night.
3)b)ii) The mechanics of sex can be explained to and compehended by a child. You conceeded this point some time ago.
3)b)iii) Sexual activiteis need not inherently involve greater risk of disease or injury than other forms of activity. Unless you are going to claim that there is a common consensus about the dangers of touching a penis, it would seem there is no need to further justify this point.

Everything else has just been a side arguement. I feel everything in all three arguements is either self-evident, or has been supported in some way. I sincerely hope we can make progress here, since we've been bogged down so much by these niggling side arguements. Even the "is it a disease or a sexuality" thing is really just another meaningless side arguement, having nothing to do with the three points I actually care about.

I suggest we lock them up and throw away the key.

But we'll do it nicely if you insist.


We'll give them a window.
A window with bars ;)

You just don't get it.

Oh, I get it. You just don't like what I'm getting. But, hey, if you accept that I'm understanding you and still don't agree, then you'll also have to accept that you arguments have no support. So instead let's make it that I don't get it.

I didn't claim that children are not inherently harmed by sexual activities. I claimed that this was unproven. The respons to claims that something is unproven is not, and cannot reasonably be "prove it was never proven". The reasonable refutation of such a statement is "It was prove here".

Actually, you said it cannot be proven which, of course means you should be able to debunk the support for current medical and psychological wisdom on the subject. You can't. You haven't. I notice you word your claims in a way to shift the burden of proof, but the medical wisdom is supported and widely-held. You've given no one any reason to think otherwise, which is fine with me since I don't want anyone to think otherwise. So keep on keeping on, friend. You're not helping your case.

The worst of it is that your comments in the other thread suggest that you feel largely the same as I do on this subject, believing that the current hysteria does more harm than good, but in this thread, you've repeatedly expressed satisfaction with the status quo apparently for no other reason than because I am advocating for change.

Um, no. You bastardize my comments like I've seen you do to everyone else. The currect medical and psychological wisdom is accurate and I've held that in both threads. I've also held in both threads that the hysteria that the public has toward mistreating people who are innocent of a crime is a problem.

I'm trying to give you a little credit, but if you can't tell the difference between telling people who are threatening to force incarceration or 'rehabilitation' on innocent people that they are part of the problem and telling people who are acting as if the urges of pedophiles are healthy that they're clocked, then I'm wrong to do so. 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. In addition, the current reaction of much of the public discourages pedophiles from coming forward of their own volition. I've said that in both threads, but each thread has a different focus.

You hear what you want to hear. You ignore pretty much everything that doesn't allow you to act as if your urges are healthy. You bastardize the comments of many of the more reasonable posters you've encountered while getting annoyed when peopel do it to you. I think people like you and DSN spark the hysteria because it allows you to justify your claims that the histeria is the reason there is a problem. You like riling people all up. Why not? If everyone acted reasonably to your claims and simply cautiously suggested therapy, you'd have to admit that the originator of the problem is *gasp* sitting inside your skin.


The fact is that I've conceeded the point that children are harmed by sexual encounters with adults. You seem to think that I'm a danger because I hold a different view on the source of that damage than you do. Somehow you've gotten the impression that I'm trying to twist the view that society contributes to the harm inflicted on molested children into some sort of justification for child molesters. This is patently offensive.

I think you're a danger because you shirk the responsibility for that harm and you justify people like we see in the other thread on both sides because you fail to see, and I believe intentionally, that the true responsibility for the harm begins with you. It doesn't end with you like you try to portray. You're not an innocent victim of a society that doesn't encourage you to use children like playthings.


If you need to feel like you've won, go ahead. The fact is that we don't disagree significantly, except for the fact that we strongly disagree on the nature of arguementation, which, face facts, is exactly what your problem has been with me the entire time. You've refused to hear a single point I've made, instead drowing them out with your constant demands of "prove it" and "this isn't relavent" while all the while perpetuating a discussion of the things you've called irrelavent.

No, my problem with you is that you don't take responsiblity for yourself and your urges. You act as if you are a victim of a society that won't allow you to prey on children. Sexualizing children is an illness. On the acceptance of pedophilia we differ a great deal.


My arguement, such as it is, can be boiled down to the following points. If you have any intention of continuing this debate, you might consider addressing them instead of continuing to spout about irrelavencies of form.

1) That the current hysteria causes far more harm than good.

You lump medical and psychological dealings with the dealings of the public. You've oversimplified your points and it is no accident. The 'hysteria' is only on the part of the public. Generally, psychology is trying to address people who have urges to a degree that makes them harmful to themselves and harmful to children if they act upon them.

You make your summaries vague, but in your arguments you focus on the medical community more than the public. The medical community has an appropriate and measured response.

1)a) That the current hysteria heaps psychological trauma onto the victum of child molestation above and beyond any caused by the initial act.

Something you've not proven.

1)b) That the current hysteria causes pedophiles who might become a danger to avoid seeking help for their stress because there is a legitimate fear for their health and safety if they were identified.

I agree with this point.

2) That a pedophile should not act on his/her sexual attraction.

Yes, you say they shouldn't but then you justify their actions by some of your arguments like those claiming the only known harm is that caused by events that only happen some of the time When challenged on the fact those events only happen some of the time, you changed the subject or claimed it was just an example. You have yet to address this, but why should anyone be surprised at this point?

2)a) That some sexual acts would represent a risk of physical harm to the child involved.

All sex acts would. But, hey, why pick nits?

2)b) That the social trauma that would be inflicted upon a child cannot be dismissed or avoided.

Actually so far your vague 'social trauma' doesn't always occur. It can happen, but you've made no effort to show how it always happens or even remotely support that claim.

The trauma to the child cannot be avoided. Some part of this trauma might be social, but the child is always trauma but I've seen no evidence and you've shown no evidence that the child is always socially traumatized. It's just another of your claims you refuse to support.


2)c) That it has not been proven conclusively one way or the other if children are intrinsicly psychologically traumatised by sex involving adults, and that the chance of this being true in the absence of conclusive evidence either way should be sufficient reason to err on the side of caution.

I agree there is reason to err on the side of caution but given that studies documenting the harm are profoundly prevelent and you've not shown any to the contrary, one wonders how you claim it is inconclusive. Oh, right, the absurd claim that it's not the abuser that harms the child, but instead the people trying to deal with the abuse. Uh-huh.


What we've been arguing most of this debate is a hypothetical.
3) If it were proven that children are not inherently harmed by sex, and if society stopped heaping on it's additional trauma, sexual acts which do not cause physical harm could morally be engaged in with willing children.

So far there is no evidence for this so it is a far-fetched hypothetical.

3)a) Children are capable of desiring sexual activity. I provided this link to that effect:
http://ssw.unc.edu/fcrp/cspn/vol7_no2/normal.htm

They are also capable of desiring suicide. They are capable of desiring diving with sharks. It doesn't make it healthy for them to do so. As adults, we have a responsibility to protect children until they reach an age where they can make better decisions.

3)b) Children can be informed about sexual activities and their consequences.

They can be informed about it. They cannot appropriately weigh the consequences of those actions. This is the same reason we don't generally try 12-year-olds as adults.


3)b)i) There is no inate, emotional bond created by copulation, and thus there is no need to be prepared for it. If there were such an inate bond created, one night stands could not happen, as both parties would feel the connection and would stay together longer than one night.

Actually, this is more evidence that you are describing a selfish act. Thank you. Some people try to pretend that their sexualization of children is a loving act. The bond isn't the issue. No bond doesn't mean no emotional or psychological consequences. Amusingly, we have on pedophile arguing it's just sex and another arguing that it's a required expression of love. Apparently the only consistent in the justifications made by pedophiles is that they are self-serving and inaccurate.


3)b)ii) The mechanics of sex can be explained to and compehended by a child. You conceeded this point some time ago.

The mechanics have shite to do with it.

3)b)iii) Sexual activiteis need not inherently involve greater risk of disease or injury than other forms of activity. Unless you are going to claim that there is a common consensus about the dangers of touching a penis, it would seem there is no need to further justify this point.

First, we're not talking about touching a penis. My doctor touches my penis. That's not a sex act.

Now, touching a penis in a sexual way has emotional and psychological baggage, just as a one-night stand does. You can pretend that it does not, but the fact that people do it, doesn't make it healthy. And there is a common consensus that sexual activity, not just intercourse, has emotional and psychological consequences.

Again, you make a claim that you've not shown any support for and very much turns the conventional wisdom on its head. But I won't ask for any, because you won't provide it anyway.


Everything else has just been a side arguement.

Yes, side arguments you've encouraged to avoid being captured on these points. Even in this list you mix points together or use bastardized language to make your points sound more innocuous. It's not just 'touching a penis'. And the only hysteria that there is any evidence for is the hysteria on the part of the public. You've suggested similar hysteria on the part of the medical community but haven't evidenced it.

I feel everything in all three arguements is either self-evident, or has been supported in some way. I sincerely hope we can make progress here, since we've been bogged down so much by these niggling side arguements. Even the "is it a disease or a sexuality" thing is really just another meaningless side arguement, having nothing to do with the three points I actually care about.

Of course, you feel it's been supported. Otherwise you'd have to admit that you're efforts here are selfish and simply an attempt to justify to yourself and others what you wish to be true.

Oh, I get it. You just don't like what I'm getting. But, hey, if you accept that I'm understanding you and still don't agree, then you'll also have to accept that you arguments have no support. So instead let's make it that I don't get it.

That wasn't a question. You really don't seem to get it. This isn't even a question of arguementation. You don't seem to understand my position. You claim to understand my position better than I do, but you seem to be arguing based on the assumption that I'm something I'm not.

Actually, you said it cannot be proven which, of course means you should be able to debunk the support for current medical and psychological wisdom on the subject. You can't. You haven't. I notice you word your claims in a way to shift the burden of proof, but the medical wisdom is supported and widely-held. You've given no one any reason to think otherwise, which is fine with me since I don't want anyone to think otherwise. So keep on keeping on, friend. You're not helping your case.

Widely held is not in the least bit in debate here. Supported is somewhat more questionable. I'd love the oportunity to debunk the support for current medical and psychological wisdom on the subject. Sadly, that support has been rather shy this thread. For some reason no one feels it's important enough to point out that support. But do go on. I'm sure there are a lot of people reading this thread who cheer every time you say "burdon of proof" then refuse to back up anything you say.

Um, no. You bastardize my comments like I've seen you do to everyone else. The currect medical and psychological wisdom is accurate and I've held that in both threads. I've also held in both threads that the hysteria that the public has toward mistreating people who are innocent of a crime is a problem.

I'm trying to give you a little credit, but if you can't tell the difference between telling people who are threatening to force incarceration or 'rehabilitation' on innocent people that they are part of the problem and telling people who are acting as if the urges of pedophiles are healthy that they're clocked, then I'm wrong to do so. 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. In addition, the current reaction of much of the public discourages pedophiles from coming forward of their own volition. I've said that in both threads, but each thread has a different focus.

If I read that correctly, you feel that people like me are sick and in desprate need of treatment, but you don't advocate forcing that treatment on us, in spite of the horrible danger I and those like me genuinely present. Do you see why I'm having a hard time reconciling this? (And please don't bother to respond if your only response is going to be to question my reading comprehension or intelligence again. Feel free to question it, but if you do, at least make it easier to comprehend.)

You hear what you want to hear. You ignore pretty much everything that doesn't allow you to act as if your urges are healthy.

If I seem to have ignored anything, it would be because in a previous thread, I ran into the probem of people not bothering to read the ten page long posts I wrote trying to respond to every single point raised by every single poster. If you feel I've ignored or missed some important point, please reiterate it.

You bastardize the comments of many of the more reasonable posters you've encountered while getting annoyed when peopel do it to you.

Who are you reffering to when you talk of these "more reasonable posters"? Other than yourself of course.

I think people like you and DSN spark the hysteria because it allows you to justify your claims that the histeria is the reason there is a problem. You like riling people all up.

Because of course there weren't people calling for lynchings, castrations, and incarcerations for thought-crime before either of us showed up. :rolleyes:

Why not? If everyone acted reasonably to your claims and simply cautiously suggested therapy, you'd have to admit that the originator of the problem is *gasp* sitting inside your skin.

In your words, I'm not going to deal with impossible fantasy solutions.

I think you're a danger because you shirk the responsibility for that harm and you justify people like we see in the other thread on both sides because you fail to see, and I believe intentionally, that the true responsibility for the harm begins with you. It doesn't end with you like you try to portray. You're not an innocent victim of a society that doesn't encourage you to use children like playthings.

Well, it's good to know that I'm not an innocent victum of society. After all, you've obviously got some evidence that I've done something to deserve all this. Presumably you've got evidence that I'm responsible for harming a child. That is what you're saying. "The harm begins with you." Seems to me that I've harmed someone. "You shirk responsibility for that harm." Tell me, what harm should I be held responsible for? I'm getting real tired of you continuing to talk to me like I'm a child molester, especially in light of you having previously admited that there is no evidence supporting that assumption.

No, my problem with you is that you don't take responsiblity for yourself and your urges. You act as if you are a victim of a society that won't allow you to prey on children. Sexualizing children is an illness. On the acceptance of pedophilia we differ a great deal.

So that's it, is it? You think I should stand up and take responsibility? You think I should be mentally distraught and on the verge of suacide because I find kids attractive? You also continue to avoid the fact that I've repeatedly explained my reasoning for not approaching children sexually, and instead seem to insist that I must be going "oh poor me, I can't rape little kids". Considering that, regardless of your opinion on their validity, all of my reasons for abstaining center around the potential for harm to the child, you're continued insistence that my only goal is to get the chance to molest a child legally has crossed the line into offensive. You've defended my claims that I'm not a child molester, but you don't seem to get that I'm not a wannabe child molester either.

You lump medical and psychological dealings with the dealings of the public. You've oversimplified your points and it is no accident. The 'hysteria' is only on the part of the public. Generally, psychology is trying to address people who have urges to a degree that makes them harmful to themselves and harmful to children if they act upon them.

I should think my reasons for simplifying my arguements should be self-evident. It seemed to me that you didn't understand my point of view, so it seemed reasonable to limit the scope and simplify matters so we didn't get bogged down on details.

The hysteria may well be only on the part of the public. I'm not conceeding it as true, but will accept it as a possibility. Do you think children are not exposed to the general public opinion? That their parents are able to shield them from it? I talked about the issues with the medical community because they were obvious and clearly demonstrable. Your response was that they were not universally applicable. I suspect that your response to my most recent statement will be that these statements are not obvious or clearly demonstable. Feel free to prove me wrong.

You make your summaries vague, but in your arguments you focus on the medical community more than the public. The medical community has an appropriate and measured response.

What is that response? What is the medical community's response to a pedophile coming in for stress related to his condition? What is the community's response to a child who's been abused but doesn't yet know he/she has been abused? You know the response is appropriate and measured, so that must mean you know what that response is.

Something you've not proven.

Again, you feel that there is no additional trauma resulting from the things I've mentioned? You feel that reliving a rape on the witness stand or the therapist couch over and over again is a benign experience?

I agree with this point.

Good. It's encouraging that you'll agree with things you stated yourself earlier, even if I'm the one saying them.

Yes, you say they shouldn't but then you justify their actions by some of your arguments like those claiming the only known harm is that caused by events that only happen some of the time When challenged on the fact those events only happen some of the time, you changed the subject or claimed it was just an example. You have yet to address this, but why should anyone be surprised at this point?

In other words you disagree with my assertion that pedophiles shouldn't have sex with kids? You seem hell bent on convincing me that the harm I believe to be a constant could potentially be avoided. What gives?

All sex acts would. But, hey, why pick nits?

Did you miss the word "physically"? But whatever. This is addressed again later on. I'll deal with it there.

Actually so far your vague 'social trauma' doesn't always occur. It can happen, but you've made no effort to show how it always happens or even remotely support that claim.

The trauma to the child cannot be avoided. Some part of this trauma might be social, but the child is always trauma but I've seen no evidence and you've shown no evidence that the child is always socially traumatized. It's just another of your claims you refuse to support.

Similarly I've seen you provide no evidence that a child can successfully avoid social trauma. You offered such evidence, but when I told you I would accept it, you became remarkably tight lipped.

I agree there is reason to err on the side of caution but given that studies documenting the harm are profoundly prevelent and you've not shown any to the contrary, one wonders how you claim it is inconclusive. Oh, right, the absurd claim that it's not the abuser that harms the child, but instead the people trying to deal with the abuse. Uh-huh.

I have to question if you've even read Rind. I mean I know you've read the rebuttals, since I've seen you go over them in previous threads, but have you read the original study itself? Rind's scholastic sin was taking his research and attepting to advocate for change within it, rather than simply suggesting further study. What he found does suggest further study, and the fact of the matter is that it hasn't been done.

Unless of course you have a follow up study?

So far there is no evidence for this so it is a far-fetched hypothetical.

I agree. That's probably the biggest problem we've been having. I've been treating this as a far fetched hypothetical, but you seem to have gotten the impression that I actually believed it would, or could happen. I'm not nearly as deluded as you seem to think.

They are also capable of desiring suicide. They are capable of desiring diving with sharks. It doesn't make it healthy for them to do so. As adults, we have a responsibility to protect children until they reach an age where they can make better decisions.

Did you miss where it was posited that children are incapable of sexual desire back in this thread? Did you miss the tacked on requirement of sexual desire to the prerequisites for consent a previous poster added?

I find it strange that after so much effort you've expended trying to get me to post evidence about pedophilia and child sexuality, that the first thing you say when I give you a link is that the entire point is irrelavent.

They can be informed about it. They cannot appropriately weigh the consequences of those actions. This is the same reason we don't generally try 12-year-olds as adults.

The thing is that we do try 12 year olds as adults.
http://www.stp.uh.edu/vol66/120/opinion/oped1.html
http://www.wltx.com/news/news19.aspx?storyid=36494

I can find more if you need them.

Apparently the courts have determined that 12 year olds can appropriately weigh the cosequences of their actions. (Or are you going to say criminal responsibility is irrelavent?)

Actually, this is more evidence that you are describing a selfish act. Thank you. Some people try to pretend that their sexualization of children is a loving act. The bond isn't the issue. No bond doesn't mean no emotional or psychological consequences. Amusingly, we have on pedophile arguing it's just sex and another arguing that it's a required expression of love. Apparently the only consistent in the justifications made by pedophiles is that they are self-serving and inaccurate.

I'm not sure I understand. Do you feel I'm wrong, and that the act of copulation does create a bond between people? Or do you simply feel that it would be self-serving of me to point out the absurdity of the notion? What I find ammusing, if you can call it that, is that you're trying to have it both ways. Either there is an emotional bond formed by sex or there isn't. Which is it?

The mechanics have shite to do with it.

Well, one cannot be said to consent to something if they don't even know the barest mechanical essentials of what they are consenting to, can they? You seem to think I've only included points I feel to be in contention here.

First, we're not talking about touching a penis. My doctor touches my penis. That's not a sex act.

Now, touching a penis in a sexual way has emotional and psychological baggage, just as a one-night stand does. You can pretend that it does not, but the fact that people do it, doesn't make it healthy. And there is a common consensus that sexual activity, not just intercourse, has emotional and psychological consequences.

Again, you make a claim that you've not shown any support for and very much turns the conventional wisdom on its head. But I won't ask for any, because you won't provide it anyway.

You seem to have missed the fact that this particular subpoint was about risk of physical injury and disease. The emotional aspects were addressed under subpoint 3)b)i). Will you tell me that there are serious risks of injury or disease because a person touched a penis? (If it makes you feel better, go ahead and tack on "in a sexual way". The question still stands.)

Yes, side arguments you've encouraged to avoid being captured on these points.

That doesn't make sense. If I was encouraging the side arguements, and didn't want to address these points, why would I have dropped those side arguements and written up this list of points?

Even in this list you mix points together or use bastardized language to make your points sound more innocuous. It's not just 'touching a penis'.

I've striven for as clinical and detached an analysis of my arguements as I could formulate. I felt it neccisary to include the phrase you quoted to specifically address the point that not all sex acts result in physical harm. I was attempting to make no value statement with that wording, but rather describe an act which, while obviously sexual, would also obviously lack the big risks of pregnancy and disease, at least being no more dangerous than nonsexual activities.

And the only hysteria that there is any evidence for is the hysteria on the part of the public. You've suggested similar hysteria on the part of the medical community but haven't evidenced it.

You'll note I've dropped a lot of points that were tangental to our real discussion when I wrote that post. The idea was to strip this down to the bare essentials, rather than get bogged down by other things.

Of course, you feel it's been supported. Otherwise you'd have to admit that you're efforts here are selfish and simply an attempt to justify to yourself and others what you wish to be true.
Well, actually, the reason I feel it's been supported is because I was the one making the statements in the first place. If I didn't think they'd hold up, I wouldn't have made them.

As for the rest, what exactly is it I'm after here? Don't beat around the bush with euphamisms. What is it that I'm trying to justify to myself? What do I want to do that needs justification? Either accuse me of something or cut out these insinuations.

I'm not sure if this article has been posted. I noticed it the other day and thought it might be interesting to posters in this thread.

It's about a program where volunteers are organised into 'circles' to to act as supporters and watchdogs for a core member (a medium or high level sex offender).

The couple of case studies it focuses on aren't 'genetic' paedophiles, but people who were abused and traumatised when they were young and subsquently went on to abuse others when they were older.

An interesting, but long read for those of you who are open minded enough to consider someone else's opinion.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/story/0,,1817720,00.html

That wasn't a question. You really don't seem to get it. This isn't even a question of arguementation. You don't seem to understand my position. You claim to understand my position better than I do, but you seem to be arguing based on the assumption that I'm something I'm not.

I know you weren't asking a question. I wasn't answering one. You think I don't understand you. You're wrong. Just like your position is. My analysis that your position is self-serving is not because I don't understand it. It's because I do. I don't claim to understand your position better than you do. I'm responding to what you say.

Widely held is not in the least bit in debate here. Supported is somewhat more questionable. I'd love the oportunity to debunk the support for current medical and psychological wisdom on the subject. Sadly, that support has been rather shy this thread. For some reason no one feels it's important enough to point out that support. But do go on. I'm sure there are a lot of people reading this thread who cheer every time you say "burdon of proof" then refuse to back up anything you say.

Yes, of course. As always, the shifting of burden of proof. "I'm trying to change everyone's minds and it's on everyone else to prove to me that they're not wrong or they are." Yep, that's good debate tactics there. You admit you're the one making the claims here at the end of this post. So shifting the burden on me is more than a little dishonest, my friend.


If I read that correctly, you feel that people like me are sick and in desprate need of treatment, but you don't advocate forcing that treatment on us, in spite of the horrible danger I and those like me genuinely present. Do you see why I'm having a hard time reconciling this? (And please don't bother to respond if your only response is going to be to question my reading comprehension or intelligence again. Feel free to question it, but if you do, at least make it easier to comprehend.)

Again, like so often is your way, you hyperbolize the position. I know why you do it, but it's poor debate. Meanwhile, unless someone presents an direct danger, I don't advocate disturbing their rights. What's so complicated about that? The fact that you have higher chance of being dangerous to children doesn't mean you don't deserve rights. If we start trying to guess who's dangerous no one will have rights.


If I seem to have ignored anything, it would be because in a previous thread, I ran into the probem of people not bothering to read the ten page long posts I wrote trying to respond to every single point raised by every single poster. If you feel I've ignored or missed some important point, please reiterate it.

You said that before. You asked me to state which points I thought needed more support and you'd offer that support. Your credibility is shot. Mainly because when you made a similar claim before, you didn't actually follow through.

Who are you reffering to when you talk of these "more reasonable posters"? Other than yourself of course.

Again, anything to change the subject. It's not important. I don't like dragging other posters into this and the only way a discussion like this goes is to end up with you attacking them because I've entered their name into your defense.


Because of course there weren't people calling for lynchings, castrations, and incarcerations for thought-crime before either of us showed up. :rolleyes:

I said people like you and he, and before you there were others that were muddying the waters and doing it on purpose. You intentionally wrap people around the axle.


In your words, I'm not going to deal with impossible fantasy solutions.

No, but what isn't impossible is to end up somewhere in the middle, but as long as people like you are winding people up, that's never going to happen. But hey, if you don't wind people up you won't be able to blame them anymore, now will you?


Well, it's good to know that I'm not an innocent victum of society. After all, you've obviously got some evidence that I've done something to deserve all this. Presumably you've got evidence that I'm responsible for harming a child. That is what you're saying. "The harm begins with you." Seems to me that I've harmed someone. "You shirk responsibility for that harm." Tell me, what harm should I be held responsible for? I'm getting real tired of you continuing to talk to me like I'm a child molester, especially in light of you having previously admited that there is no evidence supporting that assumption.

We're talking about a hypothetical situation where a child IS harmed. If you cannot follow along, then let's end this here. Clearly when we are talking about the harm to children, that a child was harmed must be assumed, no? I have never treated as you as someone who has molested a child and, in fact, I've clearly stated that I don't think people should assume you should when they've attacked you for that. So this bs about how I'm treating you like a child molester is a blatant attempt to attack me. I treat you like a person that admits they would like the law changed in a way that would allow them to perform sex acts on children, or don't you remember what I originally called your impossible fantasy solution. It's an accurate way to treat you since you openly said it.



So that's it, is it? You think I should stand up and take responsibility? You think I should be mentally distraught and on the verge of suacide because I find kids attractive? You also continue to avoid the fact that I've repeatedly explained my reasoning for not approaching children sexually, and instead seem to insist that I must be going "oh poor me, I can't rape little kids". Considering that, regardless of your opinion on their validity, all of my reasons for abstaining center around the potential for harm to the child, you're continued insistence that my only goal is to get the chance to molest a child legally has crossed the line into offensive. You've defended my claims that I'm not a child molester, but you don't seem to get that I'm not a wannabe child molester either.

I think you should deal with that attraction and recognize that shoud you act not on that attraction and that any harm would be caused by your action, not the 'hysteria' of society.

You said that, but you also advocated a change in law so that you could be allowed to interact sexually with children. Or did we suddenly forget that?



I should think my reasons for simplifying my arguements should be self-evident. It seemed to me that you didn't understand my point of view, so it seemed reasonable to limit the scope and simplify matters so we didn't get bogged down on details.

Simplifying an argument to the point of being inaccurate doesn't help with clarity. And I don't misunderstand your position. You just don't like my reaction to it. But, hey, it's easier to just suggest I don't understand. Otherwise, you'd have to admit your argument sucks.


The hysteria may well be only on the part of the public. I'm not conceeding it as true, but will accept it as a possibility. Do you think children are not exposed to the general public opinion? That their parents are able to shield them from it? I talked about the issues with the medical community because they were obvious and clearly demonstrable. Your response was that they were not universally applicable. I suspect that your response to my most recent statement will be that these statements are not obvious or clearly demonstable. Feel free to prove me wrong.

More weak argumentation. Once again you insinuate that the medical community is a part of the problem, but you offer no evidence and state it in such a weak way so you can deny it later.

Prove you wrong? You haven't demonstrated anything. On every point you've made, I can simply assume you're wrong, because you haven't supported any of it. That's the way it works in debate. Your whole argument has been "prove me wrong." You have to prove you right. You haven't.


What is that response? What is the medical community's response to a pedophile coming in for stress related to his condition? What is the community's response to a child who's been abused but doesn't yet know he/she has been abused? You know the response is appropriate and measured, so that must mean you know what that response is.

Um, yes, I experienced it first hand. Again, the burden of proof is on you. In my case, they said it was no big deal and that my parents needn't bring it up at all. It was actually very limited. That was 30 years ago, of course.

These days they would deal with it. There are cases of incidents being overblown, but a few incidents shows nothing. If we're going by the selective incidents of a small portion of a community then you'd be in forced rehab, no?


Again, you feel that there is no additional trauma resulting from the things I've mentioned? You feel that reliving a rape on the witness stand or the therapist couch over and over again is a benign experience?

Again, that's not a required part of the experience. You keep mentioning things that only sometimes happen, but your understanding of logic appears to be so limited that you don't understand that anyone who was traumatized by an event BEFORE doing those things would, of course, be demonstration of innate harm. So unless you can show that EVERYONE who goes through the experience, experiences an overblown response then your position is untenable.


Good. It's encouraging that you'll agree with things you stated yourself earlier, even if I'm the one saying them.

I always agree with myself. I tend to be very consistent. Now if only the posters I talk to would be equally reliable.


In other words you disagree with my assertion that pedophiles shouldn't have sex with kids? You seem hell bent on convincing me that the harm I believe to be a constant could potentially be avoided. What gives?

Yes, you make that assertion while equally justifying sex with kids and advocating a change to law that would allow pedophiles to have sex with kids. So much for consistency.


Did you miss the word "physically"? But whatever. This is addressed again later on. I'll deal with it there.

I don't miss it. I just won't allow you to both overgeneralize in areas to make your points misleading and nonsensical or overly limit your comments to make them useless. You put this comment in with a bunch of other comments that make it seem as if physically is the only concern. I don't agree and, again, I think your arguments are self-serving and dangerous.


Similarly I've seen you provide no evidence that a child can successfully avoid social trauma. You offered such evidence, but when I told you I would accept it, you became remarkably tight lipped.

Pardon? I gave you the example of people who don't experience the things you amount to social trauma and your reply was that you were giving a limited example. I asked you to show how there was a more blanketing example and you didn't. I consider the matter unproven. Even in this post you give examples of social experiences that may or may not cause significant trauma but that only happen in a limited, generally very limited, number of the experiences. Unless you come up with some social harm that always happens, your point has no value. The evidence is in the fact that you've offered no social harm or combinations of social harms that cover all or even a large majority of offenses.


I have to question if you've even read Rind. I mean I know you've read the rebuttals, since I've seen you go over them in previous threads, but have you read the original study itself? Rind's scholastic sin was taking his research and attepting to advocate for change within it, rather than simply suggesting further study. What he found does suggest further study, and the fact of the matter is that it hasn't been done.



Unless of course you have a follow up study?

YOu don't have to follow up a flawed study with methodological errors with anything really. Rind et al show a bias that in looking at overall output cannot be ignored. They included studies in their analysis that did differentiate between child sex acts with peers and child sexual abuse. The sampling was not random or representative. Every outcome of the study is unreliable other than finding that some people do not report harm from sexual encounters as children. It cannot conclude what percentage do not self-report or if that percentage is significant. It cannot report if that percentage is as a result of sexplay between people of similar ages or from pedophilic acts. It cannot report if the percentage is within the reasonable error of self-reporting. Essentially, there is no conclusion it can make that has any real weight. They analyzed a conclusion that isn't held with the purpose of 'debunking' the conclusion they pretended someone held, that all people would self-report harm from child sexual activity. They did successfully debunk it, of course, which is why no one holds that conclusion.

So if your goal with Rind is to prove that not all college students would self-report that child sexual activity resulted in harm then consider it proven.

For an better understanding of the flaw in the study, try this. I line up 1000 people and I punch each on of them in the mouth as hard as I can. The people are chosen at random. I pick out the group of them that are college males and I ask them if my punch hurt. One third of college males in my study report that the punch in the mouth didn't hurt. My conclusion that pain is not an natural and expected result of a punch in the mouth. Forget that analysis is biased and that it was self-reported and that we don't know the actual relationship of my sampling to the overal population we're addressing and that the group was selected and not random. Forget all that. Now, tell me if pain is a natural result of someone punching you in the mouth as hard as they can? Of course to be more similar to the Rind study I would also have had to included at least on sample that could have slapped, bitten, hugged or punched. But, I think my example is flawed enough without include ALL of the flaws of the Rind study.


I agree. That's probably the biggest problem we've been having. I've been treating this as a far fetched hypothetical, but you seem to have gotten the impression that I actually believed it would, or could happen. I'm not nearly as deluded as you seem to think.

If it's a far-fetched hypothetical, what is the point?

Did you miss where it was posited that children are incapable of sexual desire back in this thread? Did you miss the tacked on requirement of sexual desire to the prerequisites for consent a previous poster added?

I find it strange that after so much effort you've expended trying to get me to post evidence about pedophilia and child sexuality, that the first thing you say when I give you a link is that the entire point is irrelavent.

I didn't say it was irrelevant. I said that the fact that they desire something doesn't make it healthy. I don't subscribe to your view on what constitutes consent. The fact that children desire sexual activity is not relevant to whether or not children should engage in sexual activity with adults or even at all for that matter. I don't remember claiming that adolescents aren't capable of sexual desire, nor do I remember anyone saying that adolescents aren't capable of sexual desire. Yes, you're quite willing to support points that aren't actually at issue. I have noticed that.


The thing is that we do try 12 year olds as adults.
http://www.stp.uh.edu/vol66/120/opinion/oped1.html
http://www.wltx.com/news/news19.aspx?storyid=36494

I can find more if you need them.

Whoops. Golly, if only I'd said "This is the same reason we don't generally try 12-year-olds as adults."

I actually disagree with the practice, myself. However, it is usually done when the child has a disorder that means they will never be able to function in society. Meanwhile, quick what percentage of children is that? Go ahead and calculate. I'll wait. I suggest you use scientific notation or the decimal point is going to be so long it will difficult to read.

And oh, looky links are provided so long as they aren't related to the actual points at issue. More evidence that you'll support anything other than your views on pedophilia. No shock there.


Apparently the courts have determined that 12 year olds can appropriately weigh the cosequences of their actions. (Or are you going to say criminal responsibility is irrelavent?)

Actually, I would say that the reasoning behind such decisions are political. People get angry about children getting away with those types of crimes. The mass of the psychological community disagrees with it. Those issues are similar to the reason people who are mentally ill still end up in prison. Our system is biased agains the mentally ill, but that is again another topic for discussion and unrelated unless you can show that the percentage of children considered to be adults by the court is significant. I'll be happy to look.


I'm not sure I understand. Do you feel I'm wrong, and that the act of copulation does create a bond between people? Or do you simply feel that it would be self-serving of me to point out the absurdity of the notion? What I find ammusing, if you can call it that, is that you're trying to have it both ways. Either there is an emotional bond formed by sex or there isn't. Which is it?

Again, you use a specific term to bastardize the idea. The 'bond' you mention isn't the only thing that would matter. You simplify these ideas to the point of absurdity becuase if you look at the more complicated ways humans interact the harm becomes more evident. And every time I mention one of the more complicated ways humans interact you either pretend not to understand or actually don't understand.

Let's see... which is it? Sometimes there is and sometimes there isn't. However, there are many forms of emotional effect of sexual activity other than a 'bond'. The way you address this issue resembles asking me when I stopped beating my wife and getting angry when I give you an explanation because your question if messed up rather than a date.

Well, one cannot be said to consent to something if they don't even know the barest mechanical essentials of what they are consenting to, can they? You seem to think I've only included points I feel to be in contention here.

No, I seem to think that you listed it as an argument. No one is claiming children can't understand the arguments so all evidence suggests that you think this supports some claim justifying pedophilia or why mention it. It doesn't. At all. You mention points that aren't at issue as if they support your argument. They don't. That was what I said.


You seem to have missed the fact that this particular subpoint was about risk of physical injury and disease. The emotional aspects were addressed under subpoint 3)b)i). Will you tell me that there are serious risks of injury or disease because a person touched a penis? (If it makes you feel better, go ahead and tack on "in a sexual way". The question still stands.)

I telling you that you separate these points out to the point of absurdity. In 3bi you mention an emotional bond as if showing that people don't necessarily bond means there is no emotional impact. Separately or together your argument is flawed. Like I said, you simplify your argument to the point of absurdity and when I try to draw things back together so that they make sense you complain or don't understand (or pretend not to). Bonding isn't the only emotional impact that exists. Deal with it.


That doesn't make sense. If I was encouraging the side arguements, and didn't want to address these points, why would I have dropped those side arguements and written up this list of points?

You didn't drop them. I did.


I've striven for as clinical and detached an analysis of my arguements as I could formulate. I felt it neccisary to include the phrase you quoted to specifically address the point that not all sex acts result in physical harm. I was attempting to make no value statement with that wording, but rather describe an act which, while obviously sexual, would also obviously lack the big risks of pregnancy and disease, at least being no more dangerous than nonsexual activities.

No, you do the argument a disservice by simplifying it to absurdity. Some acts have physical risks. All have emotional and psychological risks. None of them are just 'touching a penis'. You word this like a child words it and it's not an accurate discription.


You'll note I've dropped a lot of points that were tangental to our real discussion when I wrote that post. The idea was to strip this down to the bare essentials, rather than get bogged down by other things.

Yes, after I'd refused to discuss any of them. Yes, I noticed. However, even in this post you were happy to post evidence about 12-year-olds tried as adults but still won't support your basic claims.

Well, actually, the reason I feel it's been supported is because I was the one making the statements in the first place. If I didn't think they'd hold up, I wouldn't have made them.

As for the rest, what exactly is it I'm after here? Don't beat around the bush with euphamisms. What is it that I'm trying to justify to myself? What do I want to do that needs justification? Either accuse me of something or cut out these insinuations.

Ah, finally got you to say it. You were the one making the statements in the first place. Guess where that squarely puts the burden of proof. Now, that you admit you're the originator of your statements, you'll support them, being the logical debator that you are.

Hmmm... I always love these tactics. "*Innocently* What am I doing?" Yes, you never suggested the law be changed to allow sex with minors. Nope, that wasn't you. You never undermined the current reasons why such things are outlawed without one iota of support. Yep, that wasn't you. You never quietly suggest things that support your self-serving claims and when pressed either pretend you're not really saying them or patronizingly capitulate (as if explaining your position is too exhausting so even though correct you'll just let it go). Yep, that wasn't. you. Yes, we're all so dense here that we can't see your manipulative tactics. See, I'm not ten, so I'm not manipulated with such poor and obvious tactics. Nor are most people here. But, isn't that why most pedophiles like children anyway?

I actually think that when they discover that someone is a pedophile (by action - either the rampant collection of child porn or the actual abuse of a child), they should give them a leucotomy, remove their genitals, and send them home.

They won't be able to tie their own shoelaces, let alone molest another child.

I actually think that when they discover that someone is a pedophile (by action - either the rampant collection of child porn or the actual abuse of a child), they should give them a leucotomy, remove their genitals, and send them home.

They won't be able to tie their own shoelaces, let alone molest another child.

Okay, as long as you'll agree that people who romanticize and advocate violence will full under a similar rule and have their testicles removed (to remove the testerone), and will also have a leucotomy. Make that the rule and I'm all over it. Fair enough? People who romanticize and advocate violence are far more dangerous. You admit you have strong criminally violent urges, so you'll be first in line, yes?

I actually think that when they discover that someone is a pedophile (by action - either the rampant collection of child porn or the actual abuse of a child), they should give them a leucotomy, remove their genitals, and send them home.

They won't be able to tie their own shoelaces, let alone molest another child.
Have you read anything in this thread at all? Do you really still think that paedophile automatically equates with child molester? Do you really think all paedophiles must absolutely be worthless people who should be thrown out of society?

Okay, as long as you'll agree that people who romanticize and advocate violence will full under a similar rule and have their testicles removed (to remove the testerone), and will also have a leucotomy. Make that the rule and I'm all over it. Fair enough? People who romanticize and advocate violence are far more dangerous. You admit you have strong criminally violent urges, so you'll be first in line, yes?

The difference is the difference between wolves and guard dogs.

Violence, especially when done on behalf of the state, is rewarded and encouraged. Police and military fall into this category.

There isn't a pedophile behavior that is rewarded and encouraged in our society.

While I may have violent urges, they are by no means criminal.

Have you read anything in this thread at all? Do you really still think that paedophile automatically equates with child molester? Do you really think all paedophiles must absolutely be worthless people who should be thrown out of society?

Doesn't mean we can't feel contempt for anyone who is sexually attracted to a child. I have absolutely no problem with that. Then should they actually try to act on their desires then castration seems like a good possible solution.

Have you read anything in this thread at all? Do you really still think that paedophile automatically equates with child molester? Do you really think all paedophiles must absolutely be worthless people who should be thrown out of society?
Yes, I do.

Yes, I do.
Why?

Why?
Because the US's most renowned expert on criminal behavior believes so. Dr. Stanton Samenow.

How "Errors in Thinking" Apply to Pedophiles

I have been asked occasionally whether the "errors in thinking" that give rise to many forms of criminal conduct apply also to sex offenders, especially pedophiles. The answer is that they do. Specifically:

1. The pedophile does not put himself in the place of the youngster in terms of considering possible psychological damage.
2. The pedophile justifies sexual contact with minors when held accountable in many ways, including saying that the youngster "wanted it." Even if this were the case, the perpetrator knows it is illegal and that not only he will pay a price for this behavior, but the youngster will likely have to face interviews by the police, social services, and others. That is, there is an aftermath that causes suffering even if the youngster willingly participated. So there is not an operational concept of "injury" to others.
3. The pedophile insists that the behavior be kept secret. He is exercising control over the youngster to protect himself.
4. The pedophile is shutting off from awareness deterrents, both in terms of potential consequences of what he knows to be a wrongful act, and he is shutting off deterrents of conscience.
5. The pedophile regards his situation as unique and fully acceptable and justifiable after the fact.
6. The pedophile often takes advantage of youngsters who are emotionally troubled and psychologically needy.
7. The pedophile operates in secrecy. He knows right from wrong but what he wants to do is "right" for him at the time.

These are among the thinking errors that perpetrators of other crimes demonstrate by their conduct.

The difference is the difference between wolves and guard dogs.

Violence, especially when done on behalf of the state, is rewarded and encouraged. Police and military fall into this category.

There isn't a pedophile behavior that is rewarded and encouraged in our society.

While I may have violent urges, they are by no means criminal.

Yes, they are criminal. When the pedophiles were recounting their stories did you or did you not say you considered your self-control to be worthy of praise because you didn't KILL them? Killing them for telling you a story, criminal. You're not a guard dog. You love violence and you found a way to fantasize about it and pretend you're a shiny Knight rather than a brigand. Here's a tip, if you're really interested in protecting people and that's your focus then you should be so excited about finding criminals and violently injuring them. You should long to never encounter one again. Not long to find the next one so you can commit your next offense.

Once again, you are ignoring the fact that not every paedophile is a child molester. You ignore the fact that quite a few realize it is wrong and refuse to ever follow through on their urges. You ignore the fact that societal pressures telling them that they are horrible monsters eventually make them snap and become that which society claims they are. You ignore the fact that BY TELLING THEM THEY ARE CHILD MOLESTERS YOU MAKE THEM EXACTLY WHAT YOU DESPISE!

Once again, you are ignoring the fact that not every paedophile is a child molester. You ignore the fact that quite a few realize it is wrong and refuse to ever follow through on their urges. You ignore the fact that societal pressures telling them that they are horrible monsters eventually make them snap and become that which society claims they are. You ignore the fact that BY TELLING THEM THEY ARE CHILD MOLESTERS YOU MAKE THEM EXACTLY WHAT YOU DESPISE!

Dr. Samenow says that pedophile = child molester.

Because the US's most renowned expert on criminal behavior believes so. Dr. Stanton Samenow.
This person is not referring to the majority of pedophiles by most studious accounts. The majority of pedophiles commit no illegal acts and never involve themselves with a child, thus a child cannot be harmed, not adequately thought or pressed to secrecy. He, like you, makes the assumption that child molester = pedophile and by every studious account that is simply not true.

Dr. Samenow says that pedophile = child molester.

Link? Because that is not true according to most diagnostic manuals on pedophillia

Dr. Samenow says that pedophile = child molester.
I suggest you try re-reading through this thread and actually look at it from another point of view, before you once again prove why American right-winged religious people are bigoted, disgusting people who should never be allowed to have power again.

This person is not referring to the majority of pedophiles by most studious accounts. The majority of pedophiles commit no illegal acts and never involve themselves with a child, thus a child cannot be harmed, not adequately thought or pressed to secrecy. He, like you, makes the assumption that child molester = pedophile and by every studious account that is simply not true.

He's extremely studious. Maybe you should read some of his papers and books.

He's also the premier expert on criminal behavior in the US.

Once again, you are ignoring the fact that not every paedophile is a child molester. You ignore the fact that quite a few realize it is wrong and refuse to ever follow through on their urges. You ignore the fact that societal pressures telling them that they are horrible monsters eventually make them snap and become that which society claims they are. You ignore the fact that BY TELLING THEM THEY ARE CHILD MOLESTERS YOU MAKE THEM EXACTLY WHAT YOU DESPISE!

They snap. Yeah. In other words they chose to harm a child and then doesn't take responsibility for their own actions. Blame society for what they did, it isn't their fault, oh no! :rolleyes:

They snap. Yeah. In other words they chose to harm a child and then doesn't take responsibility for their own actions. Blame society for what they did, it isn't their fault, oh no! :rolleyes:
I didn't say it's not their fault. I didn't say that at all. You are misinterpreting. Of course it's their fault if they do it. But we have to understand WHY they end up doing it. Believe me when I tell you that the psychological pressures of society can all too easily turn you into something you are not. Society wields a deadly power to affect people, and we often simply don't realize that. Refusing to acknowledge it is not only naive and idiotic, it is criminal, I personally think. All too often we end up creating the very monsters we despise, whether we realize it or not.

He's extremely studious. Maybe you should read some of his papers and books.

He's also the premier expert on criminal behavior in the US.
Yes and in actual criminal behavior the pedophile and the molester are equal. However, given that the vast majority of pedophiles have committed no crime and never will, I fail to see how being an expert on criminal behavior makes one an expert on the disorder. In fact, it would seem like, if his focus is criminal behavior, his studies are limited to a small minority of pedophiles of a particular type and marks him as an unlikely expert. The general concensus in the area of psychology is that one cannot learn much at all about the incidence or aspects of pedophilia by analyzing criminals and it's the basis for rejecting several studies that focused on only criminals but made broader conclusions.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/pedophiles/1.html

It is important to understand the differences between pedophiles and molesters. Pedophilia, which is a psychological disorder, is a distinct sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 111-R), which is published by the American Psychological Association, supplies this definition of pedophilia: “recurrent, intense, sexual urges and sexual arousing fantasies of at least six months duration involving sexual activity with a pre-pubescent child” (DSM, V.3, 1987). Generally, this means the target of the fantasy will typically be less than 12 years old. Notice the definition does not require the person to actually engage in a sexual act. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder that does not require, and usually does not involve, a criminal act. The pedophile might keep his desires a secret. He may never go public or share his fantasies with anyone. At times, they will even marry a single mother to gain or continue access to her children. Pedophiles can be very determined and single-minded in their efforts to stay close to children. Maintaining access to children at all costs is one of the defining trademarks of pedophilia, which will be discussed later. Child molesters, however, can have many different motivations for their crimes. And those motives, surprisingly, are often not of a sexual origin.

Note that this link is also linked to many lectures citing Dr. Samenow's work.

Why not just slaughter all paedophiles? Then everyone's happy.

Yes and in actual criminal behavior the pedophile and the molester are equal. However, given that the vast majority of pedophiles have committed no crime and never will, I fail to see how being an expert on criminal behavior makes one an expert on the disorder. In fact, it would seem like, if his focus is criminal behavior, his studies are limited to a small minority of pedophiles and marks him as an unlikely expert.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/pedophiles/1.html

It is important to understand the differences between pedophiles and molesters. Pedophilia, which is a psychological disorder, is a distinct sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 111-R), which is published by the American Psychological Association, supplies this definition of pedophilia: “recurrent, intense, sexual urges and sexual arousing fantasies of at least six months duration involving sexual activity with a pre-pubescent child” (DSM, V.3, 1987). Generally, this means the target of the fantasy will typically be less than 12 years old. Notice the definition does not require the person to actually engage in a sexual act. Pedophilia is a psychological disorder that does not require, and usually does not involve, a criminal act. The pedophile might keep his desires a secret. He may never go public or share his fantasies with anyone. At times, they will even marry a single mother to gain or continue access to her children. Pedophiles can be very determined and single-minded in their efforts to stay close to children. Maintaining access to children at all costs is one of the defining trademarks of pedophilia, which will be discussed later. Child molesters, however, can have many different motivations for their crimes. And those motives, surprisingly, are often not of a sexual origin.

Note that this link is also linked to many lectures citing Dr. Samenow's work.


It's a psychological disorder if it's just pedophilia. It's not as if the person is normal and should be allowed to be a part of normal society.

They should be locked up in psychological institutions for the rest of their lives if they have not yet acted on their pedophilia.

I didn't say it's not their fault. I didn't say that at all. You are misinterpreting. Of course it's their fault if they do it. But we have to understand WHY they end up doing it. Believe me when I tell you that the psychological pressures of society can all too easily turn you into something you are not. Society wields a deadly power to affect people, and we often simply don't realize that. Refusing to acknowledge it is not only naive and idiotic, it is criminal, I personally think. All too often we end up creating the very monsters we despise, whether we realize it or not.

I'm not following. If it is their fault that they hurt a child then the WHY is that they decided to give in to their desires. Society may claim that one who thinks of hurting children whill go and do it but as has been pointed out thinking is not doing. You will make a choice and saying that you chose to do it because society told the molester that he was going to do it anyway is foolish unless the person is very weak willed which is no excuse anyway.

They snap. Yeah. In other words they chose to harm a child and then doesn't take responsibility for their own actions. Blame society for what they did, it isn't their fault, oh no! :rolleyes:

You don't get it. By reacting the way that you do to non-offenders, you discourage them from getting help to prevent themselves from ever offending. You exasperate the problem. It doesn't relieve their culpability, but it does add to yours. If we wish to protect our young people rather than just exact revenge, we have to do everything we can to encourage those that have a potential to become offenders to come forth and seek treatment. Moreso, a pedophile should feel safe in warning me not to leave him alone with my kids, for example. Currently, for him to openly admit to urges in order to protect himself and children would be his livelihood and, in fact, his life in danger. A pedophile responsibly seeking to protect himself and others should be safe to do so, but isn't in the current climate. All the people who are adding to today's climate with intent need to take responsibility for their actions and the risk they, the people contributing to this climate, present to our children.

I'm not following. If it is their fault that they hurt a child then the WHY is that they decided to give in to their desires. Society may claim that one who thinks of hurting children whill go and do it but as has been pointed out thinking is not doing. You will make a choice and saying that you chose to do it because society told the molester that he was going to do it anyway is foolish unless the person is very weak willed which is no excuse anyway.
Okay, let me try to put it in a simpler fashion:

When it comes to choices, the person IS the final decider, and they carry all responsibilities for that choice. But what causes them to MAKE that choice in the first place? That is the key here, Utracia. Basically, what I'm saying is that societal pressures--"You're a paedophile so you're a horrible child molester"--can eventually lead to a person making the wrong kind of choice. We can influance how and why people make choices all too easily. Even when humans are adults, we are still incredibly easy to influence. Though this was originally an evolutionary advantage that enabled us to learn so easily, it is also a serious disadvantage when it comes to such things as paedophiles. How often could you be told that you are a horrible monster for something that you cannot control before you finally become that monster? Just think about it for a few minutes. We need to recognize the effect we have. Yes, it is their responsibility for making the choice they make. But we have to realize that all too often we as a society end up causing them to make that choice, as indirectly as we might do it.

I'm sorry if I cannot be clearer. I am not able to think as clearly as I should. I am going on 39 hours without sleep now. Please forgive me.

The general view that acting on pedophilia is wrong is NOT responsible for pedophiles acting in secret.

They act in secret because they know it's wrong, know it's illegal, and know that the vast majority of people find the behavior unacceptable.

It's just WRONG.

We're not to blame for their fucked up behavior or screwed up thinking. They are. 100%.

It's a psychological disorder if it's just pedophilia. It's not as if the person is normal and should be allowed to be a part of normal society.

They should be locked up in psychological institutions for the rest of their lives if they have not yet acted on their pedophilia.

Based on what? You've established that you're more dangerous than the average pedophile. The vast, vast majority of pedophiles never act on their urges. In fact, a person who has pedophilic urges, a person who fits in the good doctor's first definition of pedophilia, the person who falls under the clinical definition, is far less likely to engage in child molestation than the average population according to current wisdom.

Less than ten percent of offenders are regularly attracted to children. The majority of offenders use children as targets of opportunity. Or did you not notice that in your vast studies? Given that self-reporting has pedophilia at nearly one in five adult males and more randomized testing has pedophilic tendencies at even higher, it seems like people who aren't attracted to children normally present a greater risk on average. But, hey, I'm just using math and logic and who wants math and logic to get in the way of a good witch hunt.

You don't get it. By reacting the way that you do to non-offenders, you discourage them from getting help to prevent themselves from ever offending. You exasperate the problem. It doesn't relieve their culpability, but it does add to yours. If we wish to protect our young people rather than just exact revenge, we have to do everything we can to encourage those that have a potential to become offenders to come forth and seek treatment. Moreso, a pedophile should feel safe in warning me not to leave him alone with my kids, for example. Currently, for him to openly admit to urges in order to protect himself and children would be his livelihood and, in fact, his life in danger. A pedophile responsibly seeking to protect himself and others should be safe to do so, but isn't in the current climate. All the people who are adding to today's climate with intent need to take responsibility for their actions and the risk they, the people contributing to this climate, present to our children.

What treatment is there out there? I suppose we could use the direct method and suppress their sexual desires with drugs but perhaps they can live with a normal life with a wife and all that so maybe that is not a correct method? What then? Tell them in a shrinks office that it is not right? What if it is a sexuality? It would be like telling a homosexual to start liking the opposite sex. Won't work. The pedophile will just have to have personal responsibility not to harm any children.

Based on what? You've established that you're more dangerous than the average pedophile. The vast, vast majority of pedophiles never act on their urges. In fact, a person who has pedophilic urges, a person who fits in the good doctor's first definition of pedophilia, the person who falls under the clinical definition, is far less likely to engage in child molestation than the average population according to current wisdom.

Less than ten percent of offenders are regularly attracted to children. The majority of offenders use children as targets of opportunity. Or did you not notice that in your vast studies? Given that self-reporting has pedophilia at nearly one in five adult males and more randomized testing has pedophilic tendencies at even higher, it seems like people who aren't attracted to children normally present a greater risk on average. But, hey, I'm just using math and logic and who wants math and logic to get in the way of a good witch hunt.


Dr. Samenow says that pedophiles and other criminals cannot blame any of their condition or their actions on society - in fact, that is the cornerstone of criminal thought - that somehow, they were forced into acting on their thoughts by the pressures of society.

Hey, you're just using typical criminal thought to justify the presence of pedophiles. And he's got the studies to prove it.

You don't get it. By reacting the way that you do to non-offenders, you discourage them from getting help to prevent themselves from ever offending. You exasperate the problem. It doesn't relieve their culpability, but it does add to yours. If we wish to protect our young people rather than just exact revenge, we have to do everything we can to encourage those that have a potential to become offenders to come forth and seek treatment. Moreso, a pedophile should feel safe in warning me not to leave him alone with my kids, for example. Currently, for him to openly admit to urges in order to protect himself and children would be his livelihood and, in fact, his life in danger. A pedophile responsibly seeking to protect himself and others should be safe to do so, but isn't in the current climate. All the people who are adding to today's climate with intent need to take responsibility for their actions and the risk they, the people contributing to this climate, present to our children.
To bring up an example that I think I posted somewhere toward the beginning of this thread:

In many, if not most, cases, an abuser will himself have been an abuse victim. My mother (a clinical psychologist) personally worked with a young man who had been molested for most of his life, and who was later caught molesting his little sister.

Children who are victimized will often have deeply disturbed feelings and thoughts about sexual matters, and if these feelings are not addressed they can become the seeds of pedophilia. By simply trying to criminalize the FEELINGS, you will discourage these individuals from getting help that could very well prevent them from ever molesting a child.

Remember that a great many abusers were once victims. Most abusers have feelings of wanting to abuse or hurt long before they act upon them. If it could be possible to catch this problem BEFORE they begin the cycle of abuse all over again, why on Earth shouldn't we try?!

What treatment is there out there? I suppose we could use the direct method and suppress their sexual desires with drugs but perhaps they can live with a normal life with a wife and all that so maybe that is not a correct method? What then? Tell them in a shrinks office that it is not right? What if it is a sexuality? It would be like telling a homosexual to start liking the opposite sex. Won't work. The pedophile will just have to have personal responsibility not to harm any children.
See, that's part of the problem. We haven't BEEN working on treatments at all. We haven't even thought of how to help them function in normal society. That was the whole point to this thread, to point this out.

The general view that acting on pedophilia is wrong is NOT responsible for pedophiles acting in secret.

They act in secret because they know it's wrong, know it's illegal, and know that the vast majority of people find the behavior unacceptable.

It's just WRONG.

We're not to blame for their fucked up behavior or screwed up thinking. They are. 100%.

We're not talking about acting in secret. We're not talking about acting at all.
And we're not talking about the view that acting on pedophilia is wrong. You're not espousing that view. You're espousing the view that people who have not acted should be incarcerated. We are talking about people WHO HAVE NOT ACTED.

We're talking about hiding before they've acted rather than seeking help and making an effort to not put themselves in positions to act. They are to blame for their actions.

You are to blame for the fact that they have to fear coming forward when they've committed no crime. You and people like you make their fear completely and utterly rational. And that is the fault of you and people like you. 100%

He's extremely studious. Maybe you should read some of his papers and books.

He's also the premier expert on criminal behavior in the US.If you had actually cited him rather than your interpretation of what he says, we might be able to comment intelligently. It should be noted however, that Samenow studies offenders. That alone would color his conclusions. Pedophilia without action isn't criminal behavior.

Samenow may be nationally recognized (I found no cites online that referred to him as "premier expert"), but his work is not held in universal high esteem.

You are to blame for the fact that they have to fear coming forward when they've committed no crime. You and people like you make their fear completely and utterly rational. And that is the fault of you and people like you. 100%

More criminal thought, according to Dr. Samenow.

Dr. Samenow says that pedophiles and other criminals cannot blame any of their condition or their actions on society - in fact, that is the cornerstone of criminal thought - that somehow, they were forced into acting on their thoughts by the pressures of society.

Hey, you're just using typical criminal thought to justify the presence of pedophiles. And he's got the studies to prove it.

They aren't criminals. You don't get it. The vast majority of pedophiles are not criminals. Dr. Samenow is talking about criminals. WE AREN'T. Are you incapable of talking about what we're talking about or are you just angry that those that haven't acted yet haven't given you an excuse to act out your violent fantasies?

Jocabia, I suspect Deep Kimchi isn't going to understand. DK is one of those that simply is unable to see any viewpoint other than his own. He refuses to recognize the possibility that what he considers right might be wrong and vice versa. In many ways, he is like the actual offenders against which he is so volatile.

They aren't criminals. You don't get it. The vast majority of pedophiles are not criminals. Dr. Samenow is talking about criminals. WE AREN'T. Are you incapable of talking about what we're talking about or are you just angry that those that haven't acted yet haven't given you an excuse to act out your violent fantasies?

Dr. Samenow says that pedophiles are essentially criminals who have not acted yet.

Unlike my violent urges, which have completely legal outlets (I was in combat where it was perfectly legal to kill), there is no legal outlet for pedophilia.

He has said before that they belong in institutions, and do not have any excuse saying that "society made me do it" if they act on their impulses.

That's criminal thought, pure and simple.

More criminal thought, according to Dr. Samenow.

No, it's not. Dr. Samenow is talking about criminals. I am talking about innocent people. Now, please cite Dr. Samenow saying that innocent people should be incarcerated and that they should be subject to kind of response you engender.

You're avoiding the point, becuase on this, you're nailed. The vast majority of pedophiles are innocent of any crime related to pedophilia and will be for their entire lives. They are actually more likely to be innocent of any crime related to pedophilia than the rest of the population, according to the clinical definition of pedophilia (the criminal definition redefines it so that people who don't have the paraphilia can be labels as pedophiles).

No, it's not. Dr. Samenow is talking about criminals. I am talking about innocent people. Now, please cite Dr. Samenow saying that innocent people should be incarcerated and that they should be subject to kind of response you engender.

You're avoiding the point, becuase on this, you're nailed. The vast majority of pedophiles are innocent of any crime related to pedophilia and will be for their entire lives. They are actually more likely to be innocent of any crime related to pedophilia than the rest of the population, according to the clinical definition of pedophilia (the criminal definition redefines it so that people who don't have the paraphilia can be labels as pedophiles).


I suggest you read his book, The Criminal Personality, Volume 1. It's all in there about pedophiles, and about not blaming society for any of it.

In fact, he has a practice in Alexandria, Va. I've spoken to him before.

Dr. Samenow says that pedophiles are essentially criminals who have not acted yet.

Most never act. Between 90 and 98 percent never act on their urges according to current wisdom. So if Dr. Samenow said that, and right now we have you're rather unreliable word on that, then he's an idiot. I'd like to see some evidence that Dr. Samenow is an expert on pedophiles rather than just an expert on sex offenders.

Unlike my violent urges, which have completely legal outlets (I was in combat where it was perfectly legal to kill), there is no legal outlet for pedophilia.

You still have criminally violent urges that you admit to. If having urges that if acted upon would be criminal is a reason to lock somone up, then you need to get in line.

He has said before that they belong in institutions, and do not have any excuse saying that "society made me do it" if they act on their impulses.

That's criminal thought, pure and simple.
He said, he said, he said. Link? If he said that innocent people should be incarcerated to prevent a small portion of them (a statistically smaller portion than found in the general populous) from offending then he is an idiot, as I said. I don't believe he said it. I believe if he did, you'd cite it. Instead I think you're bastardizing his conclusions to justify your criminally violent fantasies.

Point of fact:

If pedophile behavior (acting on it) was not illegal and..

if no one made pedophiles feel fearful about that sort of behavior...

and if people didn't take precautions around known pedophiles...

then pedophiles would feel free to act on their impulses, thinking that the behavior was completely acceptable.

There would be far more child molestation than we see now.

None of them would be going for help.

So the idea that somehow, we're making the atmosphere too fearful for them to get help is a bunch of crap.

And I have you there.

I might add that my violent urges have a socially acceptable outlet.

Whereas the urges of a pedophile do not.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Point of fact:

If pedophile behavior (acting on it) was not illegal and..

if no one made pedophiles feel fearful about that sort of behavior...

and if people didn't take precautions around known pedophiles...

then pedophiles would feel free to act on their impulses, thinking that the behavior was completely acceptable.

There would be far more child molestation than we see now.

None of them would be going for help.

So the idea that somehow, we're making the atmosphere too fearful for them to get help is a bunch of crap.

And I have you there.
Wrong, sir! Wrong!

You are making false assumptions about our argument. We are not saying "Let's open the door to paedophiles and tell them all is right!" We're saying that society's attitude should be "It's okay that you feel this way. We know you can't help it because it's something you cannot control. Just remember that it IS wrong, and that you should seek help. We'll do whatever we can to help you, too."

How's that? Frankly, I'd love that. Why? Because, though I was damned afraid to admit it before now, I am attracted to children. Not all the time. Certainly not primarily. But I do have shreads of paedophilism in me. I know it's wrong. I'd never act upon it. But I can't exactly seek help on it because of society's attitude.

Point of fact:

If pedophile behavior (acting on it) was not illegal and..

if no one made pedophiles feel fearful about that sort of behavior...

and if people didn't take precautions around known pedophiles...

then pedophiles would feel free to act on their impulses, thinking that the behavior was completely acceptable.

There would be far more child molestation than we see now.

None of them would be going for help.

So the idea that somehow, we're making the atmosphere too fearful for them to get help is a bunch of crap.

And I have you there.

Sorry - but this is not true.

I can't vouch for the percentage, but it is irrelevent, because you create a generalisation...

Some paedophiles do not, and would not, actually indulge their sexual 'inclination'... because they do not wish to harm children.

Thus - the assertion "pedophiles would feel free to act on their impulses" is clearly not entirely true.

Wrong, sir! Wrong!

You are making false assumptions about our argument. We are not saying "Let's open the door to paedophiles and tell them all is right!" We're saying that society's attitude should be "It's okay that you feel this way. We know you can't help it because it's something you cannot control. Just remember that it IS wrong, and that you should seek help. We'll do whatever we can to help you, too."

How's that? Frankly, I'd love that. Why? Because, though I was damned afraid to admit it before now, I am attracted to children. Not all the time. Certainly not primarily. But I do have shreads of paedophilism in me. I know it's wrong. I'd never act upon it. But I can't exactly seek help on it because of society's attitude.


There's nothing stopping you from being voluntarily committed to an instutution. Nothing.

I might add that my violent urges have a socially acceptable outlet.

Whereas the urges of a pedophile do not.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Again - not strictly true. It might not be something we appreciate in our restaurants, coffee shops, and streets, but masturbation is an outlet that is not entirely 'socially UNacceptable', behind closed doors.

There's nothing stopping you from being voluntarily committed to an instutution. Nothing.

How do you know?

What if the other poster is the only wage provider for a family?

He/she never intends to act on these 'impulses', so it is not 'worth' making the whole family suffer in order to receive treatment... especially considering the negative stigma attached to the impulses themselves.

Again - not strictly true. It might not be something we appreciate in our restaurants, coffee shops, and streets, but masturbation is an outlet that is not entirely 'socially UNacceptable', behind closed doors.

The military, for instance, was an excellent outlet for my violent urges.

Enticing children to come to your house alone and then fondle them doesn't have any socially acceptable context in our society.

There's nothing stopping you from being voluntarily committed to an instutution. Nothing.
Why should I commit myself to an institution? Why should I be denied a normal life because of something I cannot control? Why can't society HELP people like me instead of writing us all off? Why can't we be compassionate? Why? Why?! WHY?!

I suggest you read his book, The Criminal Personality, Volume 1. It's all in there about pedophiles, and about not blaming society for any of it.

If it says any of what you claim, then it's not worth the paper it's written on. Can you tell me what non-offending pedophiles he's studied? I'm not blaming society for their actions. I'm blaming society for discouraging them from getting help.

You don't get it. Offenders are absolutely responsible for their actions. However, society is at fault for not addressing a known cause for exasperating crime. If we know that riots are occurring because of civil rights disputes, we have a responsibility to address both the riots and the cause of the riots. In this case, the cause is simple. We simply stop victimizing innocent people. People who have not commited a crime and are statistically less likely than the average person to commit the crime you'd condemn them for. We simply encourage those individuals to seek help and adjust their lives in a way that encourages them to never offend. And it won't work all the time. But it will keep them from festering in hiding. And if it prevents one molestation, isn't that worth it?

That includes violent offenders who might not be convicted because of the societal response to the their victims. Kind of how rapists sometimes get away with it because their victim was a hooker or very promiscuous, you bragged about how you would get away with your violent fantasies because the offender is a low-life. And yes, I put you right in the same boat as anyone who would brag about how they would get away with violent criminal activity no matter how deserving your victim might be. What's Dr. Samenow have to say about violent criminals who chose former criminals as their victims? What does he say about people who have the urges to become those people?