NationStates Jolt Archive

i have several friends who are pedophiles, none would ever dream of harming a soul, at the same time though, they do wish they could have sex with people either slightly below the age of consent or substantially below

my best friend (and ex, although im a year older) prefers girls in the 5 - 12 yr old range (hes 15) and also has a rape fetish, he also is into incest and wants to rape his cousin

another very close friend prefers girls in the 12 - 17 yr old range (hes 23 and married)

and yet another former friend prefers girls in the 5 - 17 yr old range (he is 17) and is very much into rape s&m and incest

all three of them have been subjected to a lot of harassment for their views, which theyre all very open about, on a website two were threatened with account deletion, by an admin, for being pedophiles, the rules dont even broach pedophilia
on this same website users have made threads saying that they should be reported to the police, when none have done anything wrong

outside of my circle of friends plenty of people also endure the same persecution - if someone should be so bold as to declare they are pedophiles or have a similar fetish they have made attempts to make it known to the entire town what their sexual preferences were, so that no one would be raped or sexually assaulted - yet these are unconvicted people
havent people ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

my question to you is the following:
are pedophiles entitled to the same rights as others? think before you answer; many would automatically say yes having been raised upon the belief that all people are equal in terms of their unalienable rights, some would say that they most certainly are - until those rights conflicted with the rights of a child
but exactly how can you decide where to draw the line? if banning unconvicted people from a public library just on the basis they might do something is okay than why cant we apply that to everything else? shouldnt their rights only be revoked if they commit an actual crime?

and what of statutory? we send 11 yr olds to colleges, if there are people that are smart enough to go to college at only 11 than surely people can make the decision to have sex at that age, all they would need is a proper understanding of sex and its consequences/ benefits as well as to be fully matured
there are 20 yr olds out there who arent emotionally mature enough to be having sex, yet its legal, i realize realistically speaking that abolishing the age of consent could provide a horrid legal nightmare, but nonetheless is an age of consent really necessary? and if so why apprx 16 in many places when most people are fully matured in their mid 20s? if a person consents and their consent is not forced in any way, than i believe that they should be entitled to have sex without either party being punished for it. obviously some ages would not be able to have sex (infancy) because at that age they cannot talk, cannot understand all but the most basic of words, and therefore cannot consent, however once they have become old enough to learn sex ed (which should be taught much earlier) they should be able to give proper consent that could hold up in court, unlike now

do you believe age of consent should be lowered? abolished? should pedophiles have the same rights we enjoy? or should their rights to privacy be limited? should they have rights at all? or something else entirely?

what is your take on this?

also: someone once said (this person is essentially the laughing stock of the politics forum on the aforementioned site, and blocked me for entering a debate with them. every single point made religious or otherwise was refuted by a belief in god and my being atheist - and so clearly immoral because of that) but nonetheless its relevant:

The legal age to have sexual relations aren't there to be broken young lady, theyre there to protect your ungreatful ass, if a 40 year old man kidnapped and raped you, you wouldn't have such feelings would you.
Also youngs girls such as yourself have no concept of love at all exept the love of your family, sexual interactions at your age could be fatal to you, your mind and body.

I have seen too much in my life even though I'm only a few years older, I'm more experienced and I'm here to tell you no, obey and respect the law, some laws aren't fair I know wtf u think I'm doing on my account page (protesting the government and their corruption of the law)

Since you clearly have no authority figure you must be running wild in a twisted philosophy rampage, must be why you don't believe in God.

Let me tell you straight, you do things because you want to, everything that happens in reward or consequence is your fault, debateable in some situations but you know what I mean.
Like if you're at a party n ur freinds pressure u into drinking or doing drugs, you are responsible for what you do, and for what is done TO you due to your condition (likely an unconcious condition)

Cause and effect is the law, don't be stupid and you may live long enough to realize why.

my response, drastically shortened (my actual response was about twice as long as this entire thing), was this:

actually, i would, if someone raped me i wouldnt condemn sex, nor would i condemn sex between certain age groups, merely i would condemn the rapist and rape

ill try to dig up sources later. eventually. a lot of things on my computer had to be deleted recently, and that probably includes the sources i have about pedophilia (ive been planning to send a private message - most practical way of contacting them - to the admin of the aforementioned site about pedophilia for a while so i had collected some sources on it over time and started writing it - though im not sure where it is now) but later i promise ill try to find stuff

Ok I thought I have seen it all...until I read the first sentence of this thread. Then I realized I hadn't seen it all.

Tell them to join the Catholic priesthood.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e142/leftyflecken/120707499766.jpg

If I knew someone had a fetish about wanting to rape children, you can be damn sure I'd tell people. It doesn't take a whole lot to push someone from wanting to rape children to actually doing it, and I'd be damned if I'd let something like that remain hidden. Quite frankly, I'd be hard pressed not to take it to a proper authority to ensure the person gets the psychiatric help they undoubtedly need. Ages of consent are arbitrary, but there aren't many other options to ensure children are not assaulted or manipulated in to "consenting" to things they are not capable of truly consenting to.

I don't condone punishing someone for a crime they did not commit, but there's something wrong with a person that gets off on wanting to brutally rape and sexually assault children and/or family members.

If your friends "prefer" girls in the age ranges you described, common sense leads one to believe that your friends have experience with girls in those age ranges.

If your friends have sexual experience with girls below the age of consent, they have broken the law, and admitted it.

Where exactly is the persecution?

all three of them have been subjected to a lot of harassment for their views

And rightly so.

Next thing you know people will be upset over sex with animals and other disturbing interests. What is this, Bibleton Naziville?

Also, I'm betting there is about to be a pedo invasion.

This isn't a subject that NSG hasn't dealt with before.

If you're trying to be contoversial, piss off. We've had peadophilia before as a subject.

Two of them are sexually attracted to 5 year olds. Some professional help is in order.

People who have a sexual attraction to children certainly deserve all the same rights as other people. No question about it.

Except for asexual people, we all have sexual attractions. That doesn't mean we're going to rape people. That's the same kind of prejudiced logic that homophobes use against gays.

It doesn't take a whole lot to push someone from wanting to rape children to actually doing it

Of course it does. Unless you think anyone with rape fantasies is automatically devoid of all moral restraint, susceptibility to social pressure, and fear of the law. And that's not very reasonable.

Just tell your pals that if they ever act on their urges, I'll be standing by to join the posse that strings 'em up. *loads shotgun*

People who have a sexual attraction to children certainly deserve all the same rights as other people. No question about it.

Except for asexual people, we all have sexual attractions. That doesn't mean we're going to rape people. That's the same kind of prejudiced logic that homophobes use against gays.

I agree that people can not choose who they're attracted to, and attraction does not = rape. However, people who are attracted to children cannot ever act on their feelings, which makes it very different in an important way from homosexuality.

If your friends "prefer" girls in the age ranges you described, common sense leads one to believe that your friends have experience with girls in those age ranges.

Nonsense. People can experience attraction without having actual sexual experiences with the people they're attracted to.

And rightly so.

So you think people should be harassed for things they have no control over?

C'mon guys give this guy a break, we all know that the pussies of 7 year olds are the tightest. lol

but seriously your friends are fucked up. Rape fetishs... wtf

However, people who are attracted to children cannot ever act on their feelings, which makes it very different in an important way from homosexuality.

My intent was not to indicate a general similarity.

Nonsense. People can experience attraction without having actual sexual experiences with the people they're attracted to.

Yes, they can, but it that wasn't how I interpreted it. But perhaps the OP can clarify whether or not his/her friends have engaged in sexual activity with minors or it is strictly fantasy.

i have several friends who are pedophiles

eww, feet

Just tell your pals that if they ever act on their urges, I'll be standing by to join the posse that strings 'em up. *loads shotgun*

Yes, because vigilantism is so effective and never has negative consequences like lynch mobs being used for personal revenge instead of actual justice. :rolleyes:

So you think people should be harassed for things they have no control over?

No, I think they should be harassed for publicly expressing their wish to rape five year olds.

No, I think they should be harassed for publicly expressing their wish to rape five year olds.

If they actually intend to, sure. But if it's just an attraction, why?

No, I think they should be harassed for publicly expressing their wish to rape five year olds.

Okay. I don't think they should be harassed for exercising their right to free speech in the absence of illegal activity.

However, I can certainly understand that such expression would generate some wariness in the people around them. If I expressed my desire to, say, cook and eat house pets, although I never have, I can understand if some of my neighbors were a little freaked out about letting me around their poodles. That doesn't mean they get to hurl bricks through my windows.

If they actually intend to, sure. But if it's just an attraction, why?

Why talk about it then? Very sad for them and all that, I get that &c. But I also don't see the need to talk about it other than to mental health professionals. It's not something that can ever be acted on, after all. It's also just prudent on their part not to self identify.

I'm also not sure that allowing it to be discussed freely won't lead to emboldening them to act upon their desires. (This is based upon what I learned on another forum that suffered a mass pedo invasion).

Okay. I don't think they should be harassed for exercising their right to free speech in the absence of illegal activity.


I'm not suggesting that they be locked up, or smacked around or anything. But I think they are fair game to be told that they are sick &c. rather than met with understanding.

SNIP LOL PEDOPHILIA

Have you just arrived from /b/?

Legal rights must apply to everyone, or they are meaningless. But the idea that an 11 year old might be suitable to consent to sex is such an appalling idea that words can not begin to describe it.

I don't know any pedophiles. Nor do I wish to. I wonder who you're hanging around if you have that many friends who want to screw a child.

To do such a thing is a perversion of biological instincts. It is physically risky for a child, as they are not physically mature, and even if they were mature enough psychologically and well enough informed to give consent, how could we be sure that was the case? The idea of a minor giving consent is a pathetic defense for perverts who want to justify their sick actions.

I'm not suggesting that they be locked up, or smacked around or anything. But I think they are fair game to be told that they are sick &c. rather than met with understanding.

Damn right. Anyone who thinks that protecting someone's rights means refusing to tolerate any criticism of them has a seriously twisted view of how rights should be applied. They have their right to say that their lifestyle is ok. Under the same right of freedom of expression, I have a right to say exactly what I think of them.

I'm much more disturbed by your statement that your friends are "very into rape" than anything else in that post. Being attracted to children but being aware that attempting sexual contact with them would be a horribly evil thing to do is certainly sad, but not in itself evil. Sitting around thinking, "Man, I love the idea of forcibly fucking a crying child who's begging me to stop" means there is something seriously wrong with you, and I don't particularly have a problem with discrimination against such lowlifes.

This is insane.

Seriously, put these guys on the sexual predators list.

This is a subject with a lot of emotion tied to it. My personal feelings about paedophilia is that the fetish is wrong and that those who are paedophiles need psychological help.

On that same token the kind of outright hatred they constantly receive is outrageous. Paedophile =/= child molester and nowhere near all paedophiles actually molest children, and yet they get so ostracized by society anyway. It's disgusting. They need help, not ridicule.

I would like to draw attention to this comment...

none would ever dream of harming a soul

...and then this one:

he also is into incest and wants to rape his cousin





Nice.

I'm much more disturbed by your statement that your friends are "very into rape" than anything else in that post. Being attracted to children but being aware that attempting sexual contact with them would be a horribly evil thing to do is certainly sad, but not in itself evil. Sitting around thinking, "Man, I love the idea of forcibly fucking a crying child who's begging me to stop" means there is something seriously wrong with you, and I don't particularly have a problem with discrimination against such lowlifes.

I agree with everything up to the "I don't have a problem with discrimination" part. Anyone who enjoys the thought of forcing themselves on another person and causing that person pain is very disturbed. Of course, the same is true for anyone who'd enjoy the thought of sex with a child.

However, horror at such people must never blind us to the importance of protecting everyone's legal rights. I think such people should be watched, and reported at the first sign they might act one their feelings. But we don't endorse preemptive vigilantism because someone might commit an evil act. Not if we want a functioning society, anyways.

I'm much more disturbed by your statement that your friends are "very into rape" than anything else in that post. Being attracted to children but being aware that attempting sexual contact with them would be a horribly evil thing to do is certainly sad, but not in itself evil. Sitting around thinking, "Man, I love the idea of forcibly fucking a crying child who's begging me to stop" means there is something seriously wrong with you, and I don't particularly have a problem with discrimination against such lowlifes.

So long as they still get the help they deserve. People who really like the idea of raping children need even more help than most. They deserve some ridicule, sure, but only to an extent. (I apply this to everyone, really.)

Have you just arrived from /b/?

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:d_a5YSWw63MBVM:http://www.lolsauce.com/RandomBS/Pedo%2520bear.png

C'mon guys give this guy a break, we all know that the pussies of 7 year olds are the tightest. lol

but seriously your friends are fucked up. Rape fetishs... wtf

That's not even something you should joke about. That's pretty disgusting.

I'm sorry for my english, I'm not used yet to whrite in other languaje than spanish or italian




well

my humble opinion is that, noomatter the sexual preferenses are.... if the person does follow the rules of the society he chooses to live in, then no harm is done!


If you are sexually aroused by a minor aye, there is no problem, but if you let yourself get allong with it and you DO have sex with a minor, then you will be punished accordingly to the crime..... those are the rules of the game, if you dot like them, then move to some place where people are fine with it

Avriia, I infer from the replies you quoted in the OP that you're female.

I'm guessing you're in the same age range as these "friends" you mention (around seventeen) but some clarification might be in order.

I'm a bit disturbed at the idea that you might be under the legal age of consent yourself. If that's so, we have a problem because seventeen year olds discussing their rape fantasies with you would be pretty much illegal.

So how do we distinguish between sexual attractions that are "disturbed" and ones that aren't?

Unfortunately, moral distinctions are not biological ones. Just because acting on a sexual attraction to children is unethical doesn't mean that the attraction itself results from a disturbed mind.

I agree with everything up to the "I don't have a problem with discrimination" part. Anyone who enjoys the thought of forcing themselves on another person and causing that person pain is very disturbed. Of course, the same is true for anyone who'd enjoy the thought of sex with a child.

However, horror at such people must never blind us to the importance of protecting everyone's legal rights. I think such people should be watched, and reported at the first sign they might act one their feelings. But we don't endorse preemptive vigilantism because someone might commit an evil act. Not if we want a functioning society, anyways.

Sorry, I'm a bit tipsy and thus seem to be expressing myself less clearly than usual. I didn't mean legal discrimination, but rather stuff like being banned from messageboards or told that they were disgusting, as mentioned in the OP. "Discrimination" was, in retrospect, not really the right word choice there. I certainly don't think they should lose any legal rights or be preemptively beaten up or anything like that, but I do think that if someone told me, "Man, I really want to rape my five-year-old cousin," I would darn well go to said five-year-old cousin's parents and beg them never to let that asshole near him or her, and I certainly wouldn't consider someone like that a "friend."

*has been waiting to use this line*

Why would you possibly want to risk having sex with a 12 year old when there are plenty of 20-year old Asian women that look 12?

I do not condone pedophilia in any way, shape, or form.

So how do we distinguish between sexual attractions that are "disturbed" and ones that aren't?

Is your desired partner both consenting and legally capable of consent? It's not disturbed.

Is your desired partner non-consenting and/or legally incapable of consent? It's disturbed.

That was pretty easy, really.

Unfortunately, moral distinctions are not biological ones. Just because acting on a sexual attraction to children is unethical doesn't mean that the attraction itself results from a disturbed mind.

I would think most people would agree that actively wanting to hurt others is not particularly healthy.

Sorry, I'm a bit tipsy and thus seem to be expressing myself less clearly than usual. I didn't mean legal discrimination, but rather stuff like being banned from messageboards or told that they were disgusting, as mentioned in the OP. "Discrimination" was, in retrospect, not really the right word choice there. I certainly don't think they should lose any legal rights or be preemptively beaten up or anything like that, but I do think that if someone told me, "Man, I really want to rape my five-year-old cousin," I would darn well go to said five-year-old cousin's parents and beg them never to let that asshole near him or her, and I certainly wouldn't consider someone like that a "friend."

Indeed. If the OP poster knows someone who wants to rape a family member, and hasn't informed their family of that fact, then any harm that befalls that child will be partly on their head. It is the hight of negligence not to report such information.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:d_a5YSWw63MBVM:http://www.lolsauce.com/RandomBS/Pedo%2520bear.png

The OP certainly has the Pedobear seal of approval.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBM9XmZlwSU

This is not a laughing matter. Your "friends" are likely dangerous child predators. If it means saving a kid a fucked up life, I think it would be worth telling at least their parents or other people about this.
Expose them. Now. Before it's too late. Go to the police.

Ok I thought I have seen it all...until I read the first sentence of this thread. Then I realized I hadn't seen it all.

defending pedophiles right to molest children is nothing new here unfortunately

So how do we distinguish between sexual attractions that are "disturbed" and ones that aren't?

Unfortunately, moral distinctions are not biological ones. Just because acting on a sexual attraction to children is unethical doesn't mean that the attraction itself results from a disturbed mind.

You are telling me that there is nothing biologically unhealthy about wanting sex with a child? That's a pretty big claim to make, though I have no doubt you are completely unable to back it up.

It is sometimes hard to determine what's disturbed and what isn't, but not in this case. If you feel otherwise, then perhaps you're a bit disturbed yourself.

Is your desired partner both consenting and legally capable of consent? It's not disturbed.

Is your desired partner non-consenting and/or legally incapable of consent? It's disturbed.

So your distinction is not just ethical, but legal?

If a person is attracted to fifteen-year-olds in a state where the age of consent is fourteen, and then the government raises it to sixteen, does that person suddenly become disturbed when he or she was not before? What about the reverse? If the government abolished ages of consent, would pedophiles cease to be disturbed?

I suggest that a term like "unethical" or "unacceptable" would be more appropriate here.

I would think most people would agree that actively wanting to hurt others is not particularly healthy.

I'm not asking for what most people think, I'm asking for a standard.

You know, from the arguments about 11 year olds giving consent, I'm willing to bet that the OP poster may very well be a closet pedophile. I don't intend this as flaming, merely observation. Of course there are other reasons that one could make such an argument, like the disturbing all morality is subjective garbage I here from the more politically correct in our society.

So how do we distinguish between sexual attractions that are "disturbed" and ones that aren't?

If you're trying to say that it's not a useful distinction, then I agree.

Why not simply say, pedos should get treatment to be aware of their condition and to manage it. Not necessarily because it's "sick" but simply so that they can function in a society where acting-out their desires would be bad all round.

Unfortunately, moral distinctions are not biological ones. Just because acting on a sexual attraction to children is unethical doesn't mean that the attraction itself results from a disturbed mind.

Part of the problem is that the social attitude towards pedophilia HAS to be rather stark and uncompromising, because it's a story for children. That children be aware of the risk is the most important thing ... so we have a myth that pedophiles ARE all dangerous: kidnappers, torturers, rapists and murderers.

You are telling me that there is nothing biologically unhealthy about wanting sex with a child?

No, I'm actually asking those who speak with such certainty on the subject to actually give a credible basis for their claim. A standard for what does and does not count as "disturbed" would be a nice start.

That's a pretty big claim to make, though I have no doubt you are completely unable to back it up.

It's a good thing that I didn't make any such claim then, isn't it? On the other hand, you did make the opposite claim.

If you feel otherwise, then perhaps you're a bit disturbed yourself.

Nice ad hominem.

I'm not sure why this is even a subject of debate!

Raping 5 year-olds = bad
Raping 20 year olds = bad
Raping 50 year olds = bad
Raping family members = bad

Getting the trend here?

You know, from the arguments about 11 year olds giving consent, I'm willing to bet that the OP poster may very well be a closet pedophile. I don't intend this as flaming, merely observation. Of course there are other reasons that one could make such an argument, like the disturbing all morality is subjective garbage I here from the more politically correct in our society.

Seconded. I was going to post that myself, but sadly I suffer from Hypernobackboneia.

You are telling me that there is nothing biologically unhealthy about wanting sex with a child? That's a pretty big claim to make, though I have no doubt you are completely unable to back it up.

"Unhealthy" is the salient claim. The onus of proof is on whoever makes that claim.

Possible ways you might prove that a pedophiliac urge is "biologically unhealthy": show how it causes a shorter life expectancy. Show how it physically weakens the pedophile. Show how it causes susceptibility to other "biological illness."

Not going to happen. Its YOU that can't back up your claim, I'll wager.

What the fuck. It's quite concerning one can talk about this in such a calm manner and not understand why these people are persecuted.. Hmm.

So your distinction is not just ethical, but legal?

If a person is attracted to fifteen-year-olds in a state where the age of consent is fourteen, and then the government raises it to sixteen, does that person suddenly become disturbed when he or she was not before? What about the reverse? If the government abolished ages of consent, would pedophiles cease to be disturbed?

I suggest that a term like "unethical" or "unacceptable" would be more appropriate here.



I'm not asking for what most people think, I'm asking for a standard.

Okay, the STANDARD is "wanting to hurt people is wrong and unhealthy."

Seriously, if you can present some argument that wanting to hurt people (and specifically small children) is perfectly healthy, go for it.

As far as your argument above re: legality, you make a fair point. Wanting to break the law is not in itself disturbed, so the word "legal" was irrelevant. Leave it out, then, and my statement stands.

No, I'm actually asking those who speak with such certainty on the subject to actually give a credible basis for their claim. A standard for what does and does not count as "disturbed" would be a nice start.



It's a good thing that I didn't make any such claim then, isn't it? On the other hand, you did make the opposite claim.



Nice ad hominem.

I did not intend it as such. It was more a venting combined with a statement of personal opinion. I tend to get highly emotional in these debates, but I recognize that my statement was rather poor debating form.

It is also true that you did not explicitly make a claim that there was nothing biologically unnatural about sex with children. The claim seemed implied to me, but if I misrepresented your position, I apollogise. I take it you wish for me to prove my claim. I will attempt to do so.

As for a standard of "disturbed", the word implies a deviation from the normal state of affairs, an imbalance of the mind. I would probably argue that any action which runs counter to productive natural instincts, especially if it is blatantly counter productive, is disturbed. But I'm no psychologist, so I admit I'm arguing on unfamiliar ground.

Unfortunately, moral distinctions are not biological ones. Just because acting on a sexual attraction to children is unethical doesn't mean that the attraction itself results from a disturbed mind.

forcing yourself on a child is a moral distinction? nothing disturbing in this act?

You know, from the arguments about 11 year olds giving consent, I'm willing to bet that the OP poster may very well be a closet pedophile.

Another ad hominem.

Of course there are other reasons that one could make such an argument, like the disturbing all morality is subjective garbage I here from the more politically correct in our society.

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Even if you understood what "all morality is subjective" actually means, as you clearly do not, it would still remain true that "Eleven year olds may be able to consent" is not a moral (normative) claim anyway.

If you're trying to say that it's not a useful distinction, then I agree.

More than that, I don't think the way it's used is very coherent. Like "perversion", it's a term people toss out to describe sexual proclivities they disapprove of. Whether or not they are right to disapprove of them is quite beside the point, because "perverted" and "disturbed" simply don't mean the same thing as "wrong."

Why not simply say, pedos should get treatment to be aware of their condition and to manage it. Not necessarily because it's "sick" but simply so that they can function in a society where acting-out their desires would be bad all round.

I agree.

Part of the problem is that the social attitude towards pedophilia HAS to be rather stark and uncompromising, because it's a story for children. That children be aware of the risk is the most important thing

But how many children know what the sexual fetishes of the adults around them are anyway? You warn them of abuse. There's no gain to be had by making an equation between desire and act.

Quick addendum, in case someone wants to be a smartass: no, wanting to "hurt" people in a safe, sane, and consensual BDSM context is not wrong and unhealthy. There is a world of difference between "hurting" someone in the sense of "causing them physical pain, which they enjoy," and "hurting" someone in the sense of "raping and quite possibly psychologically destroying them," but the word happens to be the same.

"Unhealthy" is the salient claim. The onus of proof is on whoever makes that claim.

Possible ways you might prove that a pedophiliac urge is "biologically unhealthy": show how it causes a shorter life expectancy. Show how it physically weakens the pedophile. Show how it causes susceptibility to other "biological illness."

Not going to happen. Its YOU that can't back up your claim, I'll wager.

It doesn't have to harm the pedophile directly to be biologically unhealthy and unnatural. All I have to do is show evidence that it is harmful to the species' survival as a whole, which includes harm to the victims. That should be rather easy.

I am disturbed and disgusted that I am sitting here in a modern society having an argument on this topic. I don't think I've been this repulsed by a thread in a while.

I am disturbed and disgusted that I am sitting here in a modern society having an argument on this topic. I don't think I've been this repulsed by a thread in a while.

I am disturbed that I got one of my best zings in NSG two pages back, and everyone missed it.

Quick addendum, in case someone wants to be a smartass: no, wanting to "hurt" people in a safe, sane, and consensual BDSM context is not wrong and unhealthy. There is a world of difference between "hurting" someone in the sense of "causing them physical pain, which they enjoy," and "hurting" someone in the sense of "raping and quite possibly psychologically destroying them," but the word happens to be the same.

Well, there went my devil's advocate argument.

Well, there went my devil's advocate argument.

Mwahaha, I pwn your arguments even before they are made! :tongue:

It doesn't have to harm the pedophile directly to be biologically unhealthy and unnatural. All I have to do is show evidence that it is harmful to the species' survival as a whole, which includes harm to the victims. That should be rather easy.

I am disturbed and disgusted that I am sitting here in a modern society having an argument on this topic. I don't think I've been this repulsed by a thread in a while.

I'm going to bed sick to my stomach that people like this kid's friends can actually be supported by people. Absolutely disgusting.

Nonsense. People can experience attraction without having actual sexual experiences with the people they're attracted to.


Damn right, I'm attracted to Jessica Alba, Scarlett Johanssen, Christina Ricci, Paris Hilton... many other hot women who appear in mens magazines in skimpy bikinis or even less...

So whats my chances of having sexual activities with the aforementioned women I am attracted to?

Another ad hominem.

How the hell was that an ad hominem? I was not trying to argue that the poster's view was invalid by using a personal attack, their view is invalid for a great many reasons that have nothing to do with their personal inclinations. I was merely observing that their arguments are reminisiant of the type of arguments a pedophile might make. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. Aren't you guilty of an ad hominem by issuing these false accusations to discredit me? Or does that just make you a lier?

Did 4chan break down? Did we get some of their sewage runoff? :confused:

What's 4chan?

Damn right, I'm attracted to Jessica Alba, Scarlett Johanssen, Christina Ricci, Paris Hilton... many other hot women who appear in mens magazines in skimpy bikinis or even less...

So whats my chances of having sexual activities with the aforementioned women I am attracted to?

too bad there is only one Jessica Alba but there are millions of children. i'd say the odds of acting on a sexual attraction to the latter is much more likely given there are so many more of them

Did 4chan break down? Did we get some of their sewage runoff? :confused:

Actually, it does seem to be going rather slowly on my comp. Weird.

Hey Avriia, the jerk store called--they're running out of you!

If no one gets that, I will lose all faith in humanity. Really.

Seriously, if you can present some argument that wanting to hurt people (and specifically small children) is perfectly healthy, go for it.

Burden of proof shift.

In any case, it only takes a quick glance at the state of the world to see that harming and abusing others is actually a rather common practice, and all too often brings about no retaliatory harm to the perpetrator.

Wrong? Certainly. Unacceptable? Without question. But unhealthy? Not so clearly.

As for a standard of "disturbed", the word implies a deviation from the normal state of affairs, an imbalance of the mind. I would probably argue that any action which runs counter to productive natural instincts, especially if it is blatantly counter productive, is disturbed.

What are "productive natural instincts"?

Human sexuality is certainly much broader than the purely reproductive, if that's what you're getting at. Do you mean to suggest that all non-reproductive sexual behaviors are "disturbed"? That's a pretty tough claim to establish.

forcing yourself on a child is a moral distinction?

It's pretty blatantly immoral, yes.

nothing disturbing in this act?

The issue is not whether I, personally, find it "disturbing", but whether it itself is the product of a disturbed mind.

What's 4chan?

The anus of the internets.

To me, the difficult question which it is worthwhile to ponder is whether there is a line between "wanting to" and "acting out."

Sexual attraction between adults is more or less acceptable in many contexts. Even in a work environment (though there are quite rightly strong limits on the "acting out") people are not expected to completely conceal their sexual interest in other adults.

Yet in the case of pedophiles, that is the expectation. They are expected (by Soheran's very useful standard "ethical behaviour") to conceal their sexual interest in the child well enough that the child is not aware of it. Even to suspect that basis for an adult's interest in them (say, noticing that the adult is admiring their ass) sexualises the child somewhat.

Is it even POSSIBLE to completely conceal a sexual attraction?

A person who simply suppresses their desire is likely to come across as "creepy" -- not right in some way which is hard to define. So in fact covering their real feelings with some other overt attitude towards the child (such as intolerance, or didacticism, or parentalism) may be the best way of not letting their feelings affect the child.

And that's just what we don't want. Confusion between a sexual attitude to the child and other legitimate roles (like teacher or pastor) could be very harmful to the child. "Is the teacher complimenting me for my neat work and right answers? Really? Or are they on the make?"

What's 4chan?

"You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy." -Obi Wan Kenobi.

Hey Avriia, the jerk store called--they're running out of you!

If no one gets that, I will lose all faith in humanity. Really.

Shut up.

I'm a bit disturbed at the idea that you might be under the legal age of consent yourself. If that's so, we have a problem because seventeen year olds discussing their rape fantasies with you would be pretty much illegal.

Not always, Here the age of consent is 16, I believe from whats been said on a different forum that mexico's age of consent is 14 as is Japans in a couple of prefectures and I know that the UK age is 16.

On the flip side, some countries have an age of consent of 21. and One country has an age of consent of 25.

so a 17 year old need not necessarily be illegal depending on where Aviira is located.

I was not trying to argue that the poster's view was invalid by using a personal attack, their view is invalid for a great many reasons that have nothing to do with their personal inclinations.

So you brought it up because...?

What's 4chan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan

OK, I realize that wasn't very helpful. I'll put it more explicitly.

All Avriia has done to deserve insults or goads is to start this thread. Just the one post. There is no advocacy there, it's a thoughtful post along the lines of "I'm perplexed by this issue which actually affects me and my friends."

Leistung, if you object to the existence of this thread, and you can find nothing rule-breaking to report about it ... then the correct response is to NOT POST TO IT.

I.e. Shut up.

I don't know why I brought it up, but I'm not sure it strictly meets the definition of ad hominem. It was an observation, not an argument. I can see how it would be interpreted as such, though, so I suppose I should have been more clear.

Not always, Here the age of consent is 16, I believe from whats been said on a different forum that mexico's age of consent is 14 as is Japans in a couple of prefectures and I know that the UK age is 16.

On the flip side, some countries have an age of consent of 21. and One country has an age of consent of 25.

so a 17 year old need not necessarily be illegal depending on where Aviira is located.

Sure, that's true.

But absent any details, there's the risk that we're responding reasonably to a ten-year-old who has been chatting about rape with 17 and 23 year olds. Even a response like "oh that's interesting" would be wrong in that context, you would agree?

Not always, Here the age of consent is 16, I believe from whats been said on a different forum that mexico's age of consent is 14 as is Japans in a couple of prefectures and I know that the UK age is 16.

On the flip side, some countries have an age of consent of 21. and One country has an age of consent of 25.

so a 17 year old need not necessarily be illegal depending on where Aviira is located.


i'm more concerned about the attractions to the 5 yr olds that Aviira mentioned, i don't think any of us will be having a debate on whether a 5yr old can consent... right...?

Burden of proof shift.

Well, yes, sort of. Given that you are the only one in this thread arguing against it being unhealthy, it does seem fairly reasonable to ask for some evidence to support your position, in much the same way as it would seem reasonable to ask you for evidence if you argued against my statement that at night, it tends to get dark out.

In any case, it only takes a quick glance at the state of the world to see that harming and abusing others is actually a rather common practice, and all too often brings about no retaliatory harm to the perpetrator.

Wrong? Certainly. Unacceptable? Without question. But unhealthy? Not so clearly.

I see your point, but I have to disagree still. Given that humans are fundamentally a social species, and have lived in communities for the duration of our species' existence, I think it is more than reasonable to expect a healthy mind to consider the well-being of others as well as their own well-being. If humans were not fundamentally dependent on each other, complete selfishness could be considered rational, but that's simply not the way we work.

Further, a willingness to harm others does rather suggest an inability to see those others as full human beings capable of suffering, which is a state typical of infants, who generally grow out of that state sometime in toddlerhood. If an adult is still mentally on par with an infant in some way, is it not reasonable to suggest that their mental health is poor?

OK, I realize that wasn't very helpful. I'll put it more explicitly.

All Avriia has done to deserve insults or goads is to start this thread. Just the one post. There is no advocacy there, it's a thoughtful post along the lines of "I'm perplexed by this issue which actually affects me and my friends."

Leistung, if you object to the existence of this thread, and you can find nothing rule-breaking to report about it ... then the correct response is to NOT POST TO IT.

I.e. Shut up.

Calm down, man, seriously. All I'm saying is that openly discussing raping five year-olds is a tad bit...off. No need to go crazy.

The anus of the internets.
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/7089/84271875rk0.jpg

While we must not compromise in our opposition to the abuse of children, we should at the same time absolutely refuse to dehumanize and demonize people with sexual attraction to children.

If the demands of justice do not suffice for you, consider instead the pragmatic argument: if we are irrational and indiscriminate in our judgments on the subject, we lose some of the credibility we need for our moral argument to be convincing.

The best way to defend opposition to pedophilia against arguments that it is just another manifestation of arbitrary social prejudice is to ensure that it is not, in any respect.

Well, yes, sort of. Given that you are the only one in this thread arguing against it being unhealthy, *snip*

Not so.

I completely agree with Soheran that the issue is one of ethics not mental health. If that's what Soheran is saying.

Calm down, man, seriously. All I'm saying is that openly discussing raping five year-olds is a tad bit...off. No need to go crazy.

So that "jerk store" comment was just a joke?

You didn't consider that anyone who DOESN'T get your reference (eg me) might just read it as a blatant insult?

(Though I WILL make an effort to calm down. I think perhaps I'm posting too hurriedly because I expect this thread to end in a lock.)

Also, I'm betting there is about to be a pedo invasion.Thankfully me, Ruffy, and LG are here to stop them with our legions of pie based soldiers. *Nods*

While we must not compromise in our opposition to the abuse of children, we should at the same time absolutely refuse to dehumanize and demonize people with sexual attraction to children.

If the demands of justice do not suffice for you, consider instead the pragmatic argument: if we are irrational and indiscriminate in our judgments on the subject, we lose some of the credibility we need for our moral argument to be convincing.

The best way to defend opposition to pedophilia against arguments that it is just another manifestation of arbitrary social prejudice is to ensure that it is not, in any respect.

This deserves to be stuck in a signature somehow. It's certainly a statement that everyone should read.

Did anyone begin to think that the op was a troll??????

ANYONE?

i'm more concerned about the attractions to the 5 yr olds that Aviira mentioned, i don't think any of us will be having a debate on whether a 5yr old can consent... right...?

True


But the question still is, when CAN someone consent... remember back in the middle ages and later, through to the industrial ages, 15 and 16 year old girls were marrying men who were in their 50's in arranged marriages. and having kids within the year.

A woman is capable of bearing children ANY time past the onset of puberty. going by "Mother Nature" who is a lot more coldblooded and dispassionate than humans, "if it can bleed, it can breed" It's human society who decided on "Ages of consent" and frankly, the different ages in different cultures are simply cultural matters. not biological ones.


Separating "mental ability to understand what is being consented to" from "physical ability to manage biologically what is being undertaken", there is no firm accpted age where the first is acheived, yet there is for the second.

Puberty.

In the absence of a scientific proof test along the line of "hormone levels of GJME28093-hh3 in the subjects bloodstream were above xxx parts per billion, as such the subject can now be officially classed as mature enough to consent" being discovered, there is no real ability to set an age where consent becomes informed.

What about vegetables. a 40 year old vegetative state person can't consent to anything, even to being fed. whereas an intelligent 10 year old may well be able to understand and consent, but an unintelligent 25 year old may not fully grasp it.

http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/7089/84271875rk0.jpg

What does the caption say?

Did anyone begin to think that the op was a troll??????

ANYONE?

Oh of course. But feeding trolls can be fun for a while.

While we must not compromise in our opposition to the abuse of children, we should at the same time absolutely refuse to dehumanize and demonize people with sexual attraction to children.

If the demands of justice do not suffice for you, consider instead the pragmatic argument: if we are irrational and indiscriminate in our judgments on the subject, we lose some of the credibility we need for our moral argument to be convincing.

The best way to defend opposition to pedophilia against arguments that it is just another manifestation of arbitrary social prejudice is to ensure that it is not, in any respect.

right, wouldn't want to give the pedos the impression that they are a lower lifeform, that would just be cruel to their precious sensibilities. The pedos might cry or something!

So how do we distinguish between sexual attractions that are "disturbed" and ones that aren't?

Unfortunately, moral distinctions are not biological ones. Just because acting on a sexual attraction to children is unethical doesn't mean that the attraction itself results from a disturbed mind.

The argument could be made that sexual attraction to a group of people who are not sexually mature would be a malfunction. I don't know that "disturbed" would be the best term for it, but "pathological" could be.

Thankfully me, Ruffy, and LG are here to stop them with our legions of pie based soldiers. *Nods*

Let Battel Commence!

It doesn't have to harm the pedophile directly to be biologically unhealthy and unnatural. All I have to do is show evidence that it is harmful to the species' survival as a whole, which includes harm to the victims. That should be rather easy.

Where did you get THAT definition of "biologically unhealthy" from?

I am disturbed and disgusted that I am sitting here in a modern society having an argument on this topic. I don't think I've been this repulsed by a thread in a while.


...

I see your point, but I have to disagree still. Given that humans are fundamentally a social species, and have lived in communities for the duration of our species' existence, I think it is more than reasonable to expect a healthy mind to consider the well-being of others as well as their own well-being.

While we certainly have natural instincts toward compassion and sympathy, we also have natural instincts toward cruelty and aggression. And fantasy is not the same as action. There is perhaps something wrong with a person who could abuse another without compunction. But there is not necessarily something wrong with a person who could fantasize about such a thing. Sexual fantasies, after all, tend to be very partial depictions of the reality.

Edit: Furthermore, regardless of the actual capacity of a child to consent, imaginary sex with children can be perfectly consensual.

Further, a willingness to harm others does rather suggest an inability to see those others as full human beings capable of suffering, which is a state typical of infants, who generally grow out of that state sometime in toddlerhood.

True, but I don't think simple callousness is the issue here.

right, wouldn't want to give the pedos the impression that they are a lower lifeform, that would just be cruel to their precious sensibilities. The pedos might cry or something!

More importantly, by dehumanizing and thus socially isolating them, they'd be put in a position where committing a crime against a child is MORE LIKELY. They have less to lose, and less "pressure valve" release of being able to talk about their condition.

It's the same issue as the criminalization of drug use. While it may protect some people from getting into drugs, it also creates an "underground" where the use is acceptable.

I completely agree with Soheran that the issue is one of ethics not mental health. If that's what Soheran is saying.

It is.

right, wouldn't want to give the pedos the impression that they are a lower lifeform, that would just be cruel to their precious sensibilities.

Yes, it would be cruel, as well as baseless, irrational, prejudiced, and unethical.

The argument could be made that sexual attraction to a group of people who are not sexually mature would be a malfunction.

Why?

If not all I can say is,

In my country... This is not a problem.
Because people like that would be taken care of.

I don't see how there can be any question on the subject,

More importantly, by dehumanizing and thus socially isolating them, they'd be put in a position where committing a crime against a child is MORE LIKELY. They have less to lose, and less "pressure valve" release of being able to talk about their condition.

It's the same issue as the criminalization of drug use. While it may protect some people from getting into drugs, it also creates an "underground" where the use is acceptable.

Not if you remove them from society.

" No man, No problem," Stalin.
And it's true.

Child toucher's can't be "saved" or "cured".

SNIP

I agree with your heading. I can't believe people are taking this person seriously and getting all bent out of shape.

I mean yeah, everyone's views are righteous, but they are all the same. The original post is just to get a rise out of everyone.

:confused:

Did anyone begin to think that the op was a troll??????

ANYONE?

But of course. Does it matter ? The issue is worthy of debate.

To structure it slightly more, let us pose a few questions:

1. Is having sex with children always harmful to them, the pedophile or the human race as a whole ? If not always, when not ?

2. Is the harm caused by the sex itself or by societies response to it ?

3. If there is harm involved, should children have a right to choose to do it anyway ?

4. Is having a desire to do harm a crime if one does not act on it ?

To make things more interesting, we will hereby agree that everyone who just answers "yes" to question 1 is a closet pedophile themselves. Please offer some reasoning to back up your opinion.

Not if you remove them from society.

" No man, No problem," Stalin.
And it's true.

Child toucher's can't be "saved" or "cured".

We've been achieving the impossible plenty of times up until now. After all, it was supposed to be impossible to go to the Moon, right? Or to go into space at all. Or to make a rocket. Or to have heavier than air flight. Or to do any of the other thousands of things we do regularly.

Those who say it can't be done are usually interrupted by others doing it.

More importantly, by dehumanizing and thus socially isolating them, they'd be put in a position where committing a crime against a child is MORE LIKELY. They have less to lose, and less "pressure valve" release of being able to talk about their condition.

It's the same issue as the criminalization of drug use. While it may protect some people from getting into drugs, it also creates an "underground" where the use is acceptable.

right unless we treat the bastards with the utmost respect they'll just shrug and say "they hate me anyway so why not hurt that child to sate my disgusting appetites? Woe is me! and its all your fault society for being mean to me! i have no self control now oh no sir, as you have destroyed my self esteem!"

*pedo breaks down in tears as reaches for scared, traumatized child*

Trace, are you dangerous? I mean, clearly, you rape people you're attracted to, no?

You clearly find it unfathomable that someone could be attracted to another person and not act on it whether they can get informed consent or not.

But ( while I can't for legal issues promote killing people )
It should go back to the good old days when Child touchers were dealt with
by the community.
When my old man was a kid ( Good lord that was a long time ago )
There was only one weird old man.
there was an "incident", and then he moved at the "strong encouragement"
of the fathers in the area.
And then his house burned down...
Then came the age of psychology and everyone can be cured...
Now suddenly everyone's a human being,
every filthy, slimy sub-human piece of trash has a soul.

Gone are the good old days !

But of course. Does it matter ? The issue is worthy of debate.

To structure it slightly more, let us pose a few questions:

1. Is having sex with children always harmful to them, the pedophile or the human race as a whole ? If not always, when not ?

2. Is the harm caused by the sex itself or by societies response to it ?

3. If there is harm involved, should children have a right to choose to do it anyway ?

4. Is having a desire to do harm a crime if one does not act on it ?

To make things more interesting, we will hereby agree that everyone who just answers "yes" to question 1 is a closet pedophile themselves. Please offer some reasoning to back up your opinion.

See my second post, top of page 8.

I mean, is this topic really worth discussion? The topic is disgusting in itself.

Gone are the good old days !

You mean the days of the Roman empire - where having a little boy to toy with was considered normal ? ;)

Or perhaps the days of hippyism, where not embracing the sexuality of children was considered a horrible, horrible thing to do.

Hmm. Let us not dwell on the past. Let us look at what we know now.

I mean, is this topic really worth discussion? The topic is disgusting in itself.

You truly wish to live in a world where people can not discuss things because they are considered icky ?

But the question still is, when CAN someone consent... remember back in the middle ages and later, through to the industrial ages, 15 and 16 year old girls were marrying men who were in their 50's in arranged marriages. and having kids within the year.

Indeed. Even younger girls have been married off in past ages.

Of course, in those ages and those cultures, nobody cared if the women consented. Their wishes were irrelevant, as was any consideration of whether or not they were able to express those wishes.

A woman is capable of bearing children ANY time past the onset of puberty.

Capable, but it doesn't mean she can do so and remain healthy.

In the absence of a scientific proof test along the line of "hormone levels of GJME28093-hh3 in the subjects bloodstream were above xxx parts per billion, as such the subject can now be officially classed as mature enough to consent" being discovered, there is no real ability to set an age where consent becomes informed.

We do have both psychology and measurements of when certain parts of the brain are well-developed. Can we set an exact age? No. But we can set one that will catch most people.

Why?

Because it is a sexual attraction that doesn't serve any of the purposes of sexual attraction and is, in fact, detrimental.

Sexual attraction to the sexually immature certainly isn't going to lead to reproduction. It doesn't provide the same opportunity for emotional connection.

It does, however, reduce the chances of reproduction (someone who is attracted primarily or exclusively to the sexually immature will have trouble finding a viable mate) and, if acted upon, causes emotional hardship rather than being beneficial.


By the way, since it strangely hasn't been noted in this thread: It's important to note that pedophilia refers to an attraction to pre-pubescent children - those who are sexually immature.

An attraction to post-pubescent but young people is pederasty (ie underage teens). While the latter still should not be acted upon until the person is mature enough to provide consent, the attraction itself would not be pathological, as the physical signs indicating sexual maturity are present.

1. Is having sex with children always harmful to them, the pedophile or the human race as a whole ? If not always, when not ?

"Always" is a rather strong word. Often enough that it needs to be prohibited by law? Yes. But I'm not going to discount the possibility of a consensual, mutually enjoyable relationship between an adult and a particularly mature child--thirteen, not five.

2. Is the harm caused by the sex itself or by societies response to it ?

Both. We really ought to be more rational about sexual matters.

3. If there is harm involved, should children have a right to choose to do it anyway ?

Maybe, but there's no practical way of implementing this without opening the gateway to abuse. Adults have too much power over children, and children generally don't have the mental capacity to deal with it.

You truly wish to live in a world where people can not discuss things because they are considered icky ?

No, I don't. My question is why does it even need to be discussed? It seems as if everyone is in agreement about the general subject.

No, I don't. My question is why does it even need to be discussed? It seems as if everyone is in agreement about the general subject.

If that were true, it would of course be a VERY good reason to discuss it. Who knows - maybe our opinions turn out to be wrong and based on nothing. Or we just find they are 100% correct, and have a solid basis for it.

However, there is no consensus. Just a few years ago people thought very differently about this. Throughout history people have thought differently about this. Hell, people in different countries think differently about this today.

To Calarca's point, in the Americas, it was normal to marry when both children were 10, thus much younger than s/he said. They also reared children at that age. Clearly, this suggests they were capable of responsible decision-making.I don't think this has anything to do with whether or not one should do so, but it could definitely be argued that it's possible.

That doesn't address the point that people are conflating rape and sexual attraction though. I think this is a very scary argument to make. I certainly have never even been tempted to rape someone simply because I was attracted to them. If you don't think rape and sexual attraction are not related at all, I fear you.

Because it is a sexual attraction that doesn't serve any of the purposes of sexual attraction and is, in fact, detrimental.

On what basis do you ascribe "purposes" to sexual attraction? Do you refer to evolutionary purposes?

Sexual attraction to the sexually immature certainly isn't going to lead to reproduction.

Neither do a wide variety of sexual behaviors and inclinations.

It doesn't provide the same opportunity for emotional connection.

We are all sexually attracted to people we don't seek emotional connections with--indeed, sometimes people we have never met. Plenty of people are out for "pure" sex.

Are these pathological behaviors?

It does, however, reduce the chances of reproduction (someone who is attracted primarily or exclusively to the sexually immature will have trouble finding a viable mate)

The same is true of homosexuality, which by all appearances is both natural and healthy.

I agree with your heading. I can't believe people are taking this person seriously and getting all bent out of shape.

I mean yeah, everyone's views are righteous, but they are all the same. The original post is just to get a rise out of everyone.

:confused:

I initially took it as sincere, but the longer the thread runs without Avriia posting again, the more I incline towards the view that "I have pedophile friends" is bull and that the intention actually was to goad someone into defending child-molesters.

I won't do that. An explicit reading of Soheran's posts shows that they're not doing that either. The most likely candidates for getting this thread locked are probably those who advocate killing pedophiles "just in case."

Trace, are you dangerous? I mean, clearly, you rape people you're attracted to, no?

You clearly find it unfathomable that someone could be attracted to another person and not act on it whether they can get informed consent or not.

like i said in the other forum, i don't understand why we should take the chance having them around children if we know they have the urges. i don't want to trust their willpower and just let them interact with them. i think that to be dangerous and see no reason to allow it.

like i said in the other forum, i don't understand why we should take the chance having them around children if we know they have the urges. i don't want to trust their willpower and just let them interact with them. i think that to be dangerous and see no reason to allow it.

And like I said, if you really think that having a sexual urge leads to rape then you are dangerous. I'm not kidding or poking you. I'm utterly serious.

Given that we all have sexual urges and we all can't have sex with everyone we're attracted to, I hope and pray that we are able to control those urges. You apparently cannot even fathom a person would control their urges.

As such, I certainly wouldn't allow you around any women I care about. Most of them are attractive and I certainly wouldn't want you to have any urges.

I initially took it as sincere, but the longer the thread runs without Avriia posting again, the more I incline towards the view that "I have pedophile friends" is bull and that the intention actually was to goad someone into defending child-molesters.


Thank you. I'm not the best at getting my point across.

You mean the days of the Roman empire - where having a little boy to toy with was considered normal ? ;)

Or perhaps the days of hippyism, where not embracing the sexuality of children was considered a horrible, horrible thing to do.

Hmm. Let us not dwell on the past. Let us look at what we know now.

Were literally run out of town on a pole !
( for the children here, you tie a person to a large wooden pole and all the men
in the village / town hoist it up and run it as far from town as they can. )

Or just a good old hanging, we still have the death penalty. Hanging is neither
cruel nor unusual according to the United States Constitution.

Basically removing these harmful subversives from a place where they do their
damage.

Or if you want to have bleeding hearts, throw them on an Island they could
never leave. Let them run free and live life the way they want. Only they
could never have children. ( clip them then dump them on the island )
Have the Coast guard patrol it for security.

Oh I'm not prude, if two adults want to carry on in their homes that's fine.
But a child and an adult IS A PROBLEM.

I believe that at a certain point a civilization reaches a size where it is no
longer civilized.
All you can do then is go back to the core values that build the civilization.
Sadly Americans have been going down hill since the end of the forties.
Yes we had some really good stuff, some cool toys. But our morals have been
sinking lower and lower with every decade.
One day I fear the debauchery of Rome will be our daily fair.

I'm much more disturbed by your statement that your friends are "very into rape" than anything else in that post. Being attracted to children but being aware that attempting sexual contact with them would be a horribly evil thing to do is certainly sad, but not in itself evil. Sitting around thinking, "Man, I love the idea of forcibly fucking a crying child who's begging me to stop" means there is something seriously wrong with you, and I don't particularly have a problem with discrimination against such lowlifes.

Good God! Hell hast frozen over. I agree with you. Those bastards deserve the negative judgment they receive from society.

like i said in the other forum, i don't understand why we should take the chance having them around children if we know they have the urges. i don't want to trust their willpower and just let them interact with them. i think that to be dangerous and see no reason to allow it.

Around children: in the role of teacher, parent, pastor, doctor etc.

So long as you aren't saying "out of jail" then I can agree with the restrictions you would put on pedophiles who have not actually molested any children.

Yes to background checks on those working with children. Perhaps ineligibility of pedophiles to raise children. No to jailing them "just in case."

Around children: in the role of teacher, parent, pastor, doctor etc.

So long as you aren't saying "out of jail" then I can agree with the restrictions you would put on pedophiles who have not actually molested any children.

Yes to background checks on those working with children. Perhaps ineligibility of pedophiles to raise children. No to jailing them "just in case."

So you shouldn't be around women you're might be attracted to? You shouldn't work with women or live with them?

(Substitute men or both if that's more appropriate.)

And like I said, if you really think that having a sexual urge leads to rape then you are dangerous. I'm not kidding or poking you. I'm utterly serious.

Given that we all have sexual urges and we all can't have sex with everyone we're attracted to, I hope and pray that we are able to control those urges. You apparently cannot even fathom a person would control their urges.

As such, I certainly wouldn't allow you around any women I care about. Most of them are attractive and I certainly wouldn't want you to have any urges.

i'll just copy and paste my response in the other forum:

I don't think attraction will definately result in rape. but in the case of children who can't agree to anything, who are in such a vulnerable position, i simply can't see why we should chance it.

luckily for men who are attracted to women, there are plenty out there who are completely and legally willing to sleep with them. children however are not in such a position. none would willing agree to such a thing so i certainly see a difference between the two.


but hey maybe its just me, if you are responsible for a child and know the predilictions of someone you are leaving the child with and are fine with it then fine, that is your choice. i don't agree at all but your choice. parents can put their children in potentially dangerous situations at times, this will be just another


Around children: in the role of teacher, parent, pastor, doctor etc.

So long as you aren't saying "out of jail" then I can agree with the restrictions you would put on pedophiles who have not actually molested any children.

Yes to background checks on those working with children. Perhaps ineligibility of pedophiles to raise children. No to jailing them "just in case."

yes, in cases where interaction with children is going to occur, such a person should not be allowed in that position. they should be encouraged (not forced but encouraged) to take medication to ease the urges, but no until they actually act on them they shouldn't be imprisoned or anything like that.

On what basis do you ascribe "purposes" to sexual attraction? Do you refer to evolutionary purposes?

I refer to biological purposes - evolutionary would certainly fall under that, but there are purposes that it serves to the individual herself.

Neither do a wide variety of sexual behaviors and inclinations.

We are all sexually attracted to people we don't seek emotional connections with--indeed, sometimes people we have never met. Plenty of people are out for "pure" sex.

Are these pathological behaviors?

We aren't talking about behavior. We're talking about the attraction itself, what purpose it serves from a biological standpoint, and its proper function. What people choose to do about that attraction is another subject altogether.

The same is true of homosexuality, which by all appearances is both natural and healthy.

Indeed. But homosexuality does provide a possibility for the emotional connections sex can strengthen and a healthy outlet by which the person and his partner can get the physical results of sex (many of which are beneficial).

The same cannot be said of pedophilia.

You're trying very hard to push the homosexuality connection, but homosexual attraction only gets in the way of a single purpose of sex - reproduction.

I hate to say it, but I understand thier ( the pedos) views. I think that just because you enjoy a tyhe thought of being with somebody under the legal age of consent doesnt mean you will do it. And why is child pornography tyhe only crime thats illegal to look at? Every other crime caught on tape is a hit T.V. show now.

I think that if you enjoy the thought of being with a child, then do it, I wouldn't tell anybody about it tho, and as long as you dont actually commit the crime of rape, enjoying the thought of it is not in itself a crime.

Leagal age of consent is there because the mindset of a child is easy to persuade. I caould tell a child anything and they may or may not accept it as truth. With that in mind, there are actual people in the world that do commit the act of sex with a child, and rape. So laws have been passed to punish people that do these things.

But likeing the thought of it....I d say think about it all day long, but never cross that line.

like i said in the other forum, i don't understand why we should take the chance having them around children if we know they have the urges. i don't want to trust their willpower and just let them interact with them. i think that to be dangerous and see no reason to allow it.

If I told you that I sometimes have the urge to wrap my hands around someone's throat and strangle them, would you try to keep me away from all people?

I'll be honest, if someone told me they were attracted to children, I wouldn't leave children alone with them. It would make me nervous. But I don't think effectively banishing them from normal society is going to do anyone any good.

I believe that at a certain point a civilization reaches a size where it is no
longer civilized.
All you can do then is go back to the core values that build the civilization.

Colonialism, genocide and slavery. Yay!

When people complain about the "erosion of morals" I see them for exactly what they are: moral reactionaries, judgemental people who think they're too good for the real world.

Such people have nothing to offer but hate and violence. I'm glad you came right out and said it ... you hate the US and want to destroy it. Perhaps you should write a letter to the FBI and turn yourself in.

i'll just copy and paste my response in the other forum:

I don't think attraction will definately result in rape. but in the case of children who can't agree to anything, who are in such a vulnerable position, i simply can't see why we should chance it.

luckily for men who are attracted to women, there are plenty out there who are completely and legally willing to sleep with them. children however are not in such a position. none would willing agree to such a thing so i certainly see a difference between the two.


but hey maybe its just me, if you are responsible for a child and know the predilictions of someone you are leaving the child with and are fine with it then fine, that is your choice. i don't agree at all but your choice. parents can put their children in potentially dangerous situations at times, this will be just another




yes, in cases where interaction with children is going to occur, such a person should not be allowed in that position. they should be encouraged (not forced but encouraged) to take medication to ease the urges, but no until they actually act on them they shouldn't be imprisoned or anything like that.

Again, a dangerous argument. Your argument definitely suggests that if you couldn't get any action from women, you'd be likely to rape them. I certainly hope you don't actually think that's true.

The fact is that molesters are rapists who chose children because they are easier targets. Most of them, the vast majority of molesters are not pedophiles.

It's actually been a while since we had a thread on pedophilia.

Let me just say that this is one of my hot-button issues. I'll try to discuss it rationally, but I'm not convinced it's possible.

*reads thread*

You call these people friends? That in itself is astounding to me as a parent.
People like you describe having fetishes for raping children need to be watched by someone. Children are too vulnerable and easily taken advantage of both mentally and physically by these kind of weirdos. You talk about them getting persecuted for being in places with children when they are so "open" about it. What did they expect exactly? A welcoming committee?
No matter how you justify it, it is illegal to have sex with a child. They may not have acted on it yet but since they are so open about it I'm sure if the opportunity presents itself they will. An average child's mind cannot rationalize things the same way as an adults mind can. You are trying to compare the mentality of a 6 year old to a 17 year old? You must be kidding. Any guy who openly admits they have sexual feelings for a child is a sick S O B. And you having so many "friends" that are this way is equally disturbing.

If you don't believe me (or everyone else on this board)have you heard about guys who have gone to jail for molesting/raping children? They are usually kept in solitary confinement because most of the other prisoners want to kill them (and rightly so).

Also, another thing your friends ought to consider is the fact they are leaving themselves wide open to be accused of molestation even if it didn't happen. People have been sent to prison on a lot less.

Having sex with children is terrible. What would possess a person to do that. I just can't imagine. But I can tell you one thing that I know for sure...if I ever found out someone did that to one of my daughters....he wouldn't have to worry about being killed in jail!

I think if a child is mentally and emotionally ready for sex, then let them do it with whoever, as long as both parties are consenting!

Sadly, 90% of children are NOT mentally/emotionally ready for sex (although most teenagers these days think they are :rolleyes:).

That being said, children in the 5 year old range are not mentally/emotionally ready for sex at all. Having sexual intercourse with someone of that age is just...appalling. Especially if it includes S&M.

As for incest, while I wouldn't want to practice it myself, if both parties are consenting, let them do it. But I do NOT want to hear about it.

It's actually been a while since we had a thread on pedophilia.

Let me just say that this is one of my hot-button issues. I'll try to discuss it rationally, but I'm not convinced it's possible.

*reads thread*

Don't do it, Sin! It isn't worth it!

*clenches fist in time with dramatic music*

If I knew someone had a fetish about wanting to rape children, you can be damn sure I'd tell people. It doesn't take a whole lot to push someone from wanting to rape children to actually doing it, and I'd be damned if I'd let something like that remain hidden.

What about someone who gets off on wanting to be brutally raped?

I have a pretty hardcore rape fetish. I fantasise about some pretty terrible things, and sometimes I take it from the point of view of the rapist (still generally me as the victim). Nonetheless, I absolutely never, ever want to BE raped. The actual reality of it would be horrendous.

Is my fetish 'okay' and 'psychologically sound' because I'm not fantasising about doing it, only having it done? What about when I imagine things from the rapist's perspective? Does that push things into the 'time to report it' stage?

Some fantasies should never, ever be acted out in truth. Does simply having the fantasy, however, make one guilty of a crime?

If I told you that I sometimes have the urge to wrap my hands around someone's throat and strangle them, would you try to keep me away from all people?

I'll be honest, if someone told me they were attracted to children, I wouldn't leave children alone with them. It would make me nervous. But I don't think effectively banishing them from normal society is going to do anyone any good.

i wouldn't want them banned from society just kept away from jobs and situations where interactions with children would occur. i hardly think this is such a horrid act.

So you shouldn't be around women you're might be attracted to? You shouldn't work with women or live with them?

(Substitute men or both if that's more appropriate.)

Adults can be aware of each others sexual attraction without that causing any harm. But a child who becomes aware of the sexual attraction a pedophile feels for them IS harmed. (This is a point I made earlier -- the line between "wanting to" and "acting out" is rather arbitrary, though I'm comfortable with where the law usually draws that line.)

The kid is just doing whatever they do, the pedophile is attracted to them (for their little round bum or their naive face perhaps but how is the child to judge?) and the awareness of that attraction sexualizes the child. They begin to question what is or isn't "sexy" about themselves.

I won't take this to it's logical conclusion (that pedophiles should be banished from even being seen by children) because in fact I'm not an extremist. Children DO have sexuality, but its far milder than an adult sexuality and should be left entirely up to them. It rarely goes beyond "playing" or "pretending" and doesn't need the same willpower to keep under control as adult sexuality does.

Like "perversion", it's a term people toss out to describe sexual proclivities they disapprove of. Whether or not they are right to disapprove of them is quite beside the point, because "perverted" and "disturbed" simply don't mean the same thing as "wrong."

I agree. An essay on the subject by Alan Goldman, "Plain Sex (http://faculty.uccb.ns.ca/sstewart/sexlove/goldman.htm)", attempts to define sexual perversion in a way that is not subject to personal disapproval or religious/social objections. He defines perversion in sex as that which would be considered outside of the sexual realm, for other reasons--not just because it is in itself sexual. Therefor child molestation and rape are perversions not because they are sexual, but because they violate the right to bodily integrity and informed consent.

I think defining beliefs, thoughts and desires as normal or perverted is a difficult and fairly useless thing to do--what should concern society is actions. Clearly sex with someone who is unconsenting or unable to consent is wrong; it doesn't matter if the desire is or not.

It doesn't have to harm the pedophile directly to be biologically unhealthy and unnatural. All I have to do is show evidence that it is harmful to the species' survival as a whole, which includes harm to the victims. That should be rather easy.

I am disturbed and disgusted that I am sitting here in a modern society having an argument on this topic. I don't think I've been this repulsed by a thread in a while.

You've shown no such evidence. Too repulsed or can't find any?

I'm going to bed sick to my stomach that people like this kid's friends can actually be supported by people. Absolutely disgusting.

Please indicate where anyone's SUPPORTED anyone like those people mentioned in the OP. Not wanting to have someone strung up by a mob for what they THINK about is one HELL of a lot different than SUPPORTING them. I can't believe I actually had to type that.

The Catholics (and some others) believe that the thought = the deed when it comes to sin. Thankfully, that's not the law. You and I would BOTH be tried for murder, or at least assault and battery, for our thoughts on several occasions. You need to get over your personal revulsion and read what Soheran and Nobel Hobos are actually typing, not what you imagine them to be implying. Ask for clarifications if you like, but deliberately misrepresenting them because you dislike the topic is really kinda childish

Well, yes, sort of. Given that you are the only one in this thread arguing against it being unhealthy, it does seem fairly reasonable to ask for some evidence to support your position, in much the same way as it would seem reasonable to ask you for evidence if you argued against my statement that at night, it tends to get dark out.

Really? I take it you've never been to latitudes higher than 60 degrees. Some nights last all day without anything darker than the beginnings of a sunset. A fitting metaphor when dealing with what society considers an unsavory topic -- no matter how much we might love a generalization and how they might make decisions easy, they're still generalizations.

I see your point, but I have to disagree still. Given that humans are fundamentally a social species, and have lived in communities for the duration of our species' existence, I think it is more than reasonable to expect a healthy mind to consider the well-being of others as well as their own well-being. If humans were not fundamentally dependent on each other, complete selfishness could be considered rational, but that's simply not the way we work.

Most of the time, sure. Not always.

Further, a willingness to harm others does rather suggest an inability to see those others as full human beings capable of suffering, which is a state typical of infants, who generally grow out of that state sometime in toddlerhood. If an adult is still mentally on par with an infant in some way, is it not reasonable to suggest that their mental health is poor?

Absolutely. However, has anyone made such assertions?

right, wouldn't want to give the pedos the impression that they are a lower lifeform, that would just be cruel to their precious sensibilities. The pedos might cry or something!

Sh. The adults are talking.

An attraction to post-pubescent but young people is pederasty (ie underage teens). While the latter still should not be acted upon until the person is mature enough to provide consent, the attraction itself would not be pathological, as the physical signs indicating sexual maturity are present.

See also hebephilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia) (pubescent attraction), and ephebophilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia) (mid-to-late adolescent attraction).

Also, kudos to Soheran and Dempublicents1 for sparring civilly and intelligently. It is gratifying to read.

No, I don't. My question is why does it even need to be discussed? It seems as if everyone is in agreement about the general subject.

Uh...you're not reading all the posts in this thread, then.

like i said in the other forum, i don't understand why we should take the chance having them around children if we know they have the urges. i don't want to trust their willpower and just let them interact with them. i think that to be dangerous and see no reason to allow it.

So you'd probably agree to preventive action on pyromaniacs in case they become arsonists, too, right? How about preventive detention or running out on a rail of those who are heard saying they want to kill someone -- even in the heat of anger? Seems prudent, right? Or the guy who really wants to kick someone's ass, or another who uses racial epithets? Where does it stop? Do we bust the guy who confesses that crosswalks aren't always in convenient places but he still manages to shave time off his walks by not using them?

Talk is literally cheap. It can indicate someone to look out for, but being known as someone who discusses his potential for socially abhorrent action isn't enough to convict them -- we don't live in Arthur Miller's Salem, Massachusetts anymore, and thank God for that.

Were literally run out of town on a pole! (for the children here, you tie a person to a large wooden pole and all the men in the village / town hoist it up and run it as far from town as they can.)

Or just a good old hanging, we still have the death penalty. Hanging is neither cruel nor unusual according to the United States Constitution.

Basically removing these harmful subversives from a place where they do their damage.

Or if you want to have bleeding hearts, throw them on an Island they could
never leave. Let them run free and live life the way they want. Only they
could never have children. (clip them then dump them on the island)
Have the Coast guard patrol it for security.

Oh I'm not prude, if two adults want to carry on in their homes that's fine.
But a child and an adult IS A PROBLEM.

I believe that at a certain point a civilization reaches a size where it is no
longer civilized. All you can do then is go back to the core values that build the civilization. Sadly Americans have been going down hill since the end of the forties. Yes we had some really good stuff, some cool toys. But our morals have been sinking lower and lower with every decade. One day I fear the debauchery of Rome will be our daily fair.

Ah, yes. Let's go back to the 40s when discrimination and outright violence against those who weren't white or Protestant was considered just fine, and even considering marrying outside of your race or faith was enough to get the treatment you're waxing so nostalgic for.

Sorry, but I don't want to live in a world where everything is so black and white that thought takes a back seat to the jerk of a knee. I swear, you jumped out of Central Casting for Pleasantville as the ethical stunt double for the J.T. Walsh character.

So you'd probably agree to preventive action on pyromaniacs in case they become arsonists, too, right? How about preventive detention or running out on a rail of those who are heard saying they want to kill someone -- even in the heat of anger?

I agree with you, but I think it's such an emotional issue for most people that it's difficult to frame the argument rationally. I'm a teacher; I work closely, almost entirely unsupervised, with very young children (usually 5-7). It's a difficult issue for me to approach rationally because I know first-hand how utterly trusting children can be, especially with authority figures like teachers and pastors, and I know how many children are sexually abused in the U.S. However, I do believe in prosecuting people for their actions, not their beliefs or feelings, however personally repugnant they might be to me. I don't think it's healthy or safe to have people who have sexual feelings for children in a position where they work closely with them, but ultimately only their actions--not their feelings--break the law. There are probably a lot of people out there who fantasize about children and have never laid a finger on one--the idea chills me, but not more than the idea of living in a police state where our very thoughts are subject to the law.

Hey Avriia, the jerk store called--they're running out of you!

If no one gets that, I will lose all faith in humanity. Really.

I have read all of your posts up to here in this thread... and I have to say that you are an amazing person.

Also, I made a Mii of the quoter above, and it's fantastic (yes, I do get it)

Shut up.

Oooh, good one, I haven't heard so articulate an insult since fifth grade, when everyone grew up enough to stop using it. (the 'articulate' was intentionally inaccurate, in case you didn't get it without explanation)

im going to respond to most people here, anyone else who i didnt respond to and wants a response, just ask, lazy people can ctrl + f their names:
you can be damn sure I'd tell people. It doesn't take a whole lot to push someone from wanting to rape children to actually doing it, and I'd be damned if I'd let something like that remain hidden. Quite frankly, I'd be hard pressed not to take it to a proper authority to ensure the person gets the psychiatric help

thats completely untrue, plenty of people have rape fetishes, and they dont go around raping people
ever hear of role playing?
same can go for pedophilia

If your friends "prefer" girls in the age ranges you described, common sense leads one to believe that your friends have experience with girls in those age ranges.

gee, since two are complete virgins (never done anything remotely sexual) and one is in a monogamous relationship somehow i find that hard to believe
do i have to have sex with both girls and guys to know im bi? surely not. does someone have to have sex with a cat girl to know they like nekos? what about someone whos a furry (like my current boyfriend) do they have to have sex with animals?
use common sense
they prefer/are interested in those age ranges. but that doesnt mean theyve done anything with people in those ages, they can easily have just looked at lolicon or fantasized

And rightly so.

they have not - and never will - rape anyone. they will not sexually harass or assault anyone. how is it wrong? give me an actual reason, thats exactly like someone saying gay sex is wrong and they deserve to be harassed
why should an innocent be harassed? rape is a common fetish, many people have it, people arent harassed for that fetish, yet pedophiles are.

If you're trying to be contoversial, piss off. We've had peadophilia before as a subject.

im not trying to be controversial. im trying to state my beliefs and attempting to get a bit more tolerance into the world, something this website seems big on - right up until here, sure you dont have to agree with it, but they DO have rights

Two of them are sexually attracted to 5 year olds. Some professional help is in order.

and what of gay people? professional help for them works so well after all

People who have a sexual attraction to children certainly deserve all the same rights as other people. No question about it.

thank you, someone with common sense (goes for anyone else who says something similar i dont respond to)

but seriously your friends are fucked up. Rape fetishs... wtf

rape is one of the most common - and widely accepted fetishes, odd that a rape/ pedophilia fetish is automatically evil isnt it? and pedophilia and rape fetishes do not go hand in hand - just like bondage and s&m - only two are into rape to my knowledge

But perhaps the OP can clarify whether or not his/her friends have engaged in sexual activity with minors or it is strictly fantasy.

i believe i clarified when i said they have not ever committed a crime, none of them, it wasnt just pure rhetoric
also: im a girl, not a guy

No, I think they should be harassed for publicly expressing their wish to rape five year olds.

thats the exact mind frame that encourages negativity towards gay people
-dont ask dont tell
-people shouldnt have to hear about gay people being gay
freedom of speech, they werent harassing anyone, others were harassing them

But I also don't see the need to talk about it other than to mental health professionals. It's not something that can ever be acted on, after all. It's also just prudent on their part not to self identify.

I'm also not sure that allowing it to be discussed freely won't lead to emboldening them to act upon their desires. (This is based upon what I learned on another forum that suffered a mass pedo invasion).

do you condone people being sent to psychiatrists for being bi/ gay/ lesbian?
if not how do you condone this? if they raped someone of course they should see psychiatrists, as well as be in prison
but thats not the case
talking = coping, if you wanted to do something extremely, but it was illegal, wouldnt you want to talk to people about it?
its actually the reverse, being forced to hold it in would cause the stress to become unbearable and eventually they just wouldnt give a fuck (they being in general, for anything, and not my friends specifically)
mass pedo invasion? the fuck...? oh yes because three people, of which only one here has an account on this site, is mass pedo invasion

Have you just arrived from /b/?

-i dont sound like 'LOL PEDOPHILIA' especially since this is a serious discussion
-i personally am not into pedophilia
-4chan does not allow lolicon, thats not4chan, which at least two of my friends go to frequently
-i dont go on /b/ and have only been there once, out of curiosity (because a site i have an account on absolutely loathes 4chan, and specifically /b/ so i wanted to see why) though i do go to 4chan regularly

Legal rights must apply to everyone, or they are meaningless. But the idea that an 11 year old might be suitable to consent to sex is such an appalling idea that words can not begin to describe it.

I wonder who you're hanging around if you have that many friends who want to screw a child.

how could we be sure that was the case? The idea of a minor giving consent is a pathetic defense for perverts who want to justify their sick actions.

thank you for being mature enough to realize that
*shrugs* three isnt that many, but anyways: one i met indirectly through another, on one of the threads that my friend was being harassed on i stood up for him, it was split somewhat where most believed that (he was 14 at the time) he couldnt be a pedophile, some took it jokingly, and others - not many but some - rushed to his defence. of one of them was the guy i ended up befriending thats married
we cant tell if 16 yr olds are mature enough to give consent, they arent done physically maturing, yet they can consent in many states throughout america and other countries, i did say you arent fully mature on average until mid 20s in case you missed that

Under the same right of freedom of expression, I have a right to say exactly what I think of them.

true, but it went beyond verbal harassment as i said
only to one since one is fairly inactive on the site, one is fairly active and a regular, so well liked overall, and the other is fairly active yet not a regular

I'm much more disturbed by your statement that your friends are "very into rape" than anything else in that post and I don't particularly have a problem with discrimination against such lowlifes.

the hell?
lowlifes? rape is one of the MOST common fetishes, just because youre into it doesnt make you immoral or bad, if you do rape someone it makes you immoral (to an extent, its possible to have morals outside of it though) and 'bad' (its subjective, though i would agree it is bad to rape)
and for the record, at least two are submissive as much as dominant

This is insane.

Seriously, put these guys on the sexual predators list.

and thats exactly what im saying
people like you disgust me
why should we take away peoples basic rights on the chance they MIGHT commit a crime when they arent past criminals nor have they expressed plans to actually do something about their desires

Paedophile =/= child molester and nowhere near all paedophiles actually molest children, and yet they get so ostracized by society anyway. It's disgusting. They need help, not ridicule.

while i dont agree with you entirely, thank you for realizing that they are innocent

I would like to draw attention to this comment...

...and then this one:

Nice.

hes into incest, nothing harmful about that, but that is a different subject
as for rape its been sufficiently covered in my response to others, i think

I agree with everything up to the "I don't have a problem with discrimination" part. Anyone who enjoys the thought of forcing themselves on another person and causing that person pain is very disturbed. Of course, the same is true for anyone who'd enjoy the thought of sex with a child.

However, horror at such people must never blind us to the importance of protecting everyone's legal rights. I think such people should be watched, and reported at the first sign they might act one their feelings. But we don't endorse preemptive vigilantism because someone might commit an evil act. Not if we want a functioning society, anyways.

i strongly disagree with you about discrimination, ill assume youre in the usa or wherever you live has something similar to the bill of rights - because that applies to everyone. basic rights apply to all people, just based on the fact that something beyond ANYONES control to change is liked, they should be discriminated against?

AvriiaIf that's so, we have a problem because seventeen year olds discussing their rape fantasies with you would be pretty much illegal.

discussing a fantasy is not illegal, and im 16 (yes im female btw), i am over the age of consent (well, im right at the age of consent, but same thing)

Sorry, I'm a bit tipsy and thus seem to be expressing myself less clearly than usual. I didn't mean legal discrimination and I certainly wouldn't consider someone like that a "friend."

i dont feel like finding the part i quoted and taking it out, so its staying there, but okay - goes for anyone else whos had a similar change of heart, for want of a better word
and why shouldnt i consider them my friends? theyve been there for me for at minimum a year (even the former friend its my fault i ended the friendship more or less)

*has been waiting to use this line*

Why would you possibly want to risk having sex with a 12 year old when there are plenty of 20-year old Asian women that look 12?

rofl, maybe theyre not into asians?

Is your desired partner both consenting and legally capable of consent? It's not disturbed.

Is your desired partner non-consenting and/or legally incapable of consent? It's disturbed.

That was pretty easy, really.

I would think most people would agree that actively wanting to hurt others is not particularly healthy.

s&m - destroying your second argument with one word
to the rest: its not disturbed either way, rape is a common fetish and pedophilia less so, though both are perfectly acceptable - rape fully acceptable up until acted out, and pedophilia, the same as rape in that case (though my personal opinion differs)

Indeed. If the OP poster knows someone who wants to rape a family member, and hasn't informed their family of that fact, then any harm that befalls that child will be partly on their head. It is the hight of negligence not to report such information.

couldnt if i wanted to - long story

The OP certainly has the Pedobear seal of approval.

hahaha. thatll make one of my friends happy,
my friend is atheist, yet he jokingly 'worships' pedobear, i wonder if that makes me a saint in his 'religion' or something?

This is not a laughing matter. Your "friends" are likely dangerous child predators. If it means saving a kid a fucked up life, I think it would be worth telling at least their parents or other people about this.
Expose them. Now. Before it's too late. Go to the police.

like hell
read my other arguments if you want a real response

---

mmk, ill get to the rest in a minute... i can only go so fast and this is getting long enough as is...
please ignore typos/ obvious annoying mistakes in spelling - im getting tired. its well past 4am

I agree with you, but I think it's such an emotional issue for most people that it's difficult to frame the argument rationally. I'm a teacher; I work closely, almost entirely unsupervised, with very young children (usually 5-7). It's a difficult issue for me to approach rationally because I know first-hand how utterly trusting children can be, especially with authority figures like teachers and pastors, and I know how many children are sexually abused in the U.S. However, I do believe in prosecuting people for their actions, not their beliefs or feelings, however personally repugnant they might be to me. I don't think it's healthy or safe to have people who have sexual feelings for children in a position where they work closely with them, but ultimately only their actions--not their feelings--break the law. There are probably a lot of people out there who fantasize about children and have never laid a finger on one--the idea chills me, but not more than the idea of living in a police state where our very thoughts are subject to the law.

Well said. I'm no fan of society taking a Minority Report kind of turn.

Pedo's have zero rights. I read through only a portion of the first couple of paragraphs of the op and stoped before I threw up. As far as Im concerned anyone with a "rape" fetish that is also a pedophile should be chemically castrated, have to register as a pedophile/sex offender, and be forced to put a big fucking sign on their yard "I AM A PEDOPHILE"

continuation from other post, im trying not to respond to others whom i feel are in a debate with another person, unless i have something i really feel is important to say, but if someone wants me to, again, just ask:

though I have no doubt you are completely unable to back it up.

thats also a big claim isnt it?
youve just gone and made an assumption, when the other was an opinion that can be backed up with facts readily available. and if i can find my list of sources i will provide some, just like im sure skyland would/ will

You know, from the arguments about 11 year olds giving consent, I'm willing to bet that the OP poster may very well be a closet pedophile. I don't intend this as flaming, merely observation. Of course there are other reasons that one could make such an argument, like the disturbing all morality is subjective garbage I here from the more politically correct in our society.

not really, i just have some very unusual opinions, id list some here, but i dont want this to get off topic
a list of my fetishes though:
orgasm control - specifically long term denial, but i also like minimized/ ruined (ask if you dont know) orgasms and to a much lesser extent forced ones
-d/s i prefer dom, but im also submissive
-bondage
also: political correctness is bullshit imo, but thats very off topic

If you're trying to say that it's not a useful distinction, then I agree.

Why not simply say, pedos should get treatment to be aware of their condition and to manage it. Not necessarily because it's "sick" but simply so that they can function in a society where acting-out their desires would be bad all round.

Part of the problem is that the social attitude towards pedophilia HAS to be rather stark and uncompromising, because it's a story for children. That children be aware of the risk is the most important thing ... so we have a myth that pedophiles ARE all dangerous: kidnappers, torturers, rapists and murderers.

and what about my 15 yr old best friend? hes a child himself (im merely pointing this out because you seem to think childrens rights should be held above others) he has rights too
and it can easily be handled without demonizing them
to the rest, most of my previous post covered it

Nice ad hominem.

hahaha, damn, you just reminded me of back before i knew how to spell that... and my spell check doesnt recognize the spelling in any way, even correctly spelt (well, microsoft word would, but this is my isp's [though i hate apostraphes punctuation and what not in informal instances its there for clarification] spell check, not that)
ended up a guy i was being bad mouthed by calling me retarded and correcting me
i thanked him, made him look like a complete ass :s

I'm not sure why this is even a subject of debate!

Raping 5 year-olds = bad
Raping 20 year olds = bad
Raping 50 year olds = bad
Raping family members = bad

Getting the trend here?

obviously
but heres the problem with your argument
none of them are rapists

What the fuck. It's quite concerning one can talk about this in such a calm manner and not understand why these people are persecuted.. Hmm.

note, the following does not represent my views in any way shape or form, it is merely satirical, and to prove a point:
its quite concerning one can talk about gays rights in such a calm manner and not understand why these people are persecuted, they clearly should have no rights despite the law being there to protect from persecution

Okay, the STANDARD is "wanting to hurt people is wrong and unhealthy."

Seriously, if you can present some argument that wanting to hurt people (and specifically small children) is perfectly healthy, go for it.

As far as your argument above re: legality, you make a fair point. Wanting to break the law is not in itself disturbed, so the word "legal" was irrelevant. Leave it out, then, and my statement stands.

going by that standard anyone who has ever wanted to do wrong in the eyes of the law is subject to jail time/ the appropriate punishment
it should be hurting people is wrong and unhealthy (exception for s&m since its consensual and done with strict guidelines usually)
why should small children have rights (in terms of protection) different to a full grown adult?
your statement does not stand, because you just expressed the same view in this one

forcing yourself on a child is a moral distinction? nothing disturbing in this act?

everythings wrong with that
did you read? its wanting to thats neither good nor bad
it just is

I'm going to bed sick to my stomach that people like this kid's friends can actually be supported by people. Absolutely disgusting.

be sick all you want, anyone who can honestly believe someones rights can be stripped away without a crime having been commited can deal with it
note: this is a mixture of how i feel and a bit of sarcasm

Did 4chan break down? Did we get some of their sewage runoff? :confused:

im actually primarily from newgrounds, the site that i mentioned before that tried to bar them from this
its a flash site combined with a myspace-like blog section and forums

What's 4chan?

go to www.4chan.org
its an imageboard site many people (and fox news) associate with a lot of very funny miconceptions
/b/ 4chans random board is their most popular board, and people seem to quite often forget there are other boards on /b/
/b/ is responsible for several raids on various sites, and a war against scientology - its better if you do research on the stuff thats gone on on 4chan yourself, i couldnt do the description justice

Actually, it does seem to be going rather slowly on my comp. Weird.

haha, works fine on mine
and people say vista and internet explorer are bad... silly them

Hey Avriia, the jerk store called--they're running out of you!

If no one gets that, I will lose all faith in humanity. Really.

*blank stare*
im contributing to your lost faith in humanity, btw :s

The anus of the internets.

now now, thats more like /b/ specifically
dont forget 4chan =/= /b/

To me, the difficult question which it is worthwhile to ponder is whether there is a line between "wanting to" and "acting out."

Sexual attraction between adults is more or less acceptable in many contexts. Even in a work environment (though there are quite rightly strong limits on the "acting out") people are not expected to completely conceal their sexual interest in other adults.

Yet in the case of pedophiles, that is the expectation. They are expected (by Soheran's very useful standard "ethical behaviour") to conceal their sexual interest in the child well enough that the child is not aware of it. Even to suspect that basis for an adult's interest in them (say, noticing that the adult is admiring their ass) sexualises the child somewhat.

Is it even POSSIBLE to completely conceal a sexual attraction?

A person who simply suppresses their desire is likely to come across as "creepy" -- not right in some way which is hard to define. So in fact covering their real feelings with some other overt attitude towards the child (such as intolerance, or didacticism, or parentalism) may be the best way of not letting their feelings affect the child.

And that's just what we don't want. Confusion between a sexual attitude to the child and other legitimate roles (like teacher or pastor) could be very harmful to the child. "Is the teacher complimenting me for my neat work and right answers? Really? Or are they on the make?"

legally speaking there clearly is, because we dont go punishing everyone for crimes they want to commit

a child, unless they are old enough to know about sex already - and not just the reproduction aspect, the lust fetishes and all of that stuff too, would only be sexualised in that if they werent innocent, and yet, its most likely the perceived innocence of children that makes this subject so touchy for many

Not always, Here the age of consent is 16, I believe from whats been said on a different forum that mexico's age of consent is 14 as is Japans in a couple of prefectures and I know that the UK age is 16.

On the flip side, some countries have an age of consent of 21. and One country has an age of consent of 25.

so a 17 year old need not necessarily be illegal depending on where Aviira is located.

interesting fact: from what ive heard and found out the youngest age of consent is 12, i forget what places that is though

OK, I realize that wasn't very helpful. I'll put it more explicitly.

All Avriia has done to deserve insults or goads is to start this thread. Just the one post. There is no advocacy there, it's a thoughtful post along the lines of "I'm perplexed by this issue which actually affects me and my friends."

Leistung, if you object to the existence of this thread, and you can find nothing rule-breaking to report about it ... then the correct response is to NOT POST TO IT.

I.e. Shut up.

^.^ yay

Sure, that's true.

But absent any details, there's the risk that we're responding reasonably to a ten-year-old who has been chatting about rape with 17 and 23 year olds. Even a response like "oh that's interesting" would be wrong in that context, you would agree?

IM SIXTEEN AND AT THE EXACT LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT FOR WHERE I LIVE
ive stated it previously, im merely stating it again in case anyone misses it

Calm down, man, seriously. All I'm saying is that openly discussing raping five year-olds is a tad bit...off. No need to go crazy.

i can get more off if you want
lmao

While we must not compromise in our opposition to the abuse of children, we should at the same time absolutely refuse to dehumanize and demonize people with sexual attraction to children.

If the demands of justice do not suffice for you, consider instead the pragmatic argument: if we are irrational and indiscriminate in our judgments on the subject, we lose some of the credibility we need for our moral argument to be convincing.

The best way to defend opposition to pedophilia against arguments that it is just another manifestation of arbitrary social prejudice is to ensure that it is not, in any respect.

yay, now if only everyone in the world could realize that about everything

(Though I WILL make an effort to calm down. I think perhaps I'm posting too hurriedly because I expect this thread to end in a lock.)

i dont see why this would end in a lock, unless this place doesnt tolerate freedom of speech, which while personally reasonable being a privately owned site, doesnt seem like what this place is based on

This deserves to be stuck in a signature somehow. It's certainly a statement that everyone should read.

agreed, though even reading it wouldnt be enough for many people to realize it, sadly

Did anyone begin to think that the op was a troll??????

ANYONE?

im not. go ahead, ask me to prove it, and figure out a way for me to prove it, and ill gladly prove it

True

But the question still is, when CAN someone consent... remember back in the middle ages and later, through to the industrial ages, 15 and 16 year old girls were marrying men who were in their 50's in arranged marriages. and having kids within the year.

A woman is capable of bearing children ANY time past the onset of puberty. going by "Mother Nature" who is a lot more coldblooded and dispassionate than humans, "if it can bleed, it can breed" It's human society who decided on "Ages of consent" and frankly, the different ages in different cultures are simply cultural matters. not biological ones.

Separating "mental ability to understand what is being consented to" from "physical ability to manage biologically what is being undertaken", there is no firm accpted age where the first is acheived, yet there is for the second.

Puberty.

In the absence of a scientific proof test along the line of "hormone levels of GJME28093-hh3 in the subjects bloodstream were above xxx parts per billion, as such the subject can now be officially classed as mature enough to consent" being discovered, there is no real ability to set an age where consent becomes informed.

What about vegetables. a 40 year old vegetative state person can't consent to anything, even to being fed. whereas an intelligent 10 year old may well be able to understand and consent, but an unintelligent 25 year old may not fully grasp it.

yay for someone getting my point in its entirety

Oh of course. But feeding trolls can be fun for a while.

im not a troll.
just opinionated

right, wouldn't want to give the pedos the impression that they are a lower lifeform, that would just be cruel to their precious sensibilities. The pedos might cry or something!

they arent lower life forms.

The argument could be made that sexual attraction to a group of people who are not sexually mature would be a malfunction. I don't know that "disturbed" would be the best term for it, but "pathological" could be.

same argument can be made for gay people
of course, theres scientific proof to the contrary of at least one (not that that stops people), im not sure of the other... i could try to look

...

that sums up my reaction to it nicely too

Why?

because any argument can be made
the question is could it be a valid argument in which one provides sources and could it hold up realistically etc

Because people like that would be taken care of.

I don't see how there can be any question on the subject,

...
you would condone the criminalization of non criminals?

Not if you remove them from society.

" No man, No problem," Stalin.
And it's true.

Child toucher's can't be "saved" or "cured".

speechless.
if thats what you really believe youve succeeded in making me absolutely speechless.

I agree with your heading. I can't believe people are taking this person seriously and getting all bent out of shape.

I mean yeah, everyone's views are righteous, but they are all the same. The original post is just to get a rise out of everyone.

:confused:

no its not, i dont like posting on the forums on the site i go to, and i dont plan on doing it anyways, itd just succeed in getting me banned, even in the politics section most likely, after i write a much longer formal essay out and send it to the admin ill be satisfied, for the time being

right unless we treat the bastards with the utmost respect they'll just shrug and say "they hate me anyway so why not hurt that child to sate my disgusting appetites? Woe is me! and its all your fault society for being mean to me! i have no self control now oh no sir, as you have destroyed my self esteem!"

*pedo breaks down in tears as reaches for scared, traumatized child*

you do realize, statistically speaking, its pretty much accepted to be the case with most things, right?

Gone are the good old days !

henceforth unless you can put up a real argument im not responding to anything you say. i like my pretty lies to myself that the world can manage to live in harmony some day before humans are extinct

I mean, is this topic really worth discussion? The topic is disgusting in itself.

a straight person could find gay sex disgusting
is it not a worthy topic for debate?
and disgust is a matter of personal preferance

Because it is a sexual attraction that doesn't serve any of the purposes of sexual attraction and is, in fact, detrimental.QUOTE]

uh, might i ask what you believe the purposes of sexual attraction are? surely not procreation? its merely sexual gratification even if some forms of sexual attraction will ultimately result in procreation

No, I don't. My question is why does it even need to be discussed? It seems as if everyone is in agreement about the general subject.

if that was the case not only would this topic not have been started, but people wouldnt have gotten into debates amongst themselves

That doesn't address the point that people are conflating rape and sexual attraction though. I think this is a very scary argument to make. I certainly have never even been tempted to rape someone simply because I was attracted to them. If you don't think rape and sexual attraction are not related at all, I fear you.

correction
rape fetish/ rape role playing (assuming i knew the intimate details of the non virgin i mentioned, i dont know if hes ever role played with his wife about it)
two very different things

I initially took it as sincere, but the longer the thread runs without Avriia posting again, the more I incline towards the view that "I have pedophile friends" is bull and that the intention actually was to goad someone into defending child-molesters.

I won't do that. An explicit reading of Soheran's posts shows that they're not doing that either. The most likely candidates for getting this thread locked are probably those who advocate killing pedophiles "just in case."

sorry, last time i checked it it had 0 posts and was on the third page... pretty much figured it wasnt going to be posted in so i left it for the majority of the day
not to mention i dont spend my life on nationstates, though i do spend most of it on the computer

like i said in the other forum, i don't understand why we should take the chance having them around children if we know they have the urges. i don't want to trust their willpower and just let them interact with them. i think that to be dangerous and see no reason to allow it.

youre now in the same boat as the other guy
reading the stuff you say is disturbing enough im no longer responding to anything you say in this thread short of the aforementioned conditions

Good God! Hell hast frozen over. I agree with you. Those bastards deserve the negative judgment they receive from society.

please tell me thats sarcasm

Yes to background checks on those working with children. Perhaps ineligibility of pedophiles to raise children. No to jailing them "just in case."

if that happened - the no raising children bit - i WOULD attempt to break the law.
although very happy with my current bf i am hoping to end up marrying both my current bf and my best friend (we all multi dated for a short while, and i love them both very much - since civil unions in uhh, denmark or somewhere like that, forget offhand, are legal for polygamy [and essentially full marriage for gay people] i plan on going there to live unless by the time im an adult the usa has legalized at least gay marriage and idealistically speaking both - besides, my bf is planning on a sex change when hes older, so itd be a lesbian relationship)
in any case, i wouldnt be willing to go without him helping to raise his children

QUOTE=Dempublicents1;13901373]Indeed. But homosexuality does provide a possibility for the emotional connections sex can strengthen and a healthy outlet by which the person and his partner can get the physical results of sex (many of which are beneficial).

The same cannot be said of pedophilia.

You're trying very hard to push the homosexuality connection, but homosexual attraction only gets in the way of a single purpose of sex - reproduction.

see ancient greece, where not only was homosexuality extremely common and beneficial (in terms of relationships emotionally) but pedophilia was as well

It's actually been a while since we had a thread on pedophilia.

Let me just say that this is one of my hot-button issues. I'll try to discuss it rationally, but I'm not convinced it's possible.

*reads thread*

thank you, thats appreciated

I think if a child is mentally and emotionally ready for sex, then let them do it with whoever, as long as both parties are consenting!

Sadly, 90% of children are NOT mentally/emotionally ready for sex (although most teenagers these days think they are :rolleyes:).

That being said, children in the 5 year old range are not mentally/emotionally ready for sex at all. Having sexual intercourse with someone of that age is just...appalling. Especially if it includes S&M.

As for incest, while I wouldn't want to practice it myself, if both parties are consenting, let them do it. But I do NOT want to hear about it.

agreed, not everyone can, but perhaps if we gave them the tools to learn about things they would be better equipped to handle it, obviously not immediately, but much sooner than we give children credit for

What about someone who gets off on wanting to be brutally raped?

I have a pretty hardcore rape fetish. I fantasise about some pretty terrible things, and sometimes I take it from the point of view of the rapist (still generally me as the victim). Nonetheless, I absolutely never, ever want to BE raped. The actual reality of it would be horrendous.

Is my fetish 'okay' and 'psychologically sound' because I'm not fantasising about doing it, only having it done? What about when I imagine things from the rapist's perspective? Does that push things into the 'time to report it' stage?

Some fantasies should never, ever be acted out in truth. Does simply having the fantasy, however, make one guilty of a crime?

agreed, minus the having a rape fetish bit, though i suppose id be willing to try roleplaying it some day, willing to try pretty much anything once

Adults can be aware of each others sexual attraction without that causing any harm. But a child who becomes aware of the sexual attraction a pedophile feels for them IS harmed. (This is a point I made earlier -- the line between "wanting to" and "acting out" is rather arbitrary, though I'm comfortable with where the law usually draws that line.)

The kid is just doing whatever they do, the pedophile is attracted to them (for their little round bum or their naive face perhaps but how is the child to judge?) and the awareness of that attraction sexualizes the child. They begin to question what is or isn't "sexy" about themselves.

I won't take this to it's logical conclusion (that pedophiles should be banished from even being seen by children) because in fact I'm not an extremist. Children DO have sexuality, but its far milder than an adult sexuality and should be left entirely up to them. It rarely goes beyond "playing" or "pretending" and doesn't need the same willpower to keep under control as adult sexuality does.

prove it. youre making this claim but you have no evidence
where exactly does it say a child being aware of lust towards them is going to emotionally scar them or something?
and even so, it would only be because of societies views on it
take female castration for instance, in most modern societies anyone who had that done to them would be scarred for life
i know i would
yet in many 'uncivilized' societies not only does it happen, but females arent scarred by it due to society viewing it as beneficial, and in fact, a large amount of them do go on to later experience orgasm - theres actual studies on this

im posting this now because its thunder + lightning outside... in case the power goes out i dont want to lose what ive written thusfar... ill try to respond to more though

I agree with you, but I think it's such an emotional issue for most people that it's difficult to frame the argument rationally. I'm a teacher; I work closely, almost entirely unsupervised, with very young children (usually 5-7). It's a difficult issue for me to approach rationally because I know first-hand how utterly trusting children can be, especially with authority figures like teachers and pastors, and I know how many children are sexually abused in the U.S. However, I do believe in prosecuting people for their actions, not their beliefs or feelings, however personally repugnant they might be to me. I don't think it's healthy or safe to have people who have sexual feelings for children in a position where they work closely with them, but ultimately only their actions--not their feelings--break the law. There are probably a lot of people out there who fantasize about children and have never laid a finger on one--the idea chills me, but not more than the idea of living in a police state where our very thoughts are subject to the law.

understandable, but nonetheless why should they have jobs discrimination to face?
it only becomes necessary if they have actually attempted to/ succeeded in raping or harming someone

well damn, that wasnt worth posting a minute ago
only found one thing to reply to after that and the power didnt even go out...
ahh well, ill survive

Wow, you really have strange friends.

Rape is bad.
Legal consent should be 14-15.
Everyone is guilty of having "impure" thoughts.

i have several friends who are pedophiles, none would ever dream of harming a soul, at the same time though, they do wish they could have sex with people either slightly below the age of consent or substantially below

my best friend (and ex, although im a year older) prefers girls in the 5 - 12 yr old range (hes 15) and also has a rape fetish, he also is into incest and wants to rape his cousin

another very close friend prefers girls in the 12 - 17 yr old range (hes 23 and married)

and yet another former friend prefers girls in the 5 - 17 yr old range (he is 17) and is very much into rape s&m and incest

all three of them have been subjected to a lot of harassment for their views, which theyre all very open about, on a website two were threatened with account deletion, by an admin, for being pedophiles, the rules dont even broach pedophilia
on this same website users have made threads saying that they should be reported to the police, when none have done anything wrong

outside of my circle of friends plenty of people also endure the same persecution - if someone should be so bold as to declare they are pedophiles or have a similar fetish they have made attempts to make it known to the entire town what their sexual preferences were, so that no one would be raped or sexually assaulted - yet these are unconvicted people
havent people ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?

my question to you is the following:
are pedophiles entitled to the same rights as others? think before you answer; many would automatically say yes having been raised upon the belief that all people are equal in terms of their unalienable rights, some would say that they most certainly are - until those rights conflicted with the rights of a child
but exactly how can you decide where to draw the line? if banning unconvicted people from a public library just on the basis they might do something is okay than why cant we apply that to everything else? shouldnt their rights only be revoked if they commit an actual crime?

and what of statutory? we send 11 yr olds to colleges, if there are people that are smart enough to go to college at only 11 than surely people can make the decision to have sex at that age, all they would need is a proper understanding of sex and its consequences/ benefits as well as to be fully matured
there are 20 yr olds out there who arent emotionally mature enough to be having sex, yet its legal, i realize realistically speaking that abolishing the age of consent could provide a horrid legal nightmare, but nonetheless is an age of consent really necessary? and if so why apprx 16 in many places when most people are fully matured in their mid 20s? if a person consents and their consent is not forced in any way, than i believe that they should be entitled to have sex without either party being punished for it. obviously some ages would not be able to have sex (infancy) because at that age they cannot talk, cannot understand all but the most basic of words, and therefore cannot consent, however once they have become old enough to learn sex ed (which should be taught much earlier) they should be able to give proper consent that could hold up in court, unlike now

do you believe age of consent should be lowered? abolished? should pedophiles have the same rights we enjoy? or should their rights to privacy be limited? should they have rights at all? or something else entirely?

what is your take on this?

also: someone once said (this person is essentially the laughing stock of the politics forum on the aforementioned site, and blocked me for entering a debate with them. every single point made religious or otherwise was refuted by a belief in god and my being atheist - and so clearly immoral because of that) but nonetheless its relevant:

The legal age to have sexual relations aren't there to be broken young lady, theyre there to protect your ungreatful ass, if a 40 year old man kidnapped and raped you, you wouldn't have such feelings would you.
Also youngs girls such as yourself have no concept of love at all exept the love of your family, sexual interactions at your age could be fatal to you, your mind and body.

I have seen too much in my life even though I'm only a few years older, I'm more experienced and I'm here to tell you no, obey and respect the law, some laws aren't fair I know wtf u think I'm doing on my account page (protesting the government and their corruption of the law)

Since you clearly have no authority figure you must be running wild in a twisted philosophy rampage, must be why you don't believe in God.

Let me tell you straight, you do things because you want to, everything that happens in reward or consequence is your fault, debateable in some situations but you know what I mean.
Like if you're at a party n ur freinds pressure u into drinking or doing drugs, you are responsible for what you do, and for what is done TO you due to your condition (likely an unconcious condition)

Cause and effect is the law, don't be stupid and you may live long enough to realize why.

my response, drastically shortened (my actual response was about twice as long as this entire thing), was this:

actually, i would, if someone raped me i wouldnt condemn sex, nor would i condemn sex between certain age groups, merely i would condemn the rapist and rape

ill try to dig up sources later. eventually. a lot of things on my computer had to be deleted recently, and that probably includes the sources i have about pedophilia (ive been planning to send a private message - most practical way of contacting them - to the admin of the aforementioned site about pedophilia for a while so i had collected some sources on it over time and started writing it - though im not sure where it is now) but later i promise ill try to find stuff


You sick ****.

I don't understand this whole 'cult of children' thing. I hate rape, and rapists disgust me no matter who they do it to or under what circumstances. Someone who rapes a 19 year old woman is no better than someone who rapes a 9 year old in my opinion, and I believe both crimes have the same cause.

I can't understand how people could be sexually attracted to children (there's nothing sexual about kids!) but I can't understand how anyone could be attracted to blokes either (luckily women do) We've all got urges, we need to keep them under control. The disregarding any other human being for the sake of sexual desire is beyond words, in a bad way. However, you can't prosecute people for thoughts. Thoughtcrime isn't something I want to become a reality.

Wow, you really have strange friends.

hahaha, you dont know the half of it
of course, most arent discriminated for it

Rape is bad.
Legal consent should be 14-15.
Everyone is guilty of having "impure" thoughts.

agreed about rape, disagreed about age of consent, and abso-fucking-lutely about the impure thoughts bit

You sick ****.

was it really necessary to quote all of that?
in any case, if standing up for peoples rights makes me a sick fuck than im proud to be a sick fuck and will therefore take that as a compliment - thank you

in any case, id appreciate you furthering the discussion, even if it was in a way that furthered my loss of faith in humanity, mmk?

anyways, to everyone, im going to bed now/ soon or at the very least getting off of nationstates
not very entertaining here :s and im getting too tired to post cohereently... plus the storm outside is really tempting to watch
i love lightning, dont you all?

edit: damn, i really wish my other replies showed up this quick :s well youll all just have to wait... haha

You sick ****.

Cut it out. You are not permitted to flame other posters. The OP has taken the trouble to describe an ethical question. Discuss it or don't post.

My 2c.

Question: is the sex itself inherently bad given it's not causing physical harm? Most of the trauma coming from child sex is from a breach of trust as well as guilt feelings over illicit sex leading to issues of self worth (where physical violence is not involved).

In a sense, as a society, we can sexualise children yet hide the act itself from them until very late. This can cause mixed feelings to varying degrees, we all, to some extent, have hang ups over sex.

Yet these could be said to be a result of society attitudes, which is why we have the blurring in thinking about the right age of consent - people seem to indicate that some 14 year olds might be ready, some 20 year olds might not be. Beyond this, a 14 year old sleeping with a 12 year old is not viewed in the same way as if it was a 40 year old and a 12 year old - to me, it doesn't seem to be the sex itself that's the concern, it's about consent.

Second, children can be very flirtatious, certainly around the ages of 8-12. For me this is an issue with someone who openly identifies themselves as paedophiles, accepting their point of view, validating them can lead them to excuse their feelings. People seem to think the child is unwilling at all times, the truth is they can flirt without fully comprehending any end result of what they're doing - a possible reason to teach sex education as young as feasible. The fact that this happens though means we should be wary of saying that enjoying thoughts of paedophilia is acceptable, it certainly happens and probably to far more than admit but I just don't think it should be condoned.

Even younger, around the ages of 2-3, parents can be shocked by their children 'fiddling' with themselves though again, it's not a comprehended act by the child.

My issue with paedophilia is not, therefore, necessarily the act itself but more where it's non-consensual, as is my issue with any act of sex. I can agree to 2 teenagers being consensual, there's a real blurry line as to where an adult has undue influence and I really just do not think a child under 12 can be consenting to anyone over 14, nor a 14 year old to anyone over 18 - that might just be a reflection of my own opinion though.

All in all, the entire issue is largely misunderstood, I suspect much of what I've said is highly contentious in itself.

Actually, that was about 40c worth.

Avriia, it's good to see you back. Accusations of trolling (posting only to cause trouble, not to put a position or discuss) have weighed apon you. Every page without your posts has increased the gravity of that accusation.

So it's good to see you standing by your thread. This is a difficult issue, and to post and run would be a very bad look.

was it really necessary to quote all of that?
in any case, if standing up for peoples rights makes me a sick fuck than im proud to be a sick fuck and will therefore take that as a compliment - thank you

This subject has been off the NSG agenda (except in discussion of news cases) for a long time ... most of the time I've been here.

With good reason. Kyronea's thread "Pedophiles are people too" was an ugly affair -- despite Kyro's evident good intentions to discuss a difficult and divisive issue reasonably -- and it's interesting to see so many of the prime posters of that time are back to do it right this time.

in any case, id appreciate you furthering the discussion, even if it was in a way that furthered my loss of faith in humanity, mmk?

"Loss of faith in humanity" is nothing. Some posters regularly assert their lifelong disgust with humanity. As though that is a virtue of some kind.

Off topic this is, but: losing your faith in Humanity is a healthy thing. Faith is nothing if it's not tested.

anyways, to everyone, im going to bed now/ soon or at the very least getting off of nationstates
not very entertaining here :s and im getting too tired to post cohereently... plus the storm outside is really tempting to watch
i love lightning, dont you all?

I do. But I hope you don't mean it as a simile of "forum conflict." Posters getting personal about their disagreements isn't entertaining, it's sickening. It hurts everyone, participants and spectators alike. Personal attacks can really hurt. It's not some tree on the skyline getting blasted, it's a person sitting at a keyboard.

edit: damn, i really wish my other replies showed up this quick :s well youll all just have to wait... haha

While I'm glad to see you post again, I don't think you've addressed the most significant posts to this thread ... at all.

Please set my mind at rest on this at least: you have friends (15, 17 and 23) who have shared with you the attractions they feel but have not acted on. Right?

What worries me is that you may be younger than any of them. I don't claim any special understanding of the psychology of teens (apart from having been one once) but it seems to me that such expositions of "I'm bad, I have bad thoughts" is just the sort of false maturity an older kid would use to get a younger kid into bed.

Please assure me that you are at least 15. The age of consent in Australia (where I live) is almost everywhere 16, and while 15 is in fact below that age, any judge and I myself would allow a lot more leeway there than with a five year old.

If you are, say, ten or eleven, I think your "friends" sharing their rape fantasies with you qualifies as abuse.

===========

Cut it out. You are not permitted to flame other posters. The OP has taken the trouble to describe an ethical question. Discuss it or don't post.

Note to other posters: this is the second Mod to post to the thread. Euroslavia also "moderated" the thread -- reproved a post which crossed the line.

The subject itself is not banned. Let's do it right.

While I'm glad to see you post again, I don't think you've addressed the most significant posts to this thread ... at all.

Please set my mind at rest on this at least: you have friends (15, 17 and 23) who have shared with you the attractions they feel but have not acted on. Right?

What worries me is that you may be younger than any of them. I don't claim any special understanding of the psychology of teens (apart from having been one once) but it seems to me that such expositions of "I'm bad, I have bad thoughts" is just the sort of false maturity an older kid would use to get a younger kid into bed.

Please assure me that you are at least 15. The age of consent in Australia (where I live) is almost everywhere 16, and while 15 is in fact below that age, any judge and I myself would allow a lot more leeway there than with a five year old.

If you are, say, ten or eleven, I think your "friends" sharing their rape fantasies with you qualifies as abuse.

Dude...

...my best friend (and ex, although im a year older) prefers girls in the 5 - 12 yr old range (hes 15)...

That puts the OP at 16 if true.

Here's the thing.

A lot of people have rightly indicated that pedophilia is an illness requiring treatment.

But we, as a society, are sort of asking for this.

The other night, I was watching TV and an episode of South Park came on. It was one I hadn't seen before, the one where Chef leaves the show. For those who haven't seen this one, Chef leaves to go join a club of guys who travel around the world having sex with children in order to gain immortality. I hadn't watched South Park really since about the second or third season so I was amazed at how blatantly they made light of this subject. Now, I know it was a sort of barb against the actor who did Chef's voice and all that but this isn't the first time South Park has made fun of pedophilia. Remember the NAMBLA episode? Sure, it ended in a direct attack on the insanity of justifying sex with kids, but at the same time what is it doing to our souls when we think jokes about kids being molested are funny? Is context really an excuse?

I've been on here before defending people with this issue as being ill and not malicious, and how I think things like Sex Offender registries are not a good thing, but to that I add this: Who are we, as a society, to put ourselves up on a high and mighty pedestal if we laugh at child molestation jokes?

yet these are unconvicted people
havent people ever heard of innocent until proven guilty?


You can't be not guilty of wanting to have sex with clearly underage children if you're openly wanting to have sex with clearly underage children. I have 0 sympathy and would wish the full scrutiny of the law onto them.

As has been pointed out, they also sound like they're "grooming" you.

NH, just to clarify, Avriia has said that she's 16 and that that's the age of consent where she lives.

And yeah, I remember this --

Kyronea's thread "Pedophiles are people too" was an ugly affair -- despite Kyro's evident good intentions to discuss a difficult and divisive issue reasonably -- and it's interesting to see so many of the prime posters of that time are back to do it right this time.

-- and I'm putting my money on an actual discussion this time, too.

My question is simple:

Why would you risk having sex with a 12 year old when there are plenty of 20 year old Asian women out there who look twelve?


I'm going to hell.

We aren't talking about behavior. We're talking about the attraction itself,

True, but people engage in a certain kind of sexual behavior because it does something for them, because they're attracted to it.

What people choose to do about that attraction is another subject altogether.

No, it isn't. You can't so neatly separate attraction from the behaviors it brings about. If sexual attraction were so narrowly tied to reproduction, we would all desire vaginal sex and nothing else, and we would probably follow the general animal pattern of having sexual relations only during a particular time of year. If sexual attraction were so narrowly tied to emotional connection, the idea of promiscuity wouldn't be as attractive as it is (to many people, anyway), and we wouldn't have the range of sexual attractions we do, even to people who may be inaccessible or people we don't actually like.

Indeed. But homosexuality does provide a possibility for the emotional connections sex can strengthen and a healthy outlet by which the person and his partner can get the physical results of sex (many of which are beneficial).

Abstinence is generally not healthy (even if it is ethical), but this tells us nothing about the nature of the attraction. And, sometimes, unfulfilled attraction is perfectly normal and healthy--as long as there's a possibility for sexual fulfillment in other ways, which, since in many cases attraction to children is not exclusive, is perfectly plausible.

You're trying very hard to push the homosexuality connection,

Not particularly, no. It's one convenient example, but there are others.

but homosexual attraction only gets in the way of a single purpose of sex - reproduction.

So is it half-pathological? Partially disturbed? A little unhealthy?

How many of sex's purposes does a particular attraction and behavior need to fulfill?

My 2c.

I'd give you a dollar for each of your cents. This is a great post Banga!

NH, just to clarify, Avriia has said that she's 16 and that that's the age of consent where she lives.

Dang. I pride myself on always reading the whole thread if I'm seriously in it.

Must have missed that. Thanks.

She said it in the OP.

scratch the going to bed thing - due to lack of exhaustion (ive ended up nocturnal more or less this summer) among other things im not tired enough to go to bed, just tired enough to have it mess with my spelling and willingness to want to read and respond to all this shit, either way, heres more responses that most likely will take ages to be approved:

My 2c.

Question: is the sex itself inherently bad given it's not causing physical harm? Most of the trauma coming from child sex is from a breach of trust as well as guilt feelings over illicit sex leading to issues of self worth (where physical violence is not involved).

In a sense, as a society, we can sexualise children yet hide the act itself from them until very late. This can cause mixed feelings to varying degrees, we all, to some extent, have hang ups over sex.

Yet these could be said to be a result of society attitudes, which is why we have the blurring in thinking about the right age of consent - people seem to indicate that some 14 year olds might be ready, some 20 year olds might not be. Beyond this, a 14 year old sleeping with a 12 year old is not viewed in the same way as if it was a 40 year old and a 12 year old - to me, it doesn't seem to be the sex itself that's the concern, it's about consent.

Second, children can be very flirtatious, certainly around the ages of 8-12. For me this is an issue with someone who openly identifies themselves as paedophiles, accepting their point of view, validating them can lead them to excuse their feelings. People seem to think the child is unwilling at all times, the truth is they can flirt without fully comprehending any end result of what they're doing - a possible reason to teach sex education as young as feasible. The fact that this happens though means we should be wary of saying that enjoying thoughts of paedophilia is acceptable, it certainly happens and probably to far more than admit but I just don't think it should be condoned.

Even younger, around the ages of 2-3, parents can be shocked by their children 'fiddling' with themselves though again, it's not a comprehended act by the child.

My issue with paedophilia is not, therefore, necessarily the act itself but more where it's non-consensual, as is my issue with any act of sex. I can agree to 2 teenagers being consensual, there's a real blurry line as to where an adult has undue influence and I really just do not think a child under 12 can be consenting to anyone over 14, nor a 14 year old to anyone over 18 - that might just be a reflection of my own opinion though.

All in all, the entire issue is largely misunderstood, I suspect much of what I've said is highly contentious in itself.

Actually, that was about 40c worth.

in my opinion any harm - physical emotional etc - is bad except in certain cases (ie war - war overall for the sake of war is bad, and war no matter what causes harm, but in some instances its necessary)
anyways, who says it emotionally harms them? surely if our society didnt view it as emotionally harmful and victimize them, they wouldnt be made into victims,
and i mentioned this earlier in one of my responses... most likely one that hasnt been approved yet, i forget and i dont feel like checking:
female castration would be emotionally scarring in most first world countries
women would find that extremely horrible and would struggle to ever move past it
yet in societies where its common practice women go on to achieve orgasm, even after castration has occurred
true the castration was pointless as far as i can tell, and certainly resulted in physical pain, but plenty of things in our society results in physical pain that we accept, and has no correlation to emotional pain
although you do mention that im tired and im saying it anyway because its my prerogative.
slippery slope, we accept rape fetishes in most societies yet do we condone rape? (most societies, there are exceptions everywhere and to everything)
condoning the enjoyment of thoughts is not bad at all, but in fact beneficial
i would condone everyone to think what they want, even those that personally have disgusted me on this thread with their bigoted views
yet if any one of them tried to act out some of the more extreme views you can rest assured that (while not personally from me, but from the gov) there would be hell to pay
hahaha, speaking of 2 - 3, i started at 5 possibly 4. didnt know what it was, but it was fun, and i fell in love at 5
of course i didnt lust after the person i loved until MUCH later on when lust stopped being abstract for me
i beg to differ about comprehended or not though, true the lust wasnt directed at my crush, nor at anyone else, but it was more centered around making myself feel good
i dont think putting age restrictions on sex is a good idea
i know a former online friends friend was 19, his girlfriend was 17, theyd been in a relationship for a while and had sex, which was obviously illegal, but the fact remains they did it
who are we to say they can not consent?
and who are we to say that others can not provided they are informed and there is no proof/ substantial reason to believe that consent was not obtained through coercion
naa, id say more like a dollar :p

Avriia, it's good to see you back. Accusations of trolling (posting only to cause trouble, not to put a position or discuss) have weighed apon you. Every page without your posts has increased the gravity of that accusation.

So it's good to see you standing by your thread. This is a difficult issue, and to post and run would be a very bad look.

This subject has been off the NSG agenda (except in discussion of news cases) for a long time ... most of the time I've been here.

With good reason. Kyronea's thread "Pedophiles are people too" was an ugly affair -- despite Kyro's evident good intentions to discuss a difficult and divisive issue reasonably -- and it's interesting to see so many of the prime posters of that time are back to do it right this time.

"Loss of faith in humanity" is nothing. Some posters regularly assert their lifelong disgust with humanity. As though that is a virtue of some kind.

Off topic this is, but: losing your faith in Humanity is a healthy thing. Faith is nothing if it's not tested.

I do. But I hope you don't mean it as a simile of "forum conflict." Posters getting personal about their disagreements isn't entertaining, it's sickening. It hurts everyone, participants and spectators alike. Personal attacks can really hurt. It's not some tree on the skyline getting blasted, it's a person sitting at a keyboard.

While I'm glad to see you post again, I don't think you've addressed the most significant posts to this thread ... at all.

Please set my mind at rest on this at least: you have friends (15, 17 and 23) who have shared with you the attractions they feel but have not acted on. Right?

What worries me is that you may be younger than any of them. I don't claim any special understanding of the psychology of teens (apart from having been one once) but it seems to me that such expositions of "I'm bad, I have bad thoughts" is just the sort of false maturity an older kid would use to get a younger kid into bed.

Please assure me that you are at least 15. The age of consent in Australia (where I live) is almost everywhere 16, and while 15 is in fact below that age, any judge and I myself would allow a lot more leeway there than with a five year old.

If you are, say, ten or eleven, I think your "friends" sharing their rape fantasies with you qualifies as abuse.

===========

Note to other posters: this is the second Mod to post to the thread. Euroslavia also "moderated" the thread -- reproved a post which crossed the line.

The subject itself is not banned. Let's do it right.

im aware what trolling is, ive been on 4chan and im a member of another site (as mentioned several times) that has a forums, though its a much more... basic one than this
i would never post and run, unless it wasnt a thread id started, and i merely posted an opinion to no one, and didnt feel it was necessary to check back on it (though that wouldnt be so much of posting and running)
well, im glad mine wasnt the previous attempt than, id get so frustrated having a thread i made turn to shit because of someones immaturity and what not
i know i know... and btw i am slightly disgusted with humanity, over a vast amount of things, but i like the illusion that overall everyone is good, i work hard to maintain that illusion even when it bites me in the ass
naa, i dont mean it as a simile, aspiring author or not id have to be superhuman to make a smile when i dont drink coffee and ive been up for probably near 24 hrs without sleep
i did respond to the vast majority of things here, in two *very* long posts, which last i read were waiting to be approved... blehk
of course they havent, its illegal, and none of them would ever break the law
17 yr old isnt my friend anymore, but other than that youre right
my 23 yr old friend and i have mutual crushes on one another, but were just close friends, both of us are in relationships (him married) and both are content with our relationships
interesting side note: the 23 yr old is majoring in psychology, for anyone who says they need mental help
i dont really get what you mean by this "that such expositions of "I'm bad, I have bad thoughts" is just the sort of false maturity an older kid would use to get a younger kid into bed" especially since you called it maturity, which i cant comprehend at all how anyone could mistake it for that, when the two arent even related
i AM 16, mmk? my birthdays dec 17th 1991, and im legal where i live

I want irony now.

...anyways, who says it emotionally harms them? surely if our society didnt view it as emotionally harmful and victimize them, they wouldnt be made into victims,

Most abused children know that something is wrong when an adult abuses them, and before one might expect them to fully understand what's happening. Maya Angelou explains this well in 'I know why the caged bird sings'.

The damage is nearly always emotional, as a simple example, often child abuse happens within the family, whether a parent, aunt/uncle or whatever. The problem is that an adult is giving very conflicted messages, that it's alright but that they cannot tell anyone. Given the deep and intrinsic nature of sex in our lives, this is certainly damaging, doing wrong non-consensually. The guilt of the child can also come from wondering if it's their fault, much as children often feel divorce is their fault.

Now, if it was all in the open and fine, possibly it may not be so damaging since, as you say, the way society sees paedophilia as shameful in itself might excaberate the situation. Yet I think the problems as described above can, to varying degrees, be overcome.

So I don't think it's the base issue, I think, in fact, that a child needs to choose, or at least feel in control of the choice, to explore sexuality. That is related very much to my concept of consent.

I suspect, though cannot prove, that where someone does not control their early exploration of sexuality, that this is potentially the most damaging in the long term.

Age is relevant in terms of the child's perception of authority, non-consent under pressure of perceived authority.

Here's the thing.
The other night, I was watching TV and an episode of South Park came on.

ive never seen south park, but overall i agree with you, except for it being an illness

You can't be not guilty of wanting to have sex with clearly underage children if you're openly wanting to have sex with clearly underage children. I have 0 sympathy and would wish the full scrutiny of the law onto them.

As has been pointed out, they also sound like they're "grooming" you.

yet wanting is not a crime
grooming, rofl... im not even going to bother refuting that, because itll clearly just be me having been brainwashed and groomed thats responding, not rational me

and I'm putting my money on an actual discussion this time, too.

heres to wishful thinking

Most abused children know that something is wrong when an adult abuses them, and before one might expect them to fully understand what's happening. Maya Angelou explains this well in 'I know why the caged bird sings'.

The damage is nearly always emotional, as a simple example, often child abuse happens within the family, whether a parent, aunt/uncle or whatever. The problem is that an adult is giving very conflicted messages, that it's alright but that they cannot tell anyone. Given the deep and intrinsic nature of sex in our lives, this is certainly damaging, doing wrong non-consensually. The guilt of the child can also come from wondering if it's their fault, much as children often feel divorce is their fault.

Now, if it was all in the open and fine, possibly it may not be so damaging since, as you say, the way society sees paedophilia as shameful in itself might excaberate the situation. Yet I think the problems as described above can, to varying degrees, be overcome.

So I don't think it's the base issue, I think, in fact, that a child needs to choose, or at least feel in control of the choice, to explore sexuality. That is related very much to my concept of consent.

I suspect, though cannot prove, that where someone does not control their early exploration of sexuality, that this is potentially the most damaging in the long term.

Age is relevant in terms of the child's perception of authority, non-consent under pressure of perceived authority.

yes, but this isnt abuse we are talking about
merely a consensual act that society views as harmful

yet if it was legal they would not be told not to tell someone, they would be told sex life/ masturbation/ etc was private but it was up to them to tell someone about it nonetheless, the only people who would still say that are rapists. i am not discussing rapists. anyone can understand rape is immoral and i see no way that could be debated, nor would i try if i could
but this is morally sound, only our society views it as a negative
so are you agreeing with me or not? im confused, you seem to be saying you disagree, yet from what i read unless im misunderstanding you, we agree entirely about this

im confused, you seem to be saying you disagree, yet from what i read unless im misunderstanding you, we agree entirely about this

I disagree because of the nature of consent and the role of authority and the ensuing effect on a child's control over sexual maturity.

I agree somewhat with the idea that a societies attitudes to sex are damaging in themselves though I do not agree that this validates paedophilia.

I think the term 'paedophilia' causes some problems in terms of definitions, I am essentially against sex without consent and I look to define what I think are the limits of consent. Clearly physical force is wrong, authoritative force is equally wrong.

i have several friends who are pedophiles, none would ever dream of harming a soul
Self-contradiction for the win.
at the same time though, they do wish they could have sex with people either slightly below the age of consent or substantially below
Then they should be in a mental hospital. Or, if they take their preferences into the real world, prison.

If one wants to rape his cousin, how can you say he would never dream of harming a soul?

I disagree because of the nature of consent and the role of authority and the ensuing effect on a child's control over sexual maturity.

I agree somewhat with the idea that a societies attitudes to sex are damaging in themselves though I do not agree that this validates paedophilia.

I think the term 'paedophilia' causes some problems in terms of definitions, I am essentially against sex without consent and I look to define what I think are the limits of consent. Clearly physical force is wrong, authoritative force is equally wrong.

so you agree with me as far as the idea goes, but want to make sure it wouldnt be forced?
and im not sure what you mean by validate pedophilia, its a sexual preference, its not an act, nothing is needed to validate a thought
pedophilia =/= rape
pedophilia = attraction (sexually or otherwise though more common sexually) towards children
anyways, basically as long as their consent isnt influenced one way or another and theyre informed i believe they have a right to consent - if you agree with that id say fundamentally we agree

Self-contradiction for the win.

Then they should be in a mental hospital. Or, if they take their preferences into the real world, prison.

meh, i meant they wouldnt actually ever plan to, and wouldnt consider it in reality, they fantasize about it, but thats it
the rest i believe ive sufficiently handled in previous posts

If one wants to rape his cousin, how can you say he would never dream of harming a soul?

technically speaking rape and s&m arent the same things
rape = forcing yourself on someone sexually
s&m = sex involving pain

but nonetheless i didnt clarify properly
he would never consider actually harming someone he would fantasize about it, better?

side note quote from msn (im on msn with my 15 yr old friend, i just showed him this thread)
Zanarchy says:
youngest age of consent is 9 dummy
Zanarchy says:
In Yemen
Zanarchy says:
You have to married though
Zanarchy says:
Also
Zanarchy says:
Yeme is fairly close to Egypt.
Zanarchy says:
Yemen
Onatah says:
asdf i mean unmarried no special conditions like that
Zanarchy says:
fair enough
Zanarchy says:
but you didn't state such in your post
Onatah says:
meh

So that "jerk store" comment was just a joke?

You didn't consider that anyone who DOESN'T get your reference (eg me) might just read it as a blatant insult?

(Though I WILL make an effort to calm down. I think perhaps I'm posting too hurriedly because I expect this thread to end in a lock.)

Yeah, that's a reference from Seinfeld--a joke, which hardly warrants the infraction I got. These mods ought to watch more mind-numbing TV :D

Anyways, I think that the protection of our children is of the utmost importance--much more important that "when the age of consent should be." A child in the 5-12 year old range doesn't really understand what consent is, and what the other, older, person will be doing, so I don't think that its fair to say "only if they consent." Now, as for maybe 15-17, that's a little different, but my point is that the consent laws are there for a reason, and like any law in place to protect children, should not be broken.

This may sound hypocritical, but I still don't think this thread should be allowed to continue. Just my two cents.

As a neuroscientist, I would be fascinated to see somebody present concrete physiological evidence that a 5 year old is capable of generating anything approaching adult consent.

To the OP:

If you aren't a troll (which I'm reasonably sure you are), please stop hanging out with rapists. It's lame. There are enough rapists in the world already without us encouraging more rapists to rape. The next time you feel like defending your rapist friends, just have a soda instead.

If you aren't a troll (which I'm reasonably sure you are), please stop hanging out with rapists. It's lame. There are enough rapists in the world already without us encouraging more rapists to rape. The next time you feel like defending your rapist friends, just have a soda instead.
↑
This.

Yeah, that's a reference from Seinfeld.

Anyways, I think that the protection of our children is of the utmost importance--much more important that "when the age of consent should be." A child in the 5-12 year old range doesn't really understand what consent is, and what the other, older, person will be doing, so I don't think that its fair to say "only if they consent." Now, as for maybe 15-17, that's a little different, but my point is that the consent laws are there for a reason, and like any law in place to protect children, should not be broken.

This may sound hypocritical, but I still don't think this thread should be allowed to continue. Just my two cents.

at young ages childrens brains are like sponges, to use a very overused analogy
thats why a little kid can learn foreign languages much easier than a teenager young adult or adult
it stands to reason if we started teaching them about sex earlier on, they would learn earlier on and comprehend earlier on
my first sex ed class was in middle school, it was nothing but the barest of details, and parental consent was required for the class
my second was in 10th grade and it was mandatory
perhaps did you ever stop to consider this law could harm them? if they have consensual sex, where they really and truly consent and go into it wanting it, but they end up in counseling over it and being victimized, wont that scar them? theyll also blame themselves for the other persons punishment.

and this is one of the few forums as far as i can tell that has almost unlimited freedom of speech, provided it doesnt turn into basic trolling i see no reason it should be shot down, if you dont like it just dont post here, theres plenty of other topics

To the OP:

If you aren't a troll (which I'm reasonably sure you are), please stop hanging out with rapists. It's lame. There are enough rapists in the world already without us encouraging more rapists to rape. The next time you feel like defending your rapist friends, just have a soda instead.

...im the troll? you just blatantly called my friends rapists, yet im the troll?
logic please
oh and btw, soda is disgusting, short of forcing me to drink soda with a gun to my head or my friends i would never drink soda

↑
This.

...
they arent rapists

Right, someone who is not completely sick in the head can be attracted to children.

Keep your creepy friends way away from my neck of the woods.

so you agree with me as far as the idea goes, but want to make sure it wouldnt be forced?

Very much depending on your definition of 'forced', I'd want to make sure it was an open choice, 'if in doubt stay out' is a trite way of putting it.

..and im not sure what you mean by validate pedophilia, its a sexual preference, its not an act, nothing is needed to validate a thought

We'd be going a little deeper into the nature of attraction than I care to go, purely from laziness, for me to fully answer this.

There's a line between random attraction to a child and defining one's attraction by age. I'd venture to say that it's entirely natural to look at a pretty child and feel 'a form' of attraction, that might be mere acknowledgement that they're 'attractive' or an instinctual reaction to facial patterns. There's certainly the valid theory that we like personalities of those we're attracted to, that the liking comes after the visual attraction.

Sexual attraction is too complicated to draw barriers, but where someone nears the realm of obsession - of only being attracted to a child - then there's likely some issues, it may be a mental one in terms of the ability to form adult relations, it may be some other issue, but I'd say it's neither healthy nor normal.

We have a neo-cortex, 6 layers I think, we have this to control our base instincts and create parameters for a healthy, continuing society, I think 'paedophilia' in terms of being attracted to 'a' child is reasonable, where the thought is soon dismissed, I think paedophilia in terms of only being attracted to children is problematic, being obsessed to the point of acting on it is simply wrong.

I'm getting a little tired, my thinking might become a little less coherent so I'll probably go no further on this.

Really? I take it you've never been to latitudes higher than 60 degrees. Some nights last all day without anything darker than the beginnings of a sunset. A fitting metaphor when dealing with what society considers an unsavory topic -- no matter how much we might love a generalization and how they might make decisions easy, they're still generalizations.

...actually, I picked that example on purpose because it was something that could plausibly be contradicted in certain circumstances. I don't find Soheran's argument ridiculous, though I disagree with it, and so I didn't want a comparison that suggested no sane person could disagree. :)

going by that standard anyone who has ever wanted to do wrong in the eyes of the law is subject to jail time/ the appropriate punishment

The heck? Did you read what I wrote at all? I explicitly specified that thinking about breaking the law is not in itself bad. How in the hell do you get from "it is unhealthy to want to hurt people" to "anyone who wants to break the law should go to jail for their thoughtcrimes"?

it should be hurting people is wrong and unhealthy (exception for s&m since its consensual and done with strict guidelines usually)

Hurting people is also wrong and unhealthy, but I still see no case for how sitting around thinking, "Oh man oh man, I really want to rape kindergarteners" is a healthy thought process.

why should small children have rights (in terms of protection) different to a full grown adult?

....because they are small children and cannot actually fend for themselves? I don't quite see what this question has to do with the discussion, though, but if you genuinely want to hijack your own thread to suggest that toddlers should be left to starve on the streets without legal guardians, I suppose you can.

your statement does not stand, because you just expressed the same view in this one

No, see, "nuh-uh you're wrong" isn't actually a valid counterargument any more than pulling out silly strawmen is.

And by the way, speaking as a submissive and as someone who has been assaulted, please stop lumping consensual BDSM in with nonconsensual activities. Seriously, it's pretty horribly offensive.

Very much depending on your definition of 'forced', I'd want to make sure it was an open choice, 'if in doubt stay out' is a trite way of putting it.

We'd be going a little deeper into the nature of attraction than I care to go, purely from laziness, for me to fully answer this.

There's a line between random attraction to a child and defining one's attraction by age. I'd venture to say that it's entirely natural to look at a pretty child and feel 'a form' of attraction, that might be mere acknowledgement that they're 'attractive' or an instinctual reaction to facial patterns. There's certainly the valid theory that we like those we're attracted to, that the liking comes after the visual attraction.

Sexual attraction is too complicated to draw barriers, but where someone nears the realm of obsession - of only being attracted to a child - then there's likely some issues, it may be a mental one in terms of the ability to form adult relations, it may be some other issue, but I'd say it's neither healthy nor normal.

We have a neo-cortex, 6 layers I think, we have this to control our base instincts and create parameters for a healthy, continuing society, I think 'paedophilia' in terms of being attracted to 'a' child is reasonable, where the thought is soon dismissed, I think paedophilia in terms of only being attracted to children is problematic, being obsessed to the point of acting on it is simply wrong.

I'm getting a little tired, my thinking might become a little less coherent so I'll probably go no further on this.

forced (purely my definition) - to physically force or deceive in any way that would effect the outcome of something; to threaten to get a particular outcome; to use an unfair means to effect an outcome or decision
i think that mostly covers it, but anything else similar to that would most likely get placed with it if i missed it somehow

lazy is fun but its what keeps me from debating 8/10x - 1/10x its being overly passionate about something, because my emotions will usually get in the way
the other time is the only time i bother to debate
a child? yes, if its just one child than either theyre infatuated and its unhealthy, but like most infatuations it will die out, honestly in love, or obsessed (its not based in 'love' ['love' because infatuation =/= love] unlike infatuation)
pedophilia is more of an orientation than a fetish though
its more like saying a gay person or a straight person has issues because theyre exclusively interested in one set of people
if i was exclusively straight would i have to dismiss thoughts of only straight sex? perhaps that would be an inability to form gay relations?
im tired too, so well be a perfect match for each other while were falling asleep on our feet... erm asses rather, seeing as i doubt either of us stand while using the computer

The heck? Did you read what I wrote at all? I explicitly specified that thinking about breaking the law is not in itself bad. How in the hell do you get from "it is unhealthy to want to hurt people" to "anyone who wants to break the law should go to jail for their thoughtcrimes"?

Hurting people is also wrong and unhealthy, but I still see no case for how sitting around thinking, "Oh man oh man, I really want to rape kindergarteners" is a healthy thought process.

....because they are small children and cannot actually fend for themselves? I don't quite see what this question has to do with the discussion, though, but if you genuinely want to hijack your own thread to suggest that toddlers should be left to starve on the streets without legal guardians, I suppose you can.

No, see, "nuh-uh you're wrong" isn't actually a valid counterargument any more than pulling out silly strawmen is.

And by the way, speaking as a submissive and as someone who has been assaulted, please stop lumping consensual BDSM in with nonconsensual activities. Seriously, it's pretty horribly offensive.

im not sure, im tired cut me some slack i dont even remember what you originally said... responding to that many people at once is a bit overwhelming

because if thats what gets them off they can think it
i basically think 'oh man orgasm control is fun, i love denying my bf an orgasm for weeks-months at a time' lol

i dont consider that in terms of protection, i mean things like rape murder and what not, where adults are protected for it too i forget exactly what its got to do with anything, but even if it doesnt fit 100% i have a problem staying perfectly on topic in anything, its very easy for me to digress though i do my best not to

its not 'na uh youre wrong' its me saying you just said something and went and said im not saying you cant have your opinions or beliefs
just that you went and said you werent doing something/ didnt think it and did do it/ said you thought it
something like that, just saying you cant claim both and its one or the other
only brought it up because youre contradicting yourself/ weakening your own argument
while i would like to extend my sympathies (what little a complete strangers sympathies can do) i have to disagree; the nature of statutory IS consensual. its "rape" that was consensual, but the government still believes it to be wrong. therefore consensual sex = statutory that the government approves of/ accepts
there should be no crime for 100% fully consensual sex regardless of whom its between

a child? yes, if its just one child than either theyre infatuated and its unhealthy, but like most infatuations it will die out, honestly in love, or obsessed (its not based in 'love' ['love' because infatuation =/= love] unlike infatuation)
pedophilia is more of an orientation than a fetish though
its more like saying a gay person or a straight person has issues because theyre exclusively interested in one set of people
if i was exclusively straight would i have to dismiss thoughts of only straight sex? perhaps that would be an inability to form gay relations?

Age/maturity is entirely different to sex/race, one is an ever-changing and varied state in an individual and their ability to consent, the other is static and has nothing to do with mutual consent.

Avriia, I know this will sound patronizing.

But at the base of it, it's a compliment.

"New posters" who are really old posters with a new name often fake the "hey, why aren't my posts appearing?" and "I'm new to this forum, but on some other forum" thing.

I don't think you're an old NSG poster trying to cause trouble. I think you followed a link or a hint and put a subject you have argued before, here.

I take you as a genuine newb to NSG. And you are doing fine, except for the "all your replies are crap" thing. There are many good posts to this thread, and if you don't have the time or the patience to read them ... well, you'll learn to read, or move on.

"You're all fools" doesn't work here. We know better.

There are many kinds of talent. Mine is excellent diction, and I'm gratified to discover that it conceals many faults of reasoning and reasonableness.

Yours I think is sincerity. Just find a way to hold down the SHIFT key at the start of sentences and I'm sure you'll be welcome here.

To the subject!

im aware what trolling is, ive been on 4chan and im a member of another site (as mentioned several times) that has a forums, though its a much more... basic one than this
i would never post and run, unless it wasnt a thread id started, and i merely posted an opinion to no one, and didnt feel it was necessary to check back on it (though that wouldnt be so much of posting and running)

Good. I posted early in this thread, and each time I opened the next page in a new tab so I could go back and read the earlier stuff without reloading it.

I was wrong when I said you hadn't posted since the thread-starting post you made. It simply wasn't approved and put up until after I'd moved on to the next page.

Not your fault, nor the post-approval system for new posters ... 's fault. Not really my fault even. Just something I have to look out for in future.


well, im glad mine wasnt the previous attempt than, id get so frustrated having a thread i made turn to shit because of someones immaturity and what not

It takes more than one bad poster to ruin a thread.

i know i know... and btw i am slightly disgusted with humanity, over a vast amount of things, but i like the illusion that overall everyone is good, i work hard to maintain that illusion even when it bites me in the ass

It's not an "illusion." It's an act of will.

"Do unto others as you would have be done unto you."

naa, i dont mean it as a simile, aspiring author or not id have to be superhuman to make a smile when i dont drink coffee and ive been up for probably near 24 hrs without sleep

1. I do like lightning. I like it a lot, it scares and inspires and arouses me. It is also beautiful. There was lightning on Earth, very probably, before there was any living thing.

2. Sleep deprivation is comparable to the strongest drugs in how it alters perception. The morning of the second "day" you have the "morning vigour" you would have if you had a good night's sleep, but that afternoon ... well, you go kinda mad. The third day without sleep is really bad news. Try not to talk to anyone, you might end up sectioned.

3. I've been there, many times. The train of thought is so compelling, you just want to keep conscious to follow it, like a spectator. My honest advice: lie down and relax. You don't need to sleep, but your mind does need to disengage from the world for a while, and your body will appreciate the time (even half an hour) "off-duty."

Go to bed now. It's warm. It's comfortable. You can still keep thinking, but you don't have to do anything about it. Good, hmmm?

i did respond to the vast majority of things here, in two *very* long posts, which last i read were waiting to be approved... blehk
of course they havent, its illegal, and none of them would ever break the law
17 yr old isnt my friend anymore, but other than that youre right
my 23 yr old friend and i have mutual crushes on one another, but were just close friends, both of us are in relationships (him married) and both are content with our relationships
interesting side note: the 23 yr old is majoring in psychology, for anyone who says they need mental help

... it's confirmed. I was a science major, but I hung out with the arts/law crowd and the social workers because I was political.

Psych majors are generally egotists who love the subject because they think it will allow them to "understand" (ie predict and control) other people. They either apply it in some other field, or end up as professional psychologists or psychiatriasts, fucking with other people's heads.

And they're dud roots. Always.

I'm not joking. Psychology is a subject far too close to the Subject: the individual who is establishing a position in their field of study. For objectivity, for a fair assessment of what makes people tick, ask an Engineering of Theology student.

Oh, I'm cynical. I'm bent out of shape by my own academic failure. But really. Your friend doesn't know SHIT, from studying Pyschology at undergrad level. Even if they were a full professor, I wouldn't take their opinion on faith until you posted a link to their work and I could read it for myself.

Even then, I'd probably rip it to shreds because Psychology isn't a Science. It's moonshine, it's wishful thinking of those who wish they could understand the greatest mystery, which is ourselves. Reading their work, it's more like they can't get the jalopy of their own consciousness out of the damn parking-lot.

i dont really get what you mean by this "that such expositions of "I'm bad, I have bad thoughts" is just the sort of false maturity an older kid would use to get a younger kid into bed" especially since you called it maturity, which i cant comprehend at all how anyone could mistake it for that, when the two arent even related

I missed your earlier posts after the thread-starter. I was posting a lot myself, and each time a new page was available I opened it in a new tab. So I wasn't refreshing the old (to me) pages and I didn't see the posts you made which were delayed by the "new-poster" check.

So this all looks rather pathetic on my part. You're an adult, you're clearly no idiot, and your discussions with 17-y-olds are entirely appropriate. I got the wrong end of the stick there.

And yet. All grown up as you are, don't you remember the thrill of talking to "bad boys," the older boys who talk so casually about the things you never saw on TV? The boys who scared you ... just enough to be a challenge, not so you wanted to run.

Really, is it entirely out of the question that a guy could play up his sexual attraction to small children (which I have myself, btw) or his desire for close relatives (in my case, my female cousins and my only sister) to make himself attractive?

To a younger teen, having and moreover admitting to such desires might appear as freedom, independence, STRENGTH. The rebellion of adolescence is primarily sexual, it's a break with the (a)sexual role of childhood.

i AM 16, mmk? my birthdays ********, and im legal where i live

Damn! I don't want to know your birthday, kid! All I care is that you aren't a little kid being treated to the rape fantasies of young adults.

As I said above, I missed most of your posts to this thread and made a goose of myself. My bad.

Avriia, some news from Wikipedia:

The phrase statutory rape is a general term used to describe non-forcible sexual relations that take place when an individual (regardless of age or gender) has sexual relations with an individual not old enough to legally consent to the behavior.[1] Although it usually refers to adults engaging in sex with minors under the age of consent,[1] the age at which individuals are considered competent to give consent to sexual conduct, it is a generic term, and very few jurisdictions use the actual term "statutory rape" in the language of statutes.[2] Different jurisdictions use many different statutory terms for the crime, such as "sexual assault," "rape of a child," "corruption of a minor," "carnal knowledge of a minor," or simply "carnal knowledge." Statutory rape differs from forcible rape in that overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally retarded adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.

Statutory Rape Is Illegal Sexual Activity Between Two People When It Would Otherwise Be Legal If Not For Their Age: In accordance with the FBI definition, statutory rape is characterized as non-forcible sexual intercourse with a person who is younger than the statutory age of consent.[3]

The term statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child, generically called "child molestation," is typically treated as a more serious crime.

Just because it's not by force doesn't mean the government approves of it. In fact, it is apparent that they do not approve of it. If you're not old enough to legally consent, the government disapproves. And the younger you are, the more they disapprove. So if your friends are into 5-year olds, that's no longer "statutory rape". It's called "child molestation".

Your friends are sick, and need to be investigated, incarcerated, and put on a lifetime of psychiatric treatment (pedophiles never really become un-pedophiles).

Right, someone who is not completely sick in the head can be attracted to children.

Keep your creepy friends way away from my neck of the woods.

Crikey, you haven't shut up and fucked off yet?

As a neuroscientist, I would be fascinated to see somebody present concrete physiological evidence that a 5 year old is capable of generating anything approaching adult consent.

To the OP:

If you aren't a troll (which I'm reasonably sure you are), please stop hanging out with rapists. It's lame. There are enough rapists in the world already without us encouraging more rapists to rape. The next time you feel like defending your rapist friends, just have a soda instead.

For a suposed scientist, you have a very closed mind to things. You are meant to actively seek out truth and facts in the world, regardless of moral right and wrong. Leave that to the politicians to sort out.

As for the discussion in general:

feelings of attraction to young children are only natural, previously in nature we wouldn't live past 30, so if you wanted to have a chance to breed you needed to have sex early, so as soon as the female is able to reproduce they do. I'm 16 and generally attracted to girls aged 10-16. I would like to point out to try and avoid flames that i've not done anything with a girl more than a year below my age.

As for the rape fantasies, i also see them as normal, rape = power, and it is more natural than anything for humans to seek power. Many people do it in different ways, through money, or politics or through persuasion, yet there is something much more primal and thrilling about having power over someone against their will.

As for pain and pleasure, they are neurologically very similar. If you all think back to your own pasts, i'm sure you'll feel the same way as me when i say that some of the times i've felt most alive have been after fights or times when i've been in danger. Pain is just another emotion, and it is just as powerfull as any other, and if used safely between two consenting people can be very erotic.

I realise i've used the words "as for" a few too many times, but it helps seperate the points out quite nicely. Feel free to ask questions but please, not pointless flames or violent attacks on my character :)

and what of gay people? professional help for them works so well after all
I cannot believe you'd make that comparison. What two consenting adults do with eachother is one thing. A five year old cannot possibly consent to something they don't biologically even have an interest in yet.

No, that's sexual abuse. People that want to sexually abuse other people need therapy. And guess what? The therapy actually has a good chance of working since paedophiles usually have sexual abuse in their past.

Avriia, I know this will sound patronizing.

But at the base of it, it's a compliment.

"New posters" who are really old posters with a new name often fake the "hey, why aren't my posts appearing?" and "I'm new to this forum, but on some other forum" thing.

I don't think you're an old NSG poster trying to cause trouble. I think you followed a link or a hint and put a subject you have argued before, here.

I take you as a genuine newb to NSG. And you are doing fine, except for the "all your replies are crap" thing. There are many good posts to this thread, and if you don't have the time or the patience to read them ... well, you'll learn to read, or move on.

"You're all fools" doesn't work here. We know better.

There are many kinds of talent. Mine is excellent diction, and I'm gratified to discover that it conceals many faults of reasoning and reasonableness.

Yours I think is sincerity. Just find a way to hold down the SHIFT key at the start of sentences and I'm sure you'll be welcome here.

To the subject!



Good. I posted early in this thread, and each time I opened the next page in a new tab so I could go back and read the earlier stuff without reloading it.

I was wrong when I said you hadn't posted since the thread-starting post you made. It simply wasn't approved and put up until after I'd moved on to the next page.

Not your fault, nor the post-approval system for new posters ... 's fault. Not really my fault even. Just something I have to look out for in future.



It takes more than one bad poster to ruin a thread.



It's not an "illusion." It's an act of will.

"Do unto others as you would have be done unto you."



1. I do like lightning. I like it a lot, it scares and inspires and arouses me. It is also beautiful. There was lightning on Earth, very probably, before there was any living thing.

2. Sleep deprivation is comparable to the strongest drugs in how it alters perception. The morning of the second "day" you have the "morning vigour" you would have if you had a good night's sleep, but that afternoon ... well, you go kinda mad. The third day without sleep is really bad news. Try not to talk to anyone, you might end up sectioned.

3. I've been there, many times. The train of thought is so compelling, you just want to keep conscious to follow it, like a spectator. My honest advice: lie down and relax. You don't need to sleep, but your mind does need to disengage from the world for a while, and your body will appreciate the time (even half an hour) "off-duty."

Go to bed now. It's warm. It's comfortable. You can still keep thinking, but you don't have to do anything about it. Good, hmmm?


of course they havent, its illegal, and none of them would ever break the law
17 yr old isnt my friend anymore, but other than that youre right


... it's confirmed. I was a science major, but I hung out with the arts/law crowd and the social workers because I was political.

Psych majors are generally egotists who love the subject because they think it will allow them to "understand" (ie predict and control) other people. They either apply it in some other field, or end up as professional psychologists or psychiatriasts, fucking with other people's heads.

And they're dud roots. Always.

I'm not joking. Psychology is a subject far too close to the Subject: the individual who is establishing a position in their field of study. For objectivity, for a fair assessment of what makes people tick, ask an Engineering of Theology student.

Oh, I'm cynical. I'm bent out of shape by my own academic failure. But really. Your friend doesn't know SHIT, from studying Pyschology at undergrad level. Even if they were a full professor, I wouldn't take their opinion on faith until you posted a link to their work and I could read it for myself.

Even then, I'd probably rip it to shreds because Psychology isn't a Science. It's moonshine, it's wishful thinking of those who wish they could understand the greatest mystery, which is ourselves. Reading their work, it's more like they can't get the jalopy of their own consciousness out of the damn parking-lot.



I missed your earlier posts after the thread-starter. I was posting a lot myself, and each time a new page was available I opened it in a new tab. So I wasn't refreshing the old (to me) pages and I didn't see the posts you made which were delayed by the "new-poster" check.

So this all looks rather pathetic on my part. You're an adult, you're clearly no idiot, and your discussions with 17-y-olds are entirely appropriate. I got the wrong end of the stick there.

And yet. All grown up as you are, don't you remember the thrill of talking to "bad boys," the older boys who talk so casually about the things you never saw on TV? The boys who scared you ... just enough to be a challenge, not so you wanted to run.

Really, is it entirely out of the question that a guy could play up his sexual attraction to small children (which I have myself, btw) or his desire for close relatives (in my case, my female cousins and my only sister) to make himself attractive?

To a younger teen, having and moreover admitting to such desires might appear as freedom, independence, STRENGTH. The rebellion of adolescence is primarily sexual, it's a break with the (a)sexual role of childhood.



Damn! I don't want to know your birthday, kid! All I care is that you aren't a little kid being treated to the rape fantasies of young adults.

As I said above, I missed most of your posts to this thread and made a goose of myself. My bad.

ehh, thanks than
anyways:
i dont see me doing an 'all your replies are crap thing' ive read every single post here except for from a few people, two to be precise (one being crimean, the other being the other guy i said i refused to respond to) up until i actually said that id stop responding to them though, i read every single one
i dont remember doing a 'you are fools thing' either, unless it was possibly to someone who wished death or something very similar to all pedophiles innocent or otherwise, and to the people that accused my friends of being rapists
diction is fun, i like being verbose and show offy when im not tired, it helps that ive always been an avid reader (albeit strictly of fantasy)
shift is not going to happen. in a formal setting ill use the shift key (well, more likely ill let microsoft words auto correct do its job and fix whatever is necessary to be fixed) i also dont use proper puncuation, unless im getting mildly annoyed/ pissed/ sad; but i do tend to use some amounts of puncuation nonetheless
agreed, but it is annoying, it should show up in things that the user has posted while waiting to be approved, that way it wont be on the thread per se, but things like that could be avoided more easily
i was speaking in general terms, i meant the posters who did ruin it, and any that would attempt to ruin this or do so inadvertantly
knowing someone online who wants to kill me, and had been my friend for four years prior, i tend to consider it an illusion

...
stupid lagg
lightning doesnt scare me, i respect that it has the power to kill or seriously injure me (or anything) but i dont fear it in the least
third day? god, i dont think i could last that long without sleep
its too hot. i dont want warm. and my parents dont want the ac on, though i am in bed already since its a laptop
besides, i was stalling, my dad said that after i went to bed + woke up i wouldnt have the computer (for an annoying reason that wasnt so much a punishment but an unrealistic threat, i waited until mom woke up + told her, she talked to him (he refuses to ever hear me out) and its settled now so im more willing to sleep

lol, benni (my nickname for him) doesnt have an ego, anything but, he likes helping people is all - hes helped me a lot, and other friends too
undergrad? who says its that level (of course i dont know either, im just saying)
...im sure ill appreciate the humor in what youre saying some day. maybe when im fully awake.
ive never had that thrill, so no i dont think i could remember it, ive never talked to anyone for those reasons, most of the times i base my friends on if they either seem nice or if i feel (most based on intuition because at the time i rarely know anything about them) that they either need help - emotionally speaking - or dont have enough friends
i get very attached to them very quickly
and the 15 yr old is a big softie, haha
considering im bleh about incest (does absolutely nothing for me) and pedophilia is a turn off for me, in that case yes it would do the opposite of make them attractive
besides, i judge people on personality alone
lol, i dont see the problem of knowing my birthday, its not like i said my address or the town i live in

hotwife, im tired. ill read that tommorow or later. not now, though im not sure how wikipedia could be a credible source

spell check isnt loading atm, and im tired
ill look for my horrible spelling later. night night everyone *waves*

<snip>

Ho. Ly. Shit.

Dude, spell check doesn't work on punctuation, either, but you still need to use it. Your grammar is all over the place. Ow, damnit. That's not just a typo, that is blatant disregard for English grammar, and it hurts.

at young ages childrens brains are like sponges, to use a very overused analogy
thats why a little kid can learn foreign languages much easier than a teenager young adult or adult
it stands to reason if we started teaching them about sex earlier on, they would learn earlier on and comprehend earlier on
my first sex ed class was in middle school, it was nothing but the barest of details, and parental consent was required for the class
my second was in 10th grade and it was mandatory
perhaps did you ever stop to consider this law could harm them? if they have consensual sex, where they really and truly consent and go into it wanting it, but they end up in counseling over it and being victimized, wont that scar them? theyll also blame themselves for the other persons punishment.

There is fair bit right in here, yes children are better able to learn a foreign language than a fully mature adult.

But their comprehension still does not equal that of a fully mature adult. Life, or the living of life teaches us all sorts of things and it is true that for many aspects of life, there is now substitute for age and experiance.

A child is not sexualy mature until puberty, that's just nature, so I guess that means it is unatural to have sex with anybody who has not reached puberty.

There is fair bit right in here, yes children are better able to learn a foreign language than a fully mature adult.

But their comprehension still does not equal that of a fully mature adult. Life, or the living of life teaches us all sorts of things and it is true that for many aspects of life, there is now substitute for age and experiance.

A child is not sexualy mature until puberty, that's just nature, so I guess that means it is unatural to have sex with anybody who has not reached puberty.

Dodgy argument, natural v unnatural.

How about this: there are certain things a child can never understand because they don't have the proper context. Psychology, for example, because psychology comes from experience with other people. You can tell them all the textbook psychology you want, but they're not going to really get it until they spend time with other people and experience it.

Sex is an experience. But you need the proper context for sex: you need to be aware of your own body in ways that pimples, a cracking voice, and awkward protrusions bring to your attention. Sex is also more than just bumping uglies: it is also a psychological experience, a closeness between two people. Having sex with a person means making yourself vulnerable to them, since you're naked and one of the most important and private part of your body is under their control. That is not something to approach lightly, without the context of knowing just what you're getting yourself into psychologically. Adults are able to understand this and mentally prepare themselves to either accept the person they are with and allow sex to bring them closer emotionally, or separate the sexual experience from the emotional aspects of it so that non-committal sex isn't emotionally crippling.

Further, sex does some nifty things to your brain, releasing endorphins and whatnot. Sex feels good (when you do it right, anyways). Exposing a young child to sex is like exposing a young child to morphine and then expecting them to be able to handle the drug responsibly as an adult. Sex can be like a drug, and there are people who get addicted to it like it's a drug: even if a child is capable of dealing with the psychological aspect of sex, the physical pleasure can get them fixated so that the older they get, the more obsessed they get, until they become so obsessed that sex is empty and meaningless to them: it's all about getting a fix, and they do increasingly abnormal and dangerous things to get that fix, like auto-erotic asphyxiation, which is incredibly dangerous, or meth-induced orgies, etc. As well, the loss of psychological power by giving up that part of your body leads to dependencies on others, or overcompensation which leads to rape, as they seek to have power over someone like someone had over them as a child.

Ho. Ly. Shit.

Dude, spell check doesn't work on punctuation, either, but you still need to use it. Your grammar is all over the place. Ow, damnit. That's not just a typo, that is blatant disregard for English grammar, and it hurts.

You are right there.

In the heat of battle, grammar and punctuation don't seem so important.

But they really are. To get the message across, details like a capital letter at the start of sentences really do count for something.

Not so much "oh, it hurts Rhyno's head" but more: the thread moves fast, and we need time to post too. Firstly, skip the uncommissioned essays. Second, skip the stuff that is hard to read because it lacks proper punctuation.

To make a point, be concise (I fail.) Second, punctuate. Third: compose grammatically correct sentences and use the damn spelling-checker, or if you can't be fucked with that, use short sentences.

I note that Bottle apparently posted to this thread. Yay! She called rape-fantasists "rapists" if I wred the quote correctly ... so tomorrow, Neesika and I will put a well-deserved cork in that ol' Bottle.

*crashes*

You can't be not guilty of wanting to have sex with clearly underage children if you're openly wanting to have sex with clearly underage children. I have 0 sympathy and would wish the full scrutiny of the law onto them.


What law? There is no thoughtcrimes law; they haven't done anything illegal. It's sick, fucked up, and they need help, but they have done nothing against the law. They can fantasize about anything they please, and you can't do anything about it.

Dodgy argument, natural v unnatural.

How about this: there are certain things a child can never understand because they don't have the proper context. Psychology, for example, because psychology comes from experience with other people. You can tell them all the textbook psychology you want, but they're not going to really get it until they spend time with other people and experience it.

Sex is an experience. But you need the proper context for sex: you need to be aware of your own body in ways that pimples, a cracking voice, and awkward protrusions bring to your attention. Sex is also more than just bumping uglies: it is also a psychological experience, a closeness between two people. Having sex with a person means making yourself vulnerable to them, since you're naked and one of the most important and private part of your body is under their control. That is not something to approach lightly, without the context of knowing just what you're getting yourself into psychologically. Adults are able to understand this and mentally prepare themselves to either accept the person they are with and allow sex to bring them closer emotionally, or separate the sexual experience from the emotional aspects of it so that non-committal sex isn't emotionally crippling.

Further, sex does some nifty things to your brain, releasing endorphins and whatnot. Sex feels good (when you do it right, anyways). Exposing a young child to sex is like exposing a young child to morphine and then expecting them to be able to handle the drug responsibly as an adult. Sex can be like a drug, and there are people who get addicted to it like it's a drug: even if a child is capable of dealing with the psychological aspect of sex, the physical pleasure can get them fixated so that the older they get, the more obsessed they get, until they become so obsessed that sex is empty and meaningless to them: it's all about getting a fix, and they do increasingly abnormal and dangerous things to get that fix, like auto-erotic asphyxiation, which is incredibly dangerous, or meth-induced orgies, etc. As well, the loss of psychological power by giving up that part of your body leads to dependencies on others, or overcompensation which leads to rape, as they seek to have power over someone like someone had over them as a child.

Is this not a seriously big use of a slippery slope falacy? You're assuming that just because a child has sex they will become messed up and totally ruined for life. This may happen in a very small minority of cases, but having sex at a young age does not automatically mean people will turn into rapists, it's simply insane to assume that. You state that they want to have power over someone, but your only way of saying that is rape, how about sex at a young age giving them a desire to work harder so they can own their own company and spend money on doing what they want and when they want it? Surely that is much more powerful than rape? It doesn't even have to give them a desire for power, they could have a desire to be submissive instead, to get power from fullinging someone elses needs and desires.

In conclusion, I feel that while sex with a child may be against the law and morally wrong in the majority of circumstances, it doesn't always have bad consequences, and that should be remembered before everyone runs off and goes out hunting pedophiles

Were literally run out of town on a pole !
( for the children here, you tie a person to a large wooden pole and all the men
in the village / town hoist it up and run it as far from town as they can. )

Or just a good old hanging, we still have the death penalty. Hanging is neither
cruel nor unusual according to the United States Constitution.

Basically removing these harmful subversives from a place where they do their
damage.

Or if you want to have bleeding hearts, throw them on an Island they could
never leave. Let them run free and live life the way they want. Only they
could never have children. ( clip them then dump them on the island )
Have the Coast guard patrol it for security.

Oh I'm not prude, if two adults want to carry on in their homes that's fine.
But a child and an adult IS A PROBLEM.

I believe that at a certain point a civilization reaches a size where it is no
longer civilized.
All you can do then is go back to the core values that build the civilization.
Sadly Americans have been going down hill since the end of the forties.
Yes we had some really good stuff, some cool toys. But our morals have been
sinking lower and lower with every decade.
One day I fear the debauchery of Rome will be our daily fair.

How old are you?

Dodgy argument, natural v unnatural.

How about this: there are certain things a child can never understand because they don't have the proper context. Psychology, for example, because psychology comes from experience with other people. You can tell them all the textbook psychology you want, but they're not going to really get it until they spend time with other people and experience it.

Sex is an experience. But you need the proper context for sex: you need to be aware of your own body in ways that pimples, a cracking voice, and awkward protrusions bring to your attention. Sex is also more than just bumping uglies: it is also a psychological experience, a closeness between two people. Having sex with a person means making yourself vulnerable to them, since you're naked and one of the most important and private part of your body is under their control. That is not something to approach lightly, without the context of knowing just what you're getting yourself into psychologically. Adults are able to understand this and mentally prepare themselves to either accept the person they are with and allow sex to bring them closer emotionally, or separate the sexual experience from the emotional aspects of it so that non-committal sex isn't emotionally crippling.

Further, sex does some nifty things to your brain, releasing endorphins and whatnot. Sex feels good (when you do it right, anyways). Exposing a young child to sex is like exposing a young child to morphine and then expecting them to be able to handle the drug responsibly as an adult. Sex can be like a drug, and there are people who get addicted to it like it's a drug: even if a child is capable of dealing with the psychological aspect of sex, the physical pleasure can get them fixated so that the older they get, the more obsessed they get, until they become so obsessed that sex is empty and meaningless to them: it's all about getting a fix, and they do increasingly abnormal and dangerous things to get that fix, like auto-erotic asphyxiation, which is incredibly dangerous, or meth-induced orgies, etc. As well, the loss of psychological power by giving up that part of your body leads to dependencies on others, or overcompensation which leads to rape, as they seek to have power over someone like someone had over them as a child.

Hey that IS much better than mine. Natural vs Unatural, is not that dodgey though is it.

at young ages childrens brains are like sponges, to use a very overused analogy
thats why a little kid can learn foreign languages much easier than a teenager young adult or adult
it stands to reason if we started teaching them about sex earlier on, they would learn earlier on and comprehend earlier on

so if we got young children to comprehend what sex was does this mean that the consent issue is not a problem any longer?

so if we got young children to comprehend what sex was does this mean that the consent issue is not a problem any longer?

Devils advocate: why does sex even need consent ?
Sure, we have seen the whole "intimacy, endorphins, vulnerable spots blabla" argument - but what it boils down to is this:

"sex can feel good".

It can also produce babies, but that is obviously not an issue with prepubescent children.

so if we got young children to comprehend what sex was does this mean that the consent issue is not a problem any longer?

I don't belive so. I have two children 12 and 15, and I have always been as open as I could be about sex, about what it means to a relationship, about what it can lead to, etc...

Now to me they are still underage, and yeah I guess my 15 year old has reached puberty now, but still the thought of him going with an older woman, or man for that matter, nope not a good thought, kinda makes me come over all protective and angry like.

at young ages childrens brains are like sponges, to use a very overused analogy
thats why a little kid can learn foreign languages much easier than a teenager young adult or adult
it stands to reason if we started teaching them about sex earlier on, they would learn earlier on and comprehend earlier on

At my school, our first sex ed class was in second grade. I learned about the mechanics of sex for reproduction much earlier than that--my parents answered questions as I asked them, providing only the information I asked for (not very specific at young ages, mostly the standard "where do babies come from" stuff). My parents also taught me about boundaries and my right to my personal space and to my body. So when I was molested when I was four, I told them straight away, they contacted the authorities, CPS investigated, and the person who molested me was fired from my pre-school (though not charged with anything).

I benefited not from learning about sex so I could "comprehend" it and become sexualized, I benefited from learning about what my rights were and what I did and did not have to allow, and that I didn't have to allow anyone to touch me anywhere. I have several friends who were molested or raped as children who were just as educated about sex, but didn't feel that they could tell anyone about their experience or that they had the power to make decisions about their bodies, and they were and remain very traumatized.

Devils advocate: why does sex even need consent ?
Sure, we have seen the whole "intimacy, endorphins, vulnerable spots blabla" argument - but what it boils down to is this:

"sex can feel good".

It can also produce babies, but that is obviously not an issue with prepubescent children.

well without the consent i have a feeling the pleasure will be quite a one way street.

'sides i believe it has also been mentioned how such acts on a developing body can be dangerous even if i was to foolishly accept a theory that educating a child on sex means they can now fully understand and consent to doing the act themselves. Nonsense.

btw, love the avatar, makes me want to play Civ: Alpha Centauri again :)

Hey that IS much better than mine. Natural vs Unatural, is not that dodgey though is it.

It's tough to argue what is or is not natural. You say pedophilia isn't natural. They say it is. The end.

...im the troll? you just blatantly called my friends rapists, yet im the troll?
logic please
oh and btw, soda is disgusting, short of forcing me to drink soda with a gun to my head or my friends i would never drink soda

Calling your friends "rapists" is simply calling a spade a spade. From what you've shared, and assuming you're not just making the whole thing up, it's pretty obvious.

At best, you have a bunch of friends who like the idea of having sex with non-consenting parties, which means you hang out with some serious assholes. At worst, you associate primarily with rapists and child molesters and you help them continue to get away with their activities, which would make you a passive accessory to rape.

But really, I don't actually believe you, so don't worry. Odds are you are just a garden-variety troll who thinks that it's funny to use the subject of rape to get a rise out of people. Cowardly, sure. Pathetic, no doubt. But not really shocking or even that interesting. Get a new hobby.

It's tough to argue what is or is not natural. You say pedophilia isn't natural. They say it is. The end.
Actually, it's quite easy to argue what is or is not natural. If something occurs in nature, it is natural. If it does not, it's not.

Pedophilia is natural. So are rape, theft, infanticide, and cannibalism. But really, one mustn't.

Actually, it's quite easy to argue what is or is not natural. If something occurs in nature, it is natural. If it does not, it's not.

Pedophilia is natural. So are rape, theft, infanticide, and cannibalism. But really, one mustn't.

"Natural" has a much broader definition than that. You're arguing semantics. Which is my point: you can call something "natural" but in the end there's no definitive definition for it.

well without the consent i have a feeling the pleasure will be quite a one way street.

Doesn't have to be. It is however quite likely that on many levels the pedophile will enjoy it more than the child.

'sides i believe it has also been mentioned how such acts on a developing body can be dangerous

So can feeding a kid hamburgers ;)

btw, love the avatar, makes me want to play Civ: Alpha Centauri again :)
*grin*. His "lack of ethics" is indeed appropiate for this topic ;)

"Natural" has a much broader definition than that. You're arguing semantics. Which is my point: you can call something "natural" but in the end there's no definitive definition for it.

nat·u·ral Audio Help /ˈnætʃərəl, ˈnætʃrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.
5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
6. growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.
7. having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives: natural food; natural ingredients. Compare organic (def. 11).
8. having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc.
9. of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution: natural ability.
10. proper to the circumstances of the case: a natural result of his greed.
11. free from affectation or constraint: a natural manner.
12. arising easily or spontaneously: a natural courtesy to strangers.
13. consonant with the nature or character of.
14. in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back.
15. based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice.
16. in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional.
17. happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc.
18. related only by birth; of no legal relationship; illegitimate: a natural son.
19. related by blood rather than by adoption.
20. based on what is learned from nature rather than on revelation.
21. true to or closely imitating nature: a natural representation.
22. unenlightened or unregenerate: the natural man.
23. being such by nature; born such: a natural fool.
24. Music.
a. neither sharp nor flat.
b. changed in pitch by the sign ♮.
25. not treated, tanned, refined, etc.; in its original or raw state: natural wood; natural cowhide.
26. (of a horn or trumpet) having neither side holes nor valves.
27. not tinted or colored; undyed.
28. having a pale tannish or grayish-yellow color, as many woods and untreated animal skins.
29. Cards.
a. being a card other than a wild card or joker.
b. (of a set or sequence of cards) containing no wild cards.
30. having or showing feelings, as affection, gratitude, or kindness, considered part of basic human nature.
31. Afro (def. 1).
–noun
32. any person or thing that is or is likely or certain to be very suitable to and successful in an endeavor without much training or difficulty.
33. Music.
a. a white key on a piano, organ, or the like.
b. the sign ♮, placed before a note, canceling the effect of a previous sharp or flat.
c. a note affected by a ♮, or a tone thus represented.
34. an idiot.
35. Cards. blackjack (def. 2b).
36. Afro (def. 2).
37. (in craps) a winning combination of seven or eleven made on the first cast.
38. a natural substance or a product made with such a substance: an ointment containing mink oil and other naturals.

"Natural" has a much broader definition than that. You're arguing semantics. Which is my point: you can call something "natural" but in the end there's no definitive definition for it.

Time for dictionary corner!

However, I have no wish to spam the thread so I'll just link (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural)

RhynoD's point is held, there are a good 22 definitions there. I'll just quote the most relevant, for brevity's sake:

3. A yellowish gray to pale orange yellow.
5. An Afro hairstyle.

I guess you can say it's broad.....

I note that Bottle apparently posted to this thread. Yay! She called rape-fantasists "rapists" if I wred the quote correctly ... so tomorrow, Neesika and I will put a well-deserved cork in that ol' Bottle.

*crashes*
No, I didn't.

Rape fantasies aren't rape. Remember, I was brought up by a pair of psychology PhDs, and they were quick to teach me that feelings are okay even if they're "icky" by some people's standards. It's only how you act on your feelings that can be good or bad.

However, based on what the OP has posted throughout the thread, and IF (major huge whopping if) any of the people the OP describes actually exist, then it's damn obvious that there's been a whole lotta rapin' goin' on.

Frankly, though, I don't think there's much point in pretending to discuss the specifics of the individuals in question, since I have serious doubts that any of them are real.

If you want to talk about the "theory" behind all of this, then that's marginally more interesting.

Do I think a person who enjoys fantasizing about hurting other people without their consent is a sick fuck? Yep. Do I support tossing them in prison for having those thoughts? Nope. My gut might like that idea, but my brain doesn't.

Let's also please not confuse standard S&M fantasies with actual non-consent fantasies. Enjoying the idea of playing rape with a consenting adult partner is one thing; enjoying the idea of jumping an unsuspecting individual in the park and raping them is another. Sure, both are still just thoughts, and I don't think anybody belongs in jail for thinking either one, but that doesn't mean it's sensible to equate the two.

"Natural" has a much broader definition than that. You're arguing semantics. Which is my point: you can call something "natural" but in the end there's no definitive definition for it.
By your standard there is no definitive definition for anything, so let's all just stop talking altogether.

Meh.

im back, ehh, had an error that wouldnt let me go to the forums for the majority of today, it was fucking annoying, anyways i wont be on much for a week most likely, tommorow i have to get ready to go for a week long vacation, and after that i dont know if therell be internet access where were staying, unless we pay to use the hotels computers, so hopefully no one will think ive run off if i dont post much in the next 7 or 8 days

Age/maturity is entirely different to sex/race, one is an ever-changing and varied state in an individual and their ability to consent, the other is static and has nothing to do with mutual consent.

i forgot to reply to you last night, didnt i? lol sorry
yet my analogy still stands
if someone who only gets turned on by children is expected to dismiss their attraction to children immediately and thus dismiss who they are and their arousal without having done anything than you are demanding they be asexual
similarly a person could make the demand a straight person be gay or a gay person be straight, or either/ both be asexual
but that isnt a mental defect or illness or whatever else

age is just a number maturity is whats really in question here and the road to maturity can be hastened through proper knowledge on subjects
also: youre really confusing me on the agreeing/ disagreeing bit, now it seems like you disagree...

Avriia, some news from Wikipedia:

Just because it's not by force doesn't mean the government approves of it. In fact, it is apparent that they do not approve of it. If you're not old enough to legally consent, the government disapproves. And the younger you are, the more they disapprove. So if your friends are into 5-year olds, that's no longer "statutory rape". It's called "child molestation".

Your friends are sick, and need to be investigated, incarcerated, and put on a lifetime of psychiatric treatment (pedophiles never really become un-pedophiles).

the government (im going strictly by the usas government) has approved of a lot of things in the past, that at later dates were than realized to be unconstitutional
-slavery
-separate but equal
-and currently the debate of gay rights
years ago had you tried to push removing the discriminations everyone has faced you wouldnt have ever been taken into serious consideration, just like now pedophilia would not be (in both legal terms, and by many people) accepted; but who knows, perhaps in 100 or 200 years it will be proven conclusively that this is just another example of people not learning from history
the government isnt infallible, it can make mistakes and quite often does

I cannot believe you'd make that comparison. What two consenting adults do with eachother is one thing. A five year old cannot possibly consent to something they don't biologically even have an interest in yet.

No, that's sexual abuse. People that want to sexually abuse other people need therapy. And guess what? The therapy actually has a good chance of working since paedophiles usually have sexual abuse in their past.

of course id make the comparison, if its rape there isnt a comparison, but statutory =/= rape. its consensual sex the government doesnt approve of.
dont have a biological interest in yet? wrong. many children below age 10 feel lust and can feel love as well, hell, personally i felt lust as young as 4 or 5
and love in kindergarten
we dont send people with rape fetishes to therapists, why pedophiles?
thats wrong, thats like saying gay people usually have sexual abuse in their past, a common misconception thats much less common now, but still relatively common nonetheless
therapy does not change sexual preference. it represses it and successfully destroys the lives of those whom it is done upon, no matter how they might act after it

Ho. Ly. Shit.

Dude, spell check doesn't work on punctuation, either, but you still need to use it. Your grammar is all over the place. Ow, damnit. That's not just a typo, that is blatant disregard for English grammar, and it hurts.

deal with it, i intend to be an author when i grow up if i can get published, if not my fallback is a chef
when/ if im an author ill use proper grammar punctuation and what not, but in informal cases like this its my prerogative to be lazy and not use it
also: microsoft words spellcheck does provide those options, if i hadnt wasted my 07 trial on other things/ had 03 installed i would be willing to use it to make this legible, since it could auto correct for me and since its got a customizable auto correct feature

There is fair bit right in here, yes children are better able to learn a foreign language than a fully mature adult.

But their comprehension still does not equal that of a fully mature adult. Life, or the living of life teaches us all sorts of things and it is true that for many aspects of life, there is now substitute for age and experiance.

A child is not sexualy mature until puberty, that's just nature, so I guess that means it is unatural to have sex with anybody who has not reached puberty.

its also unnatural to practice oral sex, watch porn, wear clothes, use cars, do drugs (i dont mean natural drugs i mean things like cigarettes that are more or less chemically made), practice medicine, perform operations, and a lot of other things
wheres the big movement to stop those things?
there isnt one (except maybe for drugs, but overall its agreed stopping drugs isnt the answer, just keeping it so the effects wont harm people who dont use the drug)
as long as its consensual and unnatural i say it should be practiced as far as those consenting want. adult or otherwise.

Dodgy argument, natural v unnatural.

How about this: there are certain things a child can never understand because they don't have the proper context. Psychology, for example, because psychology comes from experience with other people. You can tell them all the textbook psychology you want, but they're not going to really get it until they spend time with other people and experience it.

Sex is an experience. But you need the proper context for sex: you need to be aware of your own body in ways that pimples, a cracking voice, and awkward protrusions bring to your attention. Sex is also more than just bumping uglies: it is also a psychological experience, a closeness between two people. Having sex with a person means making yourself vulnerable to them, since you're naked and one of the most important and private part of your body is under their control. That is not something to approach lightly, without the context of knowing just what you're getting yourself into psychologically. Adults are able to understand this and mentally prepare themselves to either accept the person they are with and allow sex to bring them closer emotionally, or separate the sexual experience from the emotional aspects of it so that non-committal sex isn't emotionally crippling.

Further, sex does some nifty things to your brain, releasing endorphins and whatnot. Sex feels good (when you do it right, anyways). Exposing a young child to sex is like exposing a young child to morphine and then expecting them to be able to handle the drug responsibly as an adult. Sex can be like a drug, and there are people who get addicted to it like it's a drug: even if a child is capable of dealing with the psychological aspect of sex, the physical pleasure can get them fixated so that the older they get, the more obsessed they get, until they become so obsessed that sex is empty and meaningless to them: it's all about getting a fix, and they do increasingly abnormal and dangerous things to get that fix, like auto-erotic asphyxiation, which is incredibly dangerous, or meth-induced orgies, etc. As well, the loss of psychological power by giving up that part of your body leads to dependencies on others, or overcompensation which leads to rape, as they seek to have power over someone like someone had over them as a child.

sex =/= puberty. many children start masturbating much earlier on, and although at first theyre usually too sensitive for it to result in orgasm it will result in one the more they get used to it, surely masturbation and orgasm shows theyre capable of arousal at that age, and in turn shows that they could possibly conceive sex as viable - but if we never inform them of what sex is at that age, of course they wont, i didnt even know what masturbation was called until 7th grade

and what about the small percentage of people that never experience puberty, or at the very least dont experience those things in puberty, do we say 'you may not have sex'?

about the 'private parts being under their control bit' short of bdsm thats a relatively poor analogy for sex, in my opinion at least, if i wanted vanilla sex it wouldnt have anything to do with control, thats a specific sect of sexual fetishes/ fantasies

that can be said of anyone, people will always be able to get addicted to something. even if it became hollow for them that isnt necessarily bad, the only time sex is bad (outside of rape) is when it interferes with ones life, thats the only time masturbation, sex, or any of that is 'too much'

you just created a hell of a slippery slope, might i ask exactly what youre basing this idea on? and for the record, i know a girl apprx my age whos into a lot of that stuff, i havent talked to her into a while, but shes into just about anything sexually, yet like me, shes a virgin. and any form of sex can be dangerous if not done with proper safety measures (depending on the type of sex it would varry greatly though) but no sex is absolutely off limits, morally speaking, save for rape (when i say rape i do not include stat because its consenting)

You are right there.

In the heat of battle, grammar and punctuation don't seem so important.

But they really are.

To make a point, be concise

I note that Bottle apparently posted to this thread. Yay! She called rape-fantasists "rapists" if I wred the quote correctly ... so tomorrow, Neesika and I will put a well-deserved cork in that ol' Bottle.

ill manage without them, as ive said the only time i would do it is in a case where it was formal
concise never has been a strong point of mine, im probably the only person i know who after cutting out everything (and thus making it feel short and rushed) still is usually 4 pages over (at least) the maximum for whatever our school assignments might be
i should probably work on that but i have three options on handling it:
-lump every response into about two sentences total
-ignore the majority of posters here and respond to only a select few, which to an extent im already doing
-read through whats said and try to come up with one argument to collectively handle it all which might leave some points left unaddressed
im glad not everyone thinks like that and people realize that fantasy =/= the act

Hey that IS much better than mine. Natural vs Unatural, is not that dodgey though is it.

i would have to say that it is, because so many things are unnatural yet widely accepted
it would really hinge on the tolerance of society to deem a 'crime against nature' because many of those so called things are very natural
and even if they werent common by existing at all, it would be proof they are natural

so if we got young children to comprehend what sex was does this mean that the consent issue is not a problem any longer?

since this was mature ill respond:
depends, what do you mean by consent issue? requiring consent? or age of consent?
requiring consent is a given, i know what sex is but if you or some other random person wanted sex with me i wouldnt necessarily consent because of that knowledge, merely the knowledge would provide me with the tools to decide if i would consent or not

as for age of consent, yes, realistically there would still be a cap (on infants toddlers and younger children) not because of an age of consent, but because the knowledge would take time for them to learn, and there are some ages at which they just wont be able to learn anything in the way of sex and sexuality (since theyre still learning to speak) but overall it wouldnt exist legally

Devils advocate: why does sex even need consent ?
Sure, we have seen the whole "intimacy, endorphins, vulnerable spots blabla" argument - but what it boils down to is this:

"sex can feel good".

It can also produce babies, but that is obviously not an issue with prepubescent children.

non consensual sex would be unenjoyable for at least one party, for the rapist they would have to struggle + it would be more or less annoying, the rapist could end up hurt
for the victim they would not enjoy it most likely because they could end up seriously hurt, the rapist might not take the time to ensure their pleasure, and sex is very subjective as to whats arousing and whats not, therefore the rapist could turn them off and repulse them
as for the baby part, even in adults that wouldnt be an excuse - do we want worldwide overpopulation?

note: spell check does not like me, it says unenjoyable is not a word and the only options are 'enjoyable' and 'enjoyably' this is proof spell check is not worth it in this form, and only in microsoft word and similar applications

kinda makes me come over all protective and angry like.

understandable, parents most often do want whats best for their children - whether they always know or not (im not saying you dont know, im speaking of all parents, even though it is kind of coming off that way)
sometimes parents are much easier to infuriate/ upset over some things pertaining to children too, because they worry about their chilren - a parent surely must fear every possible fear for their child, at least once - excluding the parents that are abusive

At my school, our first sex ed class was in second grade. I learned about the mechanics of sex for reproduction much earlier than that--my parents answered questions as I asked them, providing only the information I asked for (not very specific at young ages, mostly the standard "where do babies come from" stuff). My parents also taught me about boundaries and my right to my personal space and to my body. So when I was molested when I was four, I told them straight away, they contacted the authorities, CPS investigated, and the person who molested me was fired from my pre-school (though not charged with anything).

I benefited not from learning about sex so I could "comprehend" it and become sexualized, I benefited from learning about what my rights were and what I did and did not have to allow, and that I didn't have to allow anyone to touch me anywhere. I have several friends who were molested or raped as children who were just as educated about sex, but didn't feel that they could tell anyone about their experience or that they had the power to make decisions about their bodies, and they were and remain very traumatized.

im sorry about your friends and you, but im glad youve managed to move beyond it
in any case, learning about sex earlier even if the age of consent wasnt changed wont harm anyone and it will help some people
in any case, if the circumstances were as i described than they would have numerous differences to those - and it could help to encourage others to get help, and discourage some potential rapists

It's tough to argue what is or is not natural. You say pedophilia isn't natural. They say it is. The end.

or we list the other things thatre unnatural that are socially acceptable :p
either way unnatural/ natural/ crimes against nature gets no one anywhere, we cant base this on such things, we must base it on moral grounds and consequences - be they positive or negative

Calling your friends "rapists" is simply calling a spade a spade. From what you've shared, and assuming you're not just making the whole thing up, it's pretty obvious.

At best, you have a bunch of friends who like the idea of having sex with non-consenting parties, which means you hang out with some serious assholes. At worst, you associate primarily with rapists and child molesters and you help them continue to get away with their activities, which would make you a passive accessory to rape.

But really, I don't actually believe you, so don't worry. Odds are you are just a garden-variety troll who thinks that it's funny to use the subject of rape to get a rise out of people. Cowardly, sure. Pathetic, no doubt. But not really shocking or even that interesting. Get a new hobby.

go find the dictionary of your choosing, and look up rapist please, what does it say? where does it mention a rapist is someone who fantasises about rape?
ive made nothing up, and its obvious they arent rapists, because i clearly stated two are complete virgins and have never had ANY sexual contact, one is in a monogamous relationship where they are married, and has never engaged in illegal sexual acts either
how are they assholes? a bit about them:
-the 23 yr old:
ive been in a depression for a few years, hes one of my closest friends whom i feel safe talking to, and hes very good at comforting me, hes also stood up for my friends on numerous occasions, although more often than not he is non confrontational, his chosen profession is in the field of psychology, because he wants to help people
-the 17 yr old:
while no longer my friend he is one of the kindest people i know, he is extremely tolerant of anyone and overall a nice guy, he doesnt bother people or harass them, and would much rather people be happy than sad
-the 15 yr old:
theres a lot that can be said here, but ill try to keep it brief; my ex, and best friend, he and i are both in depressions, though hes recieving medication for it and i am not, weve both helped one another to feel better, and when i first met him he had very few, if any friends, while hes not quite as outgoing as the 17 yr old or the 23 yr old he has gotten much more outgoing, and he loves his cousin dearly - he would NEVER EVER harm her, hes one of the kindest people ive ever had the honor of meeting and while he does tend to act tough sometimes, he really is a big softie, hes not quite as non confrontational as the others, my boyfriend also has a lot of emotional issues to deal with (my boyfriend plans on getting a sex change when hes older, is metro, and is bi - his parents accept gay and straight but believe there isnt anything as bi, they also believe guys should be tough and manly and not cry or whatever while girls should be gentle and feminine and show their emotions), between both me and my best friend weve managed to help him out quite a bit though
how am i helping people rape? fucks sake...
...? didnt we establish im not a troll already *sighs* whatever, i dont have to prove myself to you

then it's damn obvious that there's been a whole lotta rapin' goin' on.

if youre humoring me by assuming what i say is true, why do you than suddenly assume only certain things are true and the others are all lies? TWO OUT OF THREE ARE COMPLETE VIRGINS THAT HAVE HAD NO SEXUAL CONTACT, THE OTHER IS MARRIED AND ONLY HAS SEX WITH THEIR WIFE

By your standard there is no definitive definition for anything, so let's all just stop talking altogether.

Meh.

i wouldnt say that, one word having an abstract definition does not mean all words have an abstract definition
in any case it reminds me of the time someone said i shouldnt use a word if i didnt know its origin
i proceeded to ask them if they knew the origin of the, and, it, etc
of course they didnt, so i concluded since neither one of us knew the origin of all words or even a majority of common words we - like most people - could not speak
they changed their opinion fairly quickly :s

Uh, report those guys to the cops...they're gonna do something bad someday...

I tend to avoid these discussions for obvious reasons.

The question of it being natural is an oversimplification of an attempt of justification. It being natural doesn't make it right. There are conditions where people want to hurt themselves. We don't allow it even though it's natural.

Laws are meant to protect those that can not. We have consent laws to cover children who tend to lack the maturity to honestly make an evaluation for sexual contact.

Children tend to want to please an adult. As such can be easily be motivated to do things they don't understand.

Some try to argue that there are children that are mature in such matters. They like the pleasure. Sure it feels good but it could be argued they don't understand the emotional aspects that go along with it.

Children have to be protected. There is no argument against it.

Age of consent has merit in it's better to protect the majority at the expense of a minority.

One thing I do find interesting is the counter arguments against age of consent usually involve teenagers.

Another thing I find interesting is that I have read Paedos tend to be rather persuasive individuals. If this is true, for me it adds even more weight to the consent laws validity.

Right or wrong society tends to decide what is right or wrong. Frankly, most people don't agree with the idea of sex with children. Such opinions cross cultures and social economic levels.

Now as to the question of rape? Not exactly "normal" Especially if they tend to talk about it a great deal. If they find themselves thinking about it all the time, they need help and should get it. If they rape a kid and get caught, they will either die or face a life of misery. In prison, they have to separate these individuals from the other cons as they tend to get attacked and or killed.

As a parent, if one of them attacked my kid and I got a hold of them....they would plead for death.....

Feel free to comment. I don't like this topic and probably will not revisit.

They have not - and never will - rape anyone. They will not sexually harass or assault anyone.

I'm not trying to be contrary, but there's no way you can know that.

thats the exact mind frame that encourages negativity towards gay people
-dont ask dont tell
-people shouldnt have to hear about gay people being gay
freedom of speech, they werent harassing anyone, others were harassing them

You're at the bitter end of the concrete operations phase of mental development, and clearly WAY ahead of the curve for your age, and for that I congratulate you. However, you're black-and-whiting an area that is so grey it could be mistaken for November in Seattle.

People don't like to hear about the sexualization of children not because having sex with them is illegal, but because only a razor-thin minority thinks someone could want something without eventually acting on that want (ironic that it's the Catholics who are biggest on the thought = deed idea). The US (especially) has a child fetish of its own, and it's not healthy. I find it amazing how "I love children" makes someone worthy of praise, but your point of view makes them criminals even in the absence of any actual crime. As silly as that might be, it is. And no, it's not like the civil rights struggles of various races or homosexuals because of the critical element of consent. More on that later.

I'm impressed with your articulation, but your experience and acceptance level of reality is sorely lacking. In demanding that society tolerate something so incredibly sensitive as the sexualization of children, you're choosing to demand something of it you know it will never give. You then paint yourself and your friends as somehow noble and not deserving of negativity. Bit like waving a red flag at a bull and then complaining about the horns, isn't it?

rape is one of the MOST common fetishes, just because youre into it doesnt make you immoral or bad, if you do rape someone it makes you immoral (to an extent, its possible to have morals outside of it though) and 'bad' (its subjective, though i would agree it is bad to rape).

You keep repeating this like it's some kind of justification. It isn't. Again, consent. If someone tells me they want to rape their five-year-old cousin, is it unreasonable of me to think "hm...this is someone who bears watching"? No, it isn't. It's just as reasonable as you rightly saying they haven't committed any crimes. If society is going to be demanded to accept your point of view, surely you can bend a little the other way. Compromise, it's not just for Missouri anymore.

while i dont agree with you entirely, thank you for realizing that they are innocent

Nobody's innocent, but meh.

hes into incest, nothing harmful about that, but that is a different subject
as for rape its been sufficiently covered in my response to others, i think

Okay, here's what I'm talking about. If you're going to walk a tightrope over lava, you need to choose your words with more care. And no, I don't care how tired you are -- your self-deprivation doesn't matter because you are the one typing, if you're too tired to think clearly, stop typing and rest.

Saying someone's "into" something carries with it the connotation of participation to the vast majority of readers. In that context, being "into incest" is incredibly harmful, as is "being into" raping single-digit-aged children.

discussing a fantasy is not illegal

Absolutely correct. However, discussing a fantasy when it's clearly incendiary -- and you know it is -- and expecting immediate, unquestioning acceptance of it from everyone? Woefully naïve. Being as intelligent as you are has not yet armed you with wisdom -- the former is no substitute for the latter.

s&m - destroying your second argument with one word
to the rest: its not disturbed either way, rape is a common fetish and pedophilia less so, though both are perfectly acceptable - rape fully acceptable up until acted out, and pedophilia, the same as rape in that case (though my personal opinion differs)

Nope. Not even close. The "second argument" was about consent. S&M involves someone consenting to be treated in a certain way -- there's a safe-word, remember? The one consenting is free to withhold that consent at any time.

my friend is atheist, yet he jokingly 'worships' pedobear, i wonder if that makes me a saint in his 'religion' or something?

Perhaps, but if that's supposed to make him somehow "edgy", is it not possible that might be why he does it? Your willingness to assume that everything is as it seems is part of your youth. Notice I'm not condemning you for it, just pointing it out.

You can't be not guilty of wanting to have sex with clearly underage children if you're openly wanting to have sex with clearly underage children. I have 0 sympathy and would wish the full scrutiny of the law onto them.

As has been pointed out, they also sound like they're "grooming" you.

You can't be guilty of WANTING anything. When want becomes action toward getting, then by all means activate the justice system. Until then, you've got nothing.

As for "grooming", you can't groom someone you're legally allowed to have sex with. One of them is a year younger than she is. Try to read beyond your emotional responses once or twice, you might learn something.

in my opinion any harm - physical emotional etc - is bad except in certain cases (ie war - war overall for the sake of war is bad, and war no matter what causes harm, but in some instances its necessary)

So necessary = good? Really?

anyways, who says it emotionally harms them? surely if our society didnt view it as emotionally harmful and victimize them, they wouldnt be made into victims,

Who says WHAT emotionally harms them? Being fantasized about harms no one. The harm of having that fantasy acted out on someone depends on the someone and the fantasy. If it's sex with a five-year-old relative that's acted out, the harm is manifest. If you can't see that, I don't want to know you.

slippery slope, we accept rape fetishes in most societies yet do we condone rape? (most societies, there are exceptions everywhere and to everything)
condoning the enjoyment of thoughts is not bad at all, but in fact beneficial
i would condone everyone to think what they want, even those that personally have disgusted me on this thread with their bigoted views
yet if any one of them tried to act out some of the more extreme views you can rest assured that (while not personally from me, but from the gov) there would be hell to pay

The difference is again the deliberate provocation of something you KNOW to be a nest of hornets. You KNOW people can be very black-and-white when it comes to children, yet you expect society to welcome discussion about something that dances on the knife-edge of what is considered to be a crime so heinous that murderers will kill the offender in prison.

Just as it's usually not polite to discuss personal or private issues in public, discussing others' fringe fantasies in a place where they can be seen by anyone isn't always going to be welcome. That's not society's fault. That's simple respect for others. Sexual proclivity is unique in that it's something we all have, but most refuse to talk about openly. Walking in and laying child-rape fantasies on the table and expecting no negative reactions is really disingenuous.

I don't care how anyone else gets off. So long as consent is involved, to me there's no crime. However, I really don't care to hear about it if I am not familiar with you as a person. It's none of my business unless I ask about it, and starting a thread isn't asking, it's blurting. It's akin to me walking into a coffeehouse or public square and loudly proclaiming that I like to have clothespins on my scrotum while I'm spanked by German dominatrices dressed as nurses. Legal? Sure (but only to the extent that you don't cause a disturbance). Polite? Hardly.

Do you have the right to post whatever you like within the forum's rules? Of course. Do you have the right to be immune from negative opinions about your topic? Not no, but hell no.

hahaha, speaking of 2 - 3, i started at 5 possibly 4. didnt know what it was, but it was fun, and i fell in love at 5

No, you didn't.

i beg to differ about comprehended or not though, true the lust wasnt directed at my crush, nor at anyone else, but it was more centered around making myself feel good

Playing with yourself and associating it with someone face at age five is not love. It's playing with yourself and associating it with someone.

i dont think putting age restrictions on sex is a good idea

Here's my point about consent. You and your preternatural cognitive facilities are RARE. SO rare in fact that there's no way in hell ANY law passed by a mass of humanity can properly make exceptions for it. A line must be drawn somewhere -- best to draw that line so that it will do the most good and be as reasonable as possible. That's why the age restriction is different in different cultures -- they've come to separate conclusions about what age best makes the most acceptable distinction. Seems to me that you draw the line at or near the age where the overwhelming majority are NOT ready for genuine sexual relationships. It may be assumed that the microscopic minority that IS ready will either find a way to clandestinely circumvent the law or will wait until they are legal. It's sex, not an organ transplant.

i know a former online friends friend was 19, his girlfriend was 17, theyd been in a relationship for a while and had sex, which was obviously illegal, but the fact remains they did it

What does this even mean? "It's illegal" (which is it not in many jurisdictions that allow for trans-age-of-consent sex so long as the age difference is less than x) "but the fact remains they did it"? So what?

who are we to say they can not consent?
and who are we to say that others can not provided they are informed and there is no proof/ substantial reason to believe that consent was not obtained through coercion

"We" are society, governed (mostly) by laws. Laws which are passed and agreed on by society's elected representatives (mostly). As such, no law attempting to regulate a charged emotional topic like sex is EVER going to be perfect. Society knows this (whether or not it admits it) and chooses to err on the side of caution rather than the side of extreme exceptionality. How can you be so eloquent and not understand that?

17 yr old isnt my friend anymore, but other than that youre right
my 23 yr old friend and i have mutual crushes on one another, but were just close friends, both of us are in relationships (him married) and both are content with our relationships
interesting side note: the 23 yr old is majoring in psychology, for anyone who says they need mental help

Again you betray your supposed maturity and intelligence with that last statement. Just because someone is majoring in psych (and yes, "majoring" implies that they're an undergrad, grad students don't major) does not make them somehow immune from psychopathology or unhealthy thoughts. I've had numerous crushes on students, and I'm a professor. I've never acted on any of them. I'm no criminal, but being educated is absolutely no guarantee of immunity to the need for mental help. That assumption is, in fact, dangerous.

i dont really get what you mean by this "that such expositions of "I'm bad, I have bad thoughts" is just the sort of false maturity an older kid would use to get a younger kid into bed" especially since you called it maturity, which i cant comprehend at all how anyone could mistake it for that, when the two arent even related

This paragraph makes no sense. Affecting a practiced maturity in order to impress girls is exactly the kind of thing young, horny boys try. If you can't comprehend how anyone could deliberately admit to behavior society frowns on, you've never heard of James Dean, Madonna, Paris Hilton or any pseudo-rebel in popular culture. I find that hard to believe.

Yeah, that's a reference from Seinfeld--a joke, which hardly warrants the infraction I got.

Sure it does. You referenced a crappy TV show which, despite fans' fervent belief to the contrary, not everyone watched then or watches now in syndication.

Anyways, I think that the protection of our children is of the utmost importance--much more important that "when the age of consent should be." A child in the 5-12 year old range doesn't really understand what consent is, and what the other, older, person will be doing, so I don't think that its fair to say "only if they consent." Now, as for maybe 15-17, that's a little different, but my point is that the consent laws are there for a reason, and like any law in place to protect children, should not be broken.

There is some sense to this argument, and it goes to the notion that these rarest of exceptionally mature children are impossible to cater to legislatively. Also, there's the notion that one person's sexual fantasies and needs should never outweigh another's life or emotional wholeness.

This may sound hypocritical, but I still don't think this thread should be allowed to continue. Just my two cents.

You should have read the part before the comma as you typed it and just stopped typing. I don't care one whit for your opinion about what the rest of us can talk about. So long as it's within forum rules (it is), it's fair game. If you're THAT disgusted, there's a simple remedy: don't read the thread. It's attitudes like yours that got us the FCC.

...actually, I picked that example on purpose because it was something that could plausibly be contradicted in certain circumstances. I don't find Soheran's argument ridiculous, though I disagree with it, and so I didn't want a comparison that suggested no sane person could disagree. :)

Hah. Touché and well done. *bows to you*

There are many kinds of talent. Mine is excellent diction, and I'm gratified to discover that it conceals many faults of reasoning and reasonableness.

Yours I think is sincerity. Just find a way to hold down the SHIFT key at the start of sentences and I'm sure you'll be welcome here.

Amen.

Psych majors are generally egotists who love the subject because they think it will allow them to "understand" (ie predict and control) other people. They either apply it in some other field, or end up as professional psychologists or psychiatriasts, fucking with other people's heads.

And they're dud roots. Always.

I won't agree with "always", but I have met a number of this particular breed.

I'm not joking. Psychology is a subject far too close to the Subject: the individual who is establishing a position in their field of study. For objectivity, for a fair assessment of what makes people tick, ask an Engineering of Theology student.

Or even a good philosophy student who can separate the argument from the arguer (aka the vessel from the potter). Behavioral psychology is the most scientific branch. Seeing behavior and hypothesizing about what causes it or how it can be modified (Skinner, Milgram, et al.) and trying to determine causality instead of inferring them from correlation. That's science. Freud was mostly crap, and Jung is more mythology than psychology (ask Joseph Campbell via his books).

And yet. All grown up as you are, don't you remember the thrill of talking to "bad boys," the older boys who talk so casually about the things you never saw on TV? The boys who scared you ... just enough to be a challenge, not so you wanted to run.

Really, is it entirely out of the question that a guy could play up his sexual attraction to small children (which I have myself, btw) or his desire for close relatives (in my case, my female cousins and my only sister) to make himself attractive?

To a younger teen, having and moreover admitting to such desires might appear as freedom, independence, STRENGTH. The rebellion of adolescence is primarily sexual, it's a break with the (a)sexual role of childhood.

Bingo. Bingo twice.

Just because it's not by force doesn't mean the government approves of it. In fact, it is apparent that they do not approve of it. If you're not old enough to legally consent, the government disapproves. And the younger you are, the more they disapprove. So if your friends are into 5-year olds, that's no longer "statutory rape". It's called "child molestation".

Your friends are sick, and need to be investigated, incarcerated, and put on a lifetime of psychiatric treatment (pedophiles never really become un-pedophiles).

If that's the case, so do you. Your prior posts indicate that you're a social deviant with callous disregard for those who don't think like you do.

You're well within your rights to say that you don't find fantasies about children savory. Neither do I. However that in no way grants you the scope to tell anyone who should be incarcerated. Thankfully the law does not operate like the Catholic church where "want" in and of itself is a sin. I can want to lop your hands off so that you never post again, but I'd never do it. I'd sit back and cackle in glee at the image in my head of your virulent, misinformed and pathetic opinions being cut off at the source, but it would repel me to my very core to have to do it, and I'd stop anyone who tried to do it with all available force.

Ho. Ly. Shit.

Dude, spell check doesn't work on punctuation, either, but you still need to use it. Your grammar is all over the place. Ow, damnit. That's not just a typo, that is blatant disregard for English grammar, and it hurts.

All right, that's enough. Clearly you understood what she was posting. Get off your damned style-over-substance high horse and either respond to the CONTENT of the post or let it go. Honestly, are you the kind of person who just can't accept an opinion if it isn't grammatically correct? Have you noticed that she's a good speller? She's going for speed because there's a lot of people to reply to. Give the girl a break for cryin' out loud.

You're getting close to an Andaras-level preoccupation. It's fine if comprehension is genuinely affected, but if just not seeing capital letters and apostrophes causes you that much grief, you're in the wrong decade. You also must not have many friends who text or IM.

You and I care about proper presentation. Others don't. Please don't be the opposite of the people who see my capitalizations and punctuation in chat logs and ask "OMG, who DOES that?!?" I realize you can be however you want, but shit fire and save matches already.

*grin*. His "lack of ethics" is indeed appropiate for this topic ;)

I look at that face and get this very uncomfortable feeling. Having started on the other side of Planet, he's got fusion and I've got the pathetic Gatling Laser. I'm going to lose ... again ... ; )

I like the reference. The artwork in that game was wonderful, like the golden age of hand-drawn Disney. Post a pic of "Miriam of the Believers" for the threadjack!

Next time I take a break from NSG, and I'm not so starving that I HAVE to work, I'll do my damnedest to win as Morgan. Probably next week! :D

==========

No, I didn't.

Rape fantasies aren't rape. Remember, I was brought up by a pair of psychology PhDs, and they were quick to teach me that feelings are okay even if they're "icky" by some people's standards. It's only how you act on your feelings that can be good or bad.

You, me and Soheran agree on that. The point is won already.

However, based on what the OP has posted throughout the thread, and IF (major huge whopping if) any of the people the OP describes actually exist, then it's damn obvious that there's been a whole lotta rapin' goin' on.

That's what I don't get. I missed quite a few of Avriia's posts (due to the new-poster delay) but I think I've tracked them down now.

It's all about the fantasy as far as I read. Quote me otherwise, and show evidence of rapes.

I'm going to take the posts as sincere, because there's simply no point in discussing the issue as the OP frames it if they're not. (But I'm convinced that's a guy writing. Which would cast a lot of doubt on the rest of the assertions.)

Two ways to see this:

The OP is actively investigating the fantasies of these guys she knows, and they're coming out with some soul-searched self expositions. She's perhaps exploring some masochistic fantasies of her own in the process.
These guys the OP knows are alluding to actual rapes they have committed, and whether it's them or the OP who is holding back knowledge of these serious crimes, the OP is posting to either get the burden of having such friends off her chest* or for advice in how to weigh the difficult decision between personal loyalty and civic responsibility. I.e., whether to dob them in.

*There's a killer joke there, but this is not the time.

Case 2 would be the "whole lotta raping going on" scenario you suspect. But for me, it just doesn't stack up. Rape is a very serious crime, and anyone who had raped before and intended to do it again WOULDN'T talk about their fantasies ... particularly with someone who was then going to go start a thread about it on a forum.

There's a possibility though, that these "friends" have shared a bit more with the OP than he/she is willing to disclose. Either for forum rules, or for hard legal reasons. If so, I advise Avriia to either (a) shut up, this forum can be subpoened if your "friends" land in criminal court, and concealing evidence of a crime is itself criminal, or (b) take everything you have to Child Protection and/or your nearest Police Station.

(Lateral-thinking moment: someone hack Avriia's computer now and record those Messenger logs.)

Frankly, though, I don't think there's much point in pretending to discuss the specifics of the individuals in question, since I have serious doubts that any of them are real.

If you want to talk about the "theory" behind all of this, then that's marginally more interesting.

We will. When a good poster frames the question right.


Do I think a person who enjoys fantasizing about hurting other people without their consent is a sick fuck? Yep. Do I support tossing them in prison for having those thoughts? Nope. My gut might like that idea, but my brain doesn't.

Eminently reasonable. I could make a case for harm prevention, but I have no way of containing the principle and I'd end up advocating something which trashes human rights.

I take "sick fuck" in the colloquial sense. Not as "this person has a mental illness and also is an asshole" but as "ick, person I don't even want to try to understand."


Let's also please not confuse standard S&M fantasies with actual non-consent fantasies. Enjoying the idea of playing rape with a consenting adult partner is one thing; enjoying the idea of jumping an unsuspecting individual in the park and raping them is another. Sure, both are still just thoughts, and I don't think anybody belongs in jail for thinking either one, but that doesn't mean it's sensible to equate the two.

Not sensible no. Really my issue is with you equating rape-fantasists with rapists.

As Neesika said, and as I'm quite comfortable saying myself: I have some terrible fantasies. One of my strategies for dealing with my fear of physical assault or threats apon my life is to fantasize a physical fight, in which I start out powerless (unarmed and surprised in a dark alley) ... perform some fantastical kung fu ending with the ringleader winded and paralyzed by fear ... whereapon I dictate to him outrageous and ideologically-complex terms for the conduct of his subsequent life. And if he utters a word of dissent, I kick him, once, between the temple and the ear, rendering him a drooling vegetable for the rest of his life.

I do that fantasy quite often (with variations, obviously.) I would never do it. I know I would never do it, I've been in fights and I know I have the instinctive human regard for other human life. Even when my rational mind is miles behind and self-defence dictates that I must win. I have instinctive mercy, as I believe we all do if not trained out of it or possessed of the binary, triggered, kill-or-spare-life decision a gun can make for us.



I also wonder if "stop being friends with them" is the optimal response. Here follows the rave.

I had a friend I suspected of molesting his own daughter, and my gut reaction was to get the hell away from him. But when I tried that, it continued to prey on my mind ... I felt like I'd left the kid in trouble. I felt like a coward for obeying my own sense of "ick." So I stayed in touch with the family (mom was a hopeless case, dad during this time got custody of the kid) and worked hard on gaining his trust. It was easy to just be his friend, I still consider him a friend, but to get him to drop his guard about how he makes parenting decisions, I had to talk a lot about my own previous girlfriends (which was really awkward for me) and play along with quite a bit of what seemed to me poor parenting.

My final conclusion (and yes, I'd have taken it all to the cops if I thought he really was using his own daughter sexually) was surprising and confronting for me: the whole time he'd been investigating my intentions towards his kid!

Now, I think my intentions were primarily parental, and not just a bit jealous towards the family life the three of them had, inadequate though it was in many ways. But I'm a complex and confused person, and don't even pretend to know all my own motives.

In retrospect, some of the things which aroused my suspicion were a bit too easy to spot. "She doesn't like underpants, always takes them off" is fair enough, I could even understand her making a point of leaving them in prominent places like the dining-room table (to be naughty, knowing that they're supposed to be private and physically unclean) but in one instance I saw one of the parents move a pair of the kid's discarded undies to where I couldn't avoid seeing them. The mother (an intelligent woman but selfish and arrogant, therefore clumsy in such detective work) really crossed the line into sanctioning sexual play between myself and the kid. That freaked me out (too much ick) and I stopped visiting for more than a year.

The kid's first words to me when I met her again (with her dad, I came back around) were "Why did you go away for so long?" I couldn't answer, but now I can. I was a bloody coward. Dad moved out in that time, got de facto custody of the kid, and mom spent some time in the mental hospital. It was a difficult time for the little girl (she was about seven) and I should have been there for her.

It sounds ridiculous, but none of these things tipped me off at the time. The girl is eleven now, and very much in the sway of her school friends and 'imaginary boys' -- pop icons -- so both her dad and me are much more open about what was going on back then. We're both relieved of the terrible responsibility we both felt to "investigate" each other. I still get pangs of suspicion about what he might have done, but I think he has the same about me. We're good mates, and will be for years I'm sure.

So the point of this story is that "withdrawal of friendship" is a weak and cowardly way to "punish" a friend who does a heinous and criminal thing. I wouldn't dream of busting a friend for smoking some drugs. If they robbed a bank or beat up an asshole, I'd get right into what they did and why and examine the consequences. Then I might act against them myself or turn them over to the law. But if they molested a child, I wouldn't respond with "oh, you're not my friend any more." I'd fucking nail them, as well within the law as I could manage.

As I hope my own friends would do to me. If I don't trust their moral judgement, they never would have been a friend.

(Sorry to dump this rave on the end of my reply ... I know you have more worthwhile alternate uses for your time, than I do. Don't feel that you should reply to this whole post, your time is worth more than that. But ... I'm a raver. This post is, of course, open to replies at large.)

It's tough to argue what is or is not natural. You say pedophilia isn't natural. They say it is. The end.

Naaa it's not that hard to argue really. It seems clear that here are some pedopihies around, so clearly it is natural that soem peoples brains work in this way, just as it is natural that some peoples brains work in such a way as to enable us to label them schizophrenic.

Schizophrenia, is one of the many mental health issues we have, and people who are schizophrenic are considered to have a brain that is not working normaly, or as nature intended, they have in other words a problem that if corrected would bring the brain back to working in a more 'natural way.

Pedophila is the same, it is not natural for adults to be sexualy attracted to pre-pubecant children.

Time for dictionary corner!

However, I have no wish to spam the thread so I'll just link (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural)

RhynoD's point is held, there are a good 22 definitions there. I'll just quote the most relevant, for brevity's sake:

3. A yellowish gray to pale orange yellow.
5. An Afro hairstyle.

I guess you can say it's broad.....

You're funny.

But both you and Rhyno are right. Such "catch-all" terms as "normal" or "natural" are pretty much useless in argument.

They amount to "you know what I mean, and if you don't you must be one of Them"

I'm going to take the posts as sincere, because there's simply no point in discussing the issue as the OP frames it if they're not. (But I'm convinced that's a guy writing. Which would cast a lot of doubt on the rest of the assertions.)

Two ways to see this:

The OP is actively investigating the fantasies of these guys she knows, and they're coming out with some soul-searched self expositions. She's perhaps exploring some masochistic fantasies of her own in the process.
These guys the OP knows are alluding to actual rapes they have committed, and whether it's them or the OP who is holding back knowledge of these serious crimes, the OP is posting to either get the burden of having such friends off her chest* or for advice in how to weigh the difficult decision between personal loyalty and civic responsibility. I.e., whether to dob them in.

3. Someone is trying to troll and going through the classic back-down at times and trying to troll again.

They mention pedobear, they stick provocative statements against what seem to be attempts to show intelligence - I mean, there's plenty of clues to say this is a typecast troll - I can't remember the specific name of this type, I'd need to go to ED and get it.

Having said all that, regardless of whether they're trolling, there's still some interesting points being put across by people so it's not a complete failure.

Peepelonia, you know by now that I think you are, on average, full of shit.

You may also be aware that I spare your posts the thrashing they deserve, when I don't see any serious point of contention. Blah on all you like about the light-weight issues. You're out of your depth here.

Naaa it's not that hard to argue really. It seems clear that here are some pedopihies around, so clearly it is natural that soem peoples brains work in this way, just as it is natural that some peoples brains work in such a way as to enable us to label them schizophrenic.

Schizophrenia, is one of the many mental health issues we have, and people who are schizophrenic are considered to have a brain that is not working normaly, or as nature intended, they have in other words a problem that if corrected would bring the brain back to working in a more 'natural way.

Pedophila is the same, it is not natural for adults to be sexualy attracted to pre-pubecant children.

Crap. Utter, confused, schizophrenic crap.

Wanna argue it?

If not, I'll just leave you to get pwned by RhynoD. Your choice.

3. Someone is trying to troll and going through the classic back-down at times and trying to troll again.

That is a characteristic of trolling! Keen observation.

They mention pedobear, they stick provocative statements against what seem to be attempts to show intelligence - I mean, there's plenty of clues to say this is a typecast troll - I can't remember the specific name of this type, I'd need to go to ED and get it.

ED? Link us up.

Having said all that, regardless of whether they're trolling, there's still some interesting points being put across by people so it's not a complete failure.

It's a thread which is long overdue.

Let's both (and Peeps and Bottle too) blame ourselves that we didn't do it right before it was done wrong.

Oooh, good one, I haven't heard so articulate an insult since fifth grade, when everyone grew up enough to stop using it. (the 'articulate' was intentionally inaccurate, in case you didn't get it without explanation)

This was your only post to the thread, right?

I reply to highlight just what a weak, mewling excuse for an opinion your post is. Apparently you disagree with my opinions, and you would "step up" by picking my very weakest post. And assailing it with your embarrassingly poor grasp of irony.

Teut, we'll go a round or two some day. I think it should be on the subject of Manhood, or perhaps the Right to Keep and Bear Ferrets. In any case, something that neither of us knows anything about.

That's as close to a level-playing-field as you are going to get. Take it or leave it.

EDIT: No, I was wrong. You earlier posted to call Leistung an "amazing person." Let me quote it, it's lolsome!

Hey Avriia, the jerk store called--they're running out of you!

If no one gets that, I will lose all faith in humanity. Really.

Shut up.

Here's me, telling a poster whose precedent contributions were thinly-veiled homicidal intentions, to shut up. Because absent getting a Seinfeld reference, they had graduated to calling the OP a "jerk."

I have read all of your posts up to here in this thread... and I have to say that you are an amazing person.

Also, I made a Mii of the quoter above, and it's fantastic (yes, I do get it)

And here's you, ad hominem-ing that same poster -- in a positive way, mind, but ad hominem it is nonetheless. You approve of their opinion and yet you cannot add anything to it.

Wow, amazing. Your idol has seen an episode of Seinfeld!

Uplifting, furor teutonicus FAIL !!

That is a characteristic of trolling! Keen observation.

Not my observation to be fair, it's been observed many times.

ED? Link us up.

I'm uncertain as to whether it's allowed, I'll likely TG you the link instead.

It's a thread which is long overdue.

Let's both (and Peeps and Bottle too) blame ourselves that we didn't do it right before it was done wrong.

I blame myself for nothing, nothing I tell you!

Peepelonia, you know by now that I think you are, on average, full of shit.

You may also be aware that I spare your posts the thrashing they deserve, when I don't see any serious point of contention. Blah on all you like about the light-weight issues. You're out of your depth here.



Crap. Utter, confused, schizophrenic crap.

Wanna argue it?

If not, I'll just leave you to get pwned by RhynoD. Your choice.

You know Nobel, I never knew you thought that way about me.

So come on then, lets have at it, what is it about my last post that you find ummmm crap, utterly confused and schizophrenic?

Well to start with peepelonia, you contradict yourself. First stating that people are pedophiles, so they are natural, then by stating that we should "fix" them to make them natural again. Then you also bring in schizophrenia, which has nothing to do with this discussion as far as i can see. You also mention "as nature intended" - nature intends for nothing because nature doesn't have a mind, its just a word used for everything non-man-made. And finally, you draw the conclusion that pedophillia is wrong for this one piece of totally flawed evidence.

i forgot to reply to you last night, didnt i? lol sorry
yet my analogy still stands
if someone who only gets turned on by children is expected to dismiss their attraction to children immediately and thus dismiss who they are and their arousal without having done anything than you are demanding they be asexual
similarly a person could make the demand a straight person be gay or a gay person be straight, or either/ both be asexual
but that isnt a mental defect or illness or whatever else

If someone ONLY gets turned on by children, where does he go for release? How long before only the real thing will suffice when all legal substitutes have been exhausted?

age is just a number maturity is whats really in question here and the road to maturity can be hastened through proper knowledge on subjects

Age is measurable, maturity is not. Maturity can be spotty in developing children and adolescents. There one day and not the next or there in some areas and not in others. The law must be based on that which is objectively measurable. Age is. Maturity is not. Anything else is speculation.

of course id make the comparison, if its rape there isnt a comparison, but statutory =/= rape. its consensual sex the government doesnt approve of.

As in my previous post, the government has no choice. A line must be drawn.

dont have a biological interest in yet? wrong. many children below age 10 feel lust and can feel love as well, hell, personally i felt lust as young as 4 or 5
and love in kindergarten

So "you" = "many children"? You've claimed this twice now, and it reads as bullshit both times. I understand drawing comparisons to your own experience. That's fine, but the trouble starts when you assume that the rest of the world IS the way YOU perceive it or have experienced it. I wasn't there, I don't know what you felt, but it wasn't romantic/sexual love and it wasn't lust. I can guess that it might have been "action A produces pleasurable sensation B" and you associated action A with a person. I'm not trying to deny you what you felt, I'm trying to inform you that your perception of it is off base. You didn't happen to keep any record (written or otherwise) of the experience, did you?

we dont send people with rape fetishes to therapists, why pedophiles?

We do if they've raped someone. We do if the person is young and/or vocal about it. I'm assuming that by "we" you mean "society". You're clearly too inexperienced to have met all of it, so I'm forced to conclude that you've no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing wrong with that, but trying to put on a suit of maturity and then making howling errors in logic and sweeping misstatements of fact makes the suit fit poorly.

thats wrong, thats like saying gay people usually have sexual abuse in their past, a common misconception thats much less common now, but still relatively common nonetheless

Perhaps the problem with your too-long essays for school is that you don't read, you just type. There's no way you read this last bit and though "yeah". It's self-contradictory. Things are common or they are not. Comparatives cannot rely on themselves for comparison.

its also unnatural to practice oral sex, watch porn, wear clothes, use cars, do drugs (i dont mean natural drugs i mean things like cigarettes that are more or less chemically made), practice medicine, perform operations, and a lot of other things
wheres the big movement to stop those things?

Are you kidding? You've never heard of the "war on drugs"? You've never heard of censorship, bowdlerizing, or the moral majority who seek to ban anything even remotely pornographic? You've not seen the ad campaign millions are spent on trying to keep people from smoking (truth.org)? Hell, there are even movements to make people more aware of the labor conditions in the countries that make clothing for outlets like Old Navy. And medicine? Alternative medical practitioners are getting thicker on the ground every year. Where's the big movement? Everywhere, for cryin' out loud. For someone with the desire to be seen as smart, you're missing one hell of a lot. I admire your precocity, but at some point, opening your eyes and ears and doing more observing and listening than typing and talking has to come into play. Otherwise, your arguments come off as solipsistic and devoid of simple observations.

as long as its consensual and unnatural i say it should be practiced as far as those consenting want. adult or otherwise.

This statement provides the answer to your previous quoted statement. We don't need movements to stop things that are both consensual and legal. You answer your own question. Rape isn't consensual, and the age of consent helps define legality. You don't like that -- I can read that from space. Point is, it doesn't matter what you like. Until the law changes, that's how it is. As far as changing the age of consent, the US isn't there yet, and likely never will be (this is what happens when you descend a nation from Puritans).

sex =/= puberty. many children start masturbating much earlier on, and although at first theyre usually too sensitive for it to result in orgasm it will result in one the more they get used to it, surely masturbation and orgasm shows theyre capable of arousal at that age, and in turn shows that they could possibly conceive sex as viable - but if we never inform them of what sex is at that age, of course they wont

At what age? Also, proof please?

and what about the small percentage of people that never experience puberty, or at the very least dont experience those things in puberty, do we say 'you may not have sex'?

Please. AGE of consent. Deliberate stupidity of argument doesn't suit you.

Also, once again, the law was not designed to micro-manage and you know it. It's blunt, not surgical. The infinitesimal minority not experiencing puberty will reach the age of consent and decide for themselves what to do. I'm assuming that these rare people have nominal intelligence for their age, which means they'd be able to understand what sex is even if they don't desire it. Weird-- you dig up all of these microscopic constituencies and then portray them as somehow incapable of thought.

as for age of consent, yes, realistically there would still be a cap (on infants toddlers and younger children) not because of an age of consent, but because the knowledge would take time for them to learn, and there are some ages at which they just wont be able to learn anything in the way of sex and sexuality (since theyre still learning to speak) but overall it wouldnt exist legally

Wait, a cap? That contradicts what you've been blathering about with regard to "lust" in a five-year-old. "Some ages" -- WHAT ages? What objective, measurable demonstration of psychological sexual readiness are you proposing? You're the one with the problem regarding age of consent, so why don't YOU draft a law that covers all possible contingencies? Because you can't. Nobody can, at least not one law that would be so byzantine and lengthy that it would make the US tax code look like a handbill.

note: spell check does not like me, it says unenjoyable is not a word and the only options are 'enjoyable' and 'enjoyably' this is proof spell check is not worth it in this form, and only in microsoft word and similar applications

That's because it's not a word. Sometimes the answer is simple. :wink:

in any case, learning about sex earlier even if the age of consent wasnt changed wont harm anyone and it will help some people

How do you know that? Where's any evidence that supports your conclusion beyond what you claim to know about yourself? It might be good to live in a world as idealistic as you're coming off as here, but we don't (and we never will so long as organized religion has power, which is a whole 'nother thread). Parents are going to want to deal with how to introduce sex to their children in their own way -- they're kinda funny like that.

One more time: everyone is different, and laws are lines that society has deemed to be drawn. They are fairly straight lines without much flexibility, if any. Much of what you're saying I actually agree with in principle. However, I don't believe in painting such views international orange and flaunting them in front of those you know will react strongly to them merely to get a reaction.

You have your way now -- thinking the thoughts you posted is not illegal. Were someone to harm the people you mentioned in the OP, I'd be the first to turn them in for assault and battery. That doesn't mean we can all breathe a sigh of relief, secure in the knowledge that EVERYONE who has those thoughts won't act on them. The natural protective urge most people feel for children (even those who have none) kicks in with vigor and tells us that anyone admitting to wanting to rape a five-year-old relative is someone who bears watching. All the more reason to keep your personal proclivities exactly that -- personal.

That's exactly why I don't care for gay pride parades. I don't care what you do with consenting partners, it's none of my business. I don't care if you like to fuck knotholes, I'm not going to incite a mob to beat you or deny you a job or not sit next to you on a bus. I don't wanna see a knothole-fucking pride parade on main street.

or we list the other things thatre unnatural that are socially acceptable :p
either way unnatural/ natural/ crimes against nature gets no one anywhere, we cant base this on such things, we must base it on moral grounds and consequences - be they positive or negative

Whose morals? What grounds? You wanna talk slippery slopes....

how are they assholes? a bit about them:
-the 23 yr old:
ive been in a depression for a few years, hes one of my closest friends whom i feel safe talking to, and hes very good at comforting me, hes also stood up for my friends on numerous occasions, although more often than not he is non confrontational, his chosen profession is in the field of psychology, because he wants to help people
-the 17 yr old:
while no longer my friend he is one of the kindest people i know, he is extremely tolerant of anyone and overall a nice guy, he doesnt bother people or harass them, and would much rather people be happy than sad
-the 15 yr old:
theres a lot that can be said here, but ill try to keep it brief; my ex, and best friend, he and i are both in depressions, though hes recieving medication for it and i am not, weve both helped one another to feel better, and when i first met him he had very few, if any friends,

*snipped for the giGANtic run-on (see, that's the problem with eschewing punctuation for verbosity -- clarity is often lost and others get to determine where your trains of thought derail...Rhyno does have a point, she just makes it in a rather petulant manner)*

Hmm. Depression seems to be a recurring theme. I wonder why? Lotsa rebellion, too. You don't think that could be because you're teenagers, could it? Depression is what hits you when black and white stops working because grey starts sounding reasonable. Time heals that. Exercise helps, and is better than any medication I've ever been on (gave them up for good over two years ago).

in any case it reminds me of the time someone said i shouldnt use a word if i didnt know its origin
i proceeded to ask them if they knew the origin of the, and, it, etc
of course they didnt, so i concluded since neither one of us knew the origin of all words or even a majority of common words we - like most people - could not speak
they changed their opinion fairly quickly :s

You seem proud of that. Whatever floats your boat. All that needed was a switch from "origin" to "definition", which is probably what your accuser meant. Meh, people. Whaddyagonnado?

Well to start with peepelonia, you contradict yourself. First stating that people are pedophiles, so they are natural, then by stating that we should "fix" them to make them natural again. Then you also bring in schizophrenia, which has nothing to do with this discussion as far as i can see. You also mention "as nature intended" - nature intends for nothing because nature doesn't have a mind, its just a word used for everything non-man-made. And finally, you draw the conclusion that pedophillia is wrong for this one piece of totally flawed evidence.

Well lets see. Ahh I see you didn't read what I wrote huh.

I did not say that people are pedophies, so they are natural.

I said that it could be argued that peodophilia as it occours in some people is a ntural occorances. This is taking one defination of the word nature. It happens in nautre, so it must be natural.

I equated pedopiliha with schizophrenia, to show that they are both considered mental illness, I then went on to say that mental illness is called such because it is considered that it is a sypmtom of an ill brain.

An ill brain is one that does not work normaly, or un-naturaly. Yes of course I switched definitions half way through, but so what, the word has more than one meaning, am I not allowed to use more than one in the debate?

To tie things together I said that, an ill brain or one that does not work in the normal or natural way, can certianly be said to be un-natural.

Thus when I say that pedophilia is not natural, I mean it is a dsyfuntional brain not working normaly.

In any form, paedophillia is wrong. If your friends have any sense, they will seek help immediatly.

*snip the sheer excellence* I also wonder if "stop being friends with them" is the optimal response. Here follows the rave.
*snip rave*

*stunned applause*

Thank you for sharing that. Someday, I will be as brave, for I have a story of my own. Not today, though you've given me courage.

You're funny.

But both you and Rhyno are right. Such "catch-all" terms as "normal" or "natural" are pretty much useless in argument.

They amount to "you know what I mean, and if you don't you must be one of Them"

I've always thought exactly that and have never successfully articulated it. Thanks again.

*snip the meh*

To tie things together I said that, an ill brain or one that does not work in the normal or natural way, can certianly be said to be un-natural.

Really? The brain was made by nature in a natural way using natural ingredients, naturally. See how useless that word is in this context?

Thus when I say that pedophilia is not natural, I mean it is a dsyfuntional brain not working normaly.

I guess not.

So why not just say that last bolded bit and avoid the confusion altogether?

Really? The brain was made by nature in a natural way using natural ingredients, naturally. See how useless that word is in this context?



I guess not.

So why not just say that last bolded bit and avoid the confusion altogether?

Meh I guess I'm just like that. Isn't that the whole point of these places, if we could all get right to the heart of what we meant the first time, then there is no debate. State, clarify, debate.

Well lets see. Ahh I see you didn't read what I wrote huh.

I did not say that people are pedophies, so they are natural.

I said that it could be argued that peodophilia as it occours in some people is a ntural occorances. This is taking one defination of the word nature. It happens in nautre, so it must be natural.

I equated pedopiliha with schizophrenia, to show that they are both considered mental illness, I then went on to say that mental illness is called such because it is considered that it is a sypmtom of an ill brain.

An ill brain is one that does not work normaly, or un-naturaly. Yes of course I switched definitions half way through, but so what, the word has more than one meaning, am I not allowed to use more than one in the debate?

To tie things together I said that, an ill brain or one that does not work in the normal or natural way, can certianly be said to be un-natural.

Thus when I say that pedophilia is not natural, I mean it is a dsyfuntional brain not working normaly.

You really, really, really can not associate the word's normal and natural. They mean totally different things! If someone has an abnormally high level of intellect, then it is still natural. If someone has a normal level of intellect, then it is still natural. From what you are saying, anything that deviates from the normal should be considered un-natural. Normal people don't go round talking about pedophillia on chat rooms, thus you are un-natural and need to get your brain sorted. Go see a doctor about that.

Natural means something that is not created by man (or sentient being), It has no relation to normal at all, one does not affect the other.

As a further point, even if i did accept your use of normal and natural, what if a person is born with a brain that is pedophillic? Surely according to you that brain would be functioning normally, and thus would be natural. So you theorectially should have no problems with pedophiles on the assumption that they were born like that.

Uh, report those guys to the cops...they're gonna do something bad someday...

lets report you to the cops, youll probably do something bad some day too
bad is so subjective first of all
second that isnt how the legal system works, at least not in the usa

I tend to avoid these discussions for obvious reasons.

The question of it being natural is an oversimplification of an attempt of justification. It being natural doesn't make it right. There are conditions where people want to hurt themselves. We don't allow it even though it's natural.

Laws are meant to protect those that can not. We have consent laws to cover children who tend to lack the maturity to honestly make an evaluation for sexual contact.

Children tend to want to please an adult. As such can be easily be motivated to do things they don't understand.

Some try to argue that there are children that are mature in such matters. They like the pleasure. Sure it feels good but it could be argued they don't understand the emotional aspects that go along with it.

Children have to be protected. There is no argument against it.

Age of consent has merit in it's better to protect the majority at the expense of a minority.

One thing I do find interesting is the counter arguments against age of consent usually involve teenagers.

Another thing I find interesting is that I have read Paedos tend to be rather persuasive individuals. If this is true, for me it adds even more weight to the consent laws validity.

Right or wrong society tends to decide what is right or wrong. Frankly, most people don't agree with the idea of sex with children. Such opinions cross cultures and social economic levels.

Now as to the question of rape? Not exactly "normal" Especially if they tend to talk about it a great deal. If they find themselves thinking about it all the time, they need help and should get it. If they rape a kid and get caught, they will either die or face a life of misery. In prison, they have to separate these individuals from the other cons as they tend to get attacked and or killed.

As a parent, if one of them attacked my kid and I got a hold of them....they would plead for death.....

Feel free to comment. I don't like this topic and probably will not revisit.

agreed, natural does not make it wrong or right
morality and ethics do
if we allow children to have the opportunity to learn things pertaining to sex they will have a valid opinion on sex much earlier on
children tend to want to please adults? simple than, teens want to please their peers, so we teach children about peer pressure as well and how to say no
it is possible to have sex without emotional aspects, and some do - some dont, same with teens and adults
living creatures have to be protected, there is no argument against that. children should not be afforded unneccesary protections
true, practically speaking it would probably be very hard for the proper laws to be drafted in terms of making it a more conditional thing, but it would afford those that wish to have sex and are informed about it the opportunity and help out those who have little or no outlets for their desires
i know about rapists/ pedophiles being seperated from fellow inmates
im also aware if anyone raped another they deserve to die, though i wouldnt say we should even consider the death penalty in all but the most outstanding cases involving rape
pedophiles are persusasive? perhaps, but so are you, so am i, so is everyone, i see nothing special about persuasion
they dont think about rape all the time, just whenever theyre fantasising, its a sexual fantasy for them after all much like *insert one of your fetishes here* isnt the main focus of your thoughts, unless youre horny
the world isnt a direct democracy, though it does sometimes act like one, nonetheless it is sometimes necessary for laws to be made that society hates overwhelmingly
alright

I'm not trying to be contrary, but there's no way you can know that.

You're at the bitter end of the concrete operations phase of mental development, and clearly WAY ahead of the curve for your age, and for that I congratulate you. However, you're black-and-whiting an area that is so grey it could be mistaken for November in Seattle.

People don't like to hear about the sexualization of children not because having sex with them is illegal, but because only a razor-thin minority thinks someone could want something without eventually acting on that want (ironic that it's the Catholics who are biggest on the thought = deed idea). The US (especially) has a child fetish of its own, and it's not healthy. I find it amazing how "I love children" makes someone worthy of praise, but your point of view makes them criminals even in the absence of any actual crime. As silly as that might be, it is. And no, it's not like the civil rights struggles of various races or homosexuals because of the critical element of consent. More on that later.

I'm impressed with your articulation, but your experience and acceptance level of reality is sorely lacking. In demanding that society tolerate something so incredibly sensitive as the sexualization of children, you're choosing to demand something of it you know it will never give. You then paint yourself and your friends as somehow noble and not deserving of negativity. Bit like waving a red flag at a bull and then complaining about the horns, isn't it?

You keep repeating this like it's some kind of justification. It isn't. Again, consent. If someone tells me they want to rape their five-year-old cousin, is it unreasonable of me to think "hm...this is someone who bears watching"? No, it isn't. It's just as reasonable as you rightly saying they haven't committed any crimes. If society is going to be demanded to accept your point of view, surely you can bend a little the other way. Compromise, it's not just for Missouri anymore.

Nobody's innocent, but meh.

Okay, here's what I'm talking about. If you're going to walk a tightrope over lava, you need to choose your words with more care. And no, I don't care how tired you are -- your self-deprivation doesn't matter because you are the one typing, if you're too tired to think clearly, stop typing and rest.

Saying someone's "into" something carries with it the connotation of participation to the vast majority of readers. In that context, being "into incest" is incredibly harmful, as is "being into" raping single-digit-aged children.

Absolutely correct. However, discussing a fantasy when it's clearly incendiary -- and you know it is -- and expecting immediate, unquestioning acceptance of it from everyone? Woefully naïve. Being as intelligent as you are has not yet armed you with wisdom -- the former is no substitute for the latter.

Nope. Not even close. The "second argument" was about consent. S&M involves someone consenting to be treated in a certain way -- there's a safe-word, remember? The one consenting is free to withhold that consent at any time.

Perhaps, but if that's supposed to make him somehow "edgy", is it not possible that might be why he does it? Your willingness to assume that everything is as it seems is part of your youth. Notice I'm not condemning you for it, just pointing it out.

So necessary = good? Really?

Who says WHAT emotionally harms them? Being fantasized about harms no one. The harm of having that fantasy acted out on someone depends on the someone and the fantasy. If it's sex with a five-year-old relative that's acted out, the harm is manifest. If you can't see that, I don't want to know you.

The difference is again the deliberate provocation of something you KNOW to be a nest of hornets. You KNOW people can be very black-and-white when it comes to children, yet you expect society to welcome discussion about something that dances on the knife-edge of what is considered to be a crime so heinous that murderers will kill the offender in prison.

Just as it's usually not polite to discuss personal or private issues in public, discussing others' fringe fantasies in a place where they can be seen by anyone isn't always going to be welcome. That's not society's fault. That's simple respect for others. Sexual proclivity is unique in that it's something we all have, but most refuse to talk about openly. Walking in and laying child-rape fantasies on the table and expecting no negative reactions is really disingenuous.

I don't care how anyone else gets off. So long as consent is involved, to me there's no crime. However, I really don't care to hear about it if I am not familiar with you as a person. It's none of my business unless I ask about it, and starting a thread isn't asking, it's blurting. It's akin to me walking into a coffeehouse or public square and loudly proclaiming that I like to have clothespins on my scrotum while I'm spanked by German dominatrices dressed as nurses. Legal? Sure (but only to the extent that you don't cause a disturbance). Polite? Hardly.

Do you have the right to post whatever you like within the forum's rules? Of course. Do you have the right to be immune from negative opinions about your topic? Not no, but hell no.

No, you didn't.

Playing with yourself and associating it with someone face at age five is not love. It's playing with yourself and associating it with someone.

Here's my point about consent. You and your preternatural cognitive facilities are RARE. SO rare in fact that there's no way in hell ANY law passed by a mass of humanity can properly make exceptions for it. A line must be drawn somewhere -- best to draw that line so that it will do the most good and be as reasonable as possible. That's why the age restriction is different in different cultures -- they've come to separate conclusions about what age best makes the most acceptable distinction. Seems to me that you draw the line at or near the age where the overwhelming majority are NOT ready for genuine sexual relationships. It may be assumed that the microscopic minority that IS ready will either find a way to clandestinely circumvent the law or will wait until they are legal. It's sex, not an organ transplant.

What does this even mean? "It's illegal" (which is it not in many jurisdictions that allow for trans-age-of-consent sex so long as the age difference is less than x) "but the fact remains they did it"? So what?

"We" are society, governed (mostly) by laws. Laws which are passed and agreed on by society's elected representatives (mostly). As such, no law attempting to regulate a charged emotional topic like sex is EVER going to be perfect. Society knows this (whether or not it admits it) and chooses to err on the side of caution rather than the side of extreme exceptionality. How can you be so eloquent and not understand that?

Again you betray your supposed maturity and intelligence with that last statement. Just because someone is majoring in psych (and yes, "majoring" implies that they're an undergrad, grad students don't major) does not make them somehow immune from psychopathology or unhealthy thoughts. I've had numerous crushes on students, and I'm a professor. I've never acted on any of them. I'm no criminal, but being educated is absolutely no guarantee of immunity to the need for mental help. That assumption is, in fact, dangerous.

This paragraph makes no sense. Affecting a practiced maturity in order to impress girls is exactly the kind of thing young, horny boys try. If you can't comprehend how anyone could deliberately admit to behavior society frowns on, you've never heard of James Dean, Madonna, Paris Hilton or any pseudo-rebel in popular culture. I find that hard to believe.

She's going for speed because there's a lot of people to reply to. Give the girl a break for cryin' out loud.

point taken, i dont know that because i cant tell the future, but having known them, and still knowing them i can judge that better than most people here (unless anyone here wants to claim psychic powers and kindly prove it - and hopefully teach me how while theyre at it), and i said it more or less because not saying it would just leave me open for more people to go say that theyre going to rape people, im sure that how many ever people already saying that are more than enough
thanks, also, im not trying to make things black and white, its just i feel relatively strongly about several things:
abortion, gay rights, pedophilia
everything else its a bit easier (albeit more boring) for me to discuss and im sorry if it came off that way, im trying to stay objective, though no one here could change my mind about any of those
how isnt it like civil rights struggles?
and double standards suck, wouldnt you agree?
i only demand tolerance for the fetish, treat them like humans, like innocent people who have broken no law, unless they actually do (not directed at you, its a general statement) the rest is me just stating my opinion
i couldnt really care less if someone was negative overall, its the people that are like they deserve to die and what not that really bother me
sure theyre allowed to think that, but often those that think that particularly of pedophiles (or anything else) dont tolerate it either
it doesnt justify the act, it justifies the acceptance, its a fetish, not an act, ive repeated it countless times because it applied countless times
you lost me with the compromise for missouri bit... and im willing to, i have done so in a few places, but still, theres a limit to how much compromise id be willing to give
i meant innocent in a legal standpoint, not everyones committed a crime, and some people never will, no matter how minor the crime
okay, ill clarify: when i said into i meant they like the idea of it, theyve never done it, just like im into bondage yet havent had sex, let alone anything to do with bondage
still, nothing is harmful about incest, but once again off topic
well, id only call it that if its with the intention to look for and start fights, if theyre not trying to play devils advocate i dont really think it should be called that
ive said before (in slightly different wording) im naive, i like to believe that everyones ultimately good + has the capacity to and is willing tolerate others - of their own free will, id love if that were the case, and realistically speaking i know its not, but i havent been fully disillusioned about it yet, more somewhere between
im pretty sure the argument i was referring to was that it was bad if it caused pain or harm or something like that, and safe word or not it does cause pain + harm if it gets a bit out of hand (which safe word or not can happen)
of course, what you say is right, but i dont think we were talking about the same thing...
i know youre not condemning me for it, in any case, newgrounds - the site ive mentioned now several times - is fairly immature overall, except for the politics section and even that has problems with maturity often enough (albeit mostly from trolls or noobs who dont realize the thing wouldnt fit into politics) but anyways, theres a lot of mini-memes so to speak there, none half as funny as 4chans memes are (the first dozen times) but they like 4chan tend to bring up pedobear quite often, hence why my friend does too
well, no, but necessary can = good, take ww2 for instance, it was both necessary and good that america entered the war, though there are things in the war that was bad it was overall good that we entered it
i was referring to the actual act of consensual statutory, when the child fully consents, knowing the meaning behind their consent
yea, pretty much, im too idealistic and naive though, as i already mentioned
it wasnt mentioned with the intent of others seeing it, well, others as in random strangers
agreed
no to love im assuming? yes actually i did, i fell for the guy - his names steven - in kindergarten, he was my best friend back than and we stayed best friends until 5th grade, after that we never saw each other anymore, sadly, havent seen him in a very long time... i loved solely him until high school, and i still do love him
i just said that i didnt associate it with them, lust was abstract at that age, i didnt associate lust with anything and you dont really know me well enough to be able to say that i didnt/ dont love him
still, we dont really offer the ability to lower the age of consent, even if we wouldnt abolish it if we did teach sex ed earlier on we would be able to lower it some
well where they live its illegal, anyways, they did it they were both emotionally secure with it and what have you
because at the very least in the cases where if youre 17 and the other person is older, even though youre both over the age of consent (in most places) it would be illegal for you to have sex seems kinda unnecessary and impractical
grad students dont major? mmk, well excuse my lack of knowledge on college, never really been interested in the specifics of it :s
as for making that assumption, i didnt mean to come off that way if i did, what i mean is majoring in that hed be in the position to assert such a claim and have more authority in it than with some of the people saying that
i understand some would try, i dont understand how anyone would end up liking them over it, or how anyone would think that; i dont know who james dean is, i know of madonna but dont know the first thing about her, and the only thing i know about paris hilton is most people dont like her and im fairly sure shes rich; i dont follow popular culture. at all. its boring
anyways, yes im going for speed more or less, but nonetheless i wouldnt write much differently than this if it was a relaxed situation where i wasnt trying to respond to 20 or so things at once each time
having msn and aim, having been on runescape (an mmorpg) and having been a horrible typist before any of that i learned my own style of speed typing, if you will, through necessity, i still cant type fast if i capitalize or what not, either way, merely personal preferance

anyways, im going now, getting a bit late (early...) and id like to spend some time talking with my friends before i go to bed

to nobel, and anyone else after: ill get to you later today if i have the time, if not dont expect to hear from me for a little over a week,
and i am a girl, think of a way to prove it and i will, of course, ive been trying to think of one for a while, and still havent, its an issue of trust really, and since we dont know each other i suppose it doesnt matter

Natural means something that is not created by man (or sentient being), It has no relation to normal at all, one does not affect the other.

Well, humanity was naturally got. Everything humanity has built has been built with materials from nature. The intelligence to create things that nature doesn't make itself is itself natural.

Therefore, it can be said that everything is natural. That's why that word is inherently weak. It's also why that word is a favorite of advertisers: they love any word with a positive connotation that requires no proof to use.

Natural means something that is not created by man (or sentient being), It has no relation to normal at all, one does not affect the other.

Wooohhh right there. That is of course one definiton of the word, isn't it clear that I was not aderehing to that? While we are on it, isn't wool considered a natural product, what about nautral soap, or procesed foods with all natural ingrediants?


As a further point, even if i did accept your use of normal and natural, what if a person is born with a brain that is pedophillic? Surely according to you that brain would be functioning normally, and thus would be natural. So you theorectially should have no problems with pedophiles on the assumption that they were born like that.

No acorrding to me that brain is functioning abnormaly.

Wooohhh right there. That is of course one definiton of the word, isn't it clear that I was not aderehing to that? While we are on it, isn't wool considered a natural product, what about nautral soap, or procesed foods with all natural ingrediants?



No acorrding to me that brain is functioning abnormaly.

Wool is natural, natural soap is made from non-processed ingredients, hence why it is called natural, however those natural ingredients are obviously processed into soap, so technically it is un-natural. Processed food is not natural, as it has gone through a human process to make it. Its a fairly easy thing to judge if something is natural or not natural. If it has been through a human process that affects its nature, then it is non-natural.

And please! Read what i say! It can't be functioning abnormally! The whole point is the brain is born in that condition, its not that something has gone wrong or some incident has caused an attraction to children, its a inherited part of the persons nature, the same as eye colour or skin colour. If you insist on not reading my arguements, then i'll just have to ignore your posts in future.

Wool is natural, natural soap is made from non-processed ingredients, hence why it is called natural, however those natural ingredients are obviously processed into soap, so technically it is un-natural. Processed food is not natural, as it has gone through a human process to make it. Its a fairly easy thing to judge if something is natural or not natural. If it has been through a human process that affects its nature, then it is non-natural.

You see what has happend here, I have used a defintion of the word natural, that you do not agree with, and you have done the same. Go look it it up and you'll find that both of us can use the word as we have, so thats no biggy.


And please! Read what i say! It can't be functioning abnormally! The whole point is the brain is born in that condition, its not that something has gone wrong or some incident has caused an attraction to children, its a inherited part of the persons nature, the same as eye colour or skin colour. If you insist on not reading my arguements, then i'll just have to ignore your posts in future.


I have read what you say, and you say nowhere what you say here. what you do say here though is plain rot, can yoyu show me evidance to back up your claim that all pedophiles are this way from birth, and that no physical damage to the head nor events from their life has brought this about?

I knew a pedophile, he is dead now, but let me assure you his kids are fucked up, one of them is schizophrenic, one is a hyperchondiact, not because of the way their brains are, but because of what was done to them by their farther as kids.

And please! Read what i say! It can't be functioning abnormally! The whole point is the brain is born in that condition, its not that something has gone wrong or some incident has caused an attraction to children, its a inherited part of the persons nature, the same as eye colour or skin colour. If you insist on not reading my arguements, then i'll just have to ignore your posts in future.

Dude, people are born with broken brains sometimes. Just 'cos it pops out of the vag that way doesn't mean it can't be abnormal.

Eminently reasonable. I could make a case for harm prevention, but I have no way of containing the principle and I'd end up advocating something which trashes human rights.

I take "sick fuck" in the colloquial sense. Not as "this person has a mental illness and also is an asshole" but as "ick, person I don't even want to try to understand."

You were correct about the "sick fuck" thing. A pedophile may have a mental illness, or they may just be somebody who fantasizes about hurting people, which (while icky) is far too normal to be defined as a mental illness.


Not sensible no. Really my issue is with you equating rape-fantasists with rapists.

But, as I clarified, I don't.

Personally, I think serious rape fantasies (ones which hinge on hurting/forcing a victim who is seriously anti-consenting) are lousy. I put them in the same realm as, for instance, racist fantasies about brutalizing black people. I freely admit that if I found out a person was having either sort of fantasy on a regular basis, my respect for them would drop, and I would be less interested in being alone with them in a dark alley.

HOWEVER.

I do not equate "icky" fantasies with the icky acts themselves. I don't LIKE a person who fantasizes about violently raping people, but I also don't think it's my business to force them to change their behavior because their behavior isn't a problem. On the other hand, somebody who actually is raping will very swiftly move to the top of my shitlist and I will do everything in my power to ruin their life. Call me petty, but it's the truth.



As Neesika said, and as I'm quite comfortable saying myself: I have some terrible fantasies. One of my strategies for dealing with my fear of physical assault or threats apon my life is to fantasize a physical fight, in which I start out powerless (unarmed and surprised in a dark alley) ... perform some fantastical kung fu ending with the ringleader winded and paralyzed by fear ... whereapon I dictate to him outrageous and ideologically-complex terms for the conduct of his subsequent life. And if he utters a word of dissent, I kick him, once, between the temple and the ear, rendering him a drooling vegetable for the rest of his life.

I guess I must be a terrible person, because I don't see anything remotely terrible about that. If you're starting out as powerless and the victim of an unprovoked attack, then I don't consider it terrible in any way to fuck that person's world up.


I do that fantasy quite often (with variations, obviously.) I would never do it. I know I would never do it, I've been in fights and I know I have the instinctive human regard for other human life. Even when my rational mind is miles behind and self-defence dictates that I must win. I have instinctive mercy, as I believe we all do if not trained out of it or possessed of the binary, triggered, kill-or-spare-life decision a gun can make for us.

That's an interesting idea, but I have to say that my reflexive response in situations like that is to simply try to STOP the threat in any way necessary. Mind you, I'm not saying I'm some superhero, since my efforts to fight usually end up with me getting my ass kicked. It's just that my instinct is to, well, hurt the bad person. Hurt them enough that they decide I'm not worth it as prey, and then hurt them more so they can't change their mind.


I also wonder if "stop being friends with them" is the optimal response. Here follows the rave.

So the point of this story is that "withdrawal of friendship" is a weak and cowardly way to "punish" a friend who does a heinous and criminal thing.

If that was all you did? Absolutely.

Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough. I view ending the friendship as the first action taken whenever you find out somebody is a rapist. Friendship over. Period. Step two: jail for the rapist. Step three: humiliate and shame them in any possible way, hopefully destroying any chance they might have of ever leading a successful life. I know it's not reasonable or just, I simply abide by a scorched-earth policy when it comes to rapists. I figure that since the rest of the world doesn't even bother to prosecute them, it will all balance out. :D



(Sorry to dump this rave on the end of my reply ... I know you have more worthwhile alternate uses for your time, than I do. Don't feel that you should reply to this whole post, your time is worth more than that. But ... I'm a raver. This post is, of course, open to replies at large.)
Dude, I'm posting on NSG. It's either your post or the one about coffee.

Ashmoria, if you're really viewing this thread, please help me.

Guess this: is Avriia Hammurab, trolling?

I can't call this person a "troll." They argue too well. Are we in the presence of the Master?

You see what has happend here, I have used a defintion of the word natural, that you do not agree with, and you have done the same. Go look it it up and you'll find that both of us can use the word as we have, so thats no biggy.

I never meant to say your definition is wrong, what i was trying to mean was that in this situation yours is completely the wrong definition. If you want un-natural to be anything out of the ordinary, then you can classify almost anything as un-natural, and so it looses all possible meaning. Its quite probably my fault that i didn't make that clear.




I have read what you say, and you say nowhere what you say here. what you do say here though is plain rot, can yoyu show me evidance to back up your claim that all pedophiles are this way from birth, and that no physical damage to the head nor events from their life has brought this about?

I knew a pedophile, he is dead now, but let me assure you his kids are fucked up, one of them is schizophrenic, one is a hyperchondiact, not because of the way their brains are, but because of what was done to them by their farther as kids.

Quote my earlier post - "As a further point, even if i did accept your use of normal and natural, what if a person is born with a brain that is pedophillic? Surely according to you that brain would be functioning normally, and thus would be natural. So you theorectially should have no problems with pedophiles on the assumption that they were born like that."

And I hope you will appreciate that it is impossible to state exactly why someone is like what they are. Unless you knew the exact outcome of every event that has happened in someones life it is impossible to tell why they are like what they are. I don't know what scientific research has been done on pedophiles, but i would also challenge you to prove to me that it isn't just because they are born that way.

Regardless of if either of us can prove this, you can just consider it as a hypothetical situation where this is the case. The whole purpose of it is to show you that your definition of natural is flawed in this case, and that if you insist on using such an ambiguous word then you should use a different definition of it.

As for the extrapolation from one event of a pedophile who obviously acted on his feelings, that doesn't really have a place in this discussion. If i get a chance, i'll look up the figures on just how many people have been abused by pedophiles and see how this affects their mental health.

Dude, people are born with broken brains sometimes. Just 'cos it pops out of the vag that way doesn't mean it can't be abnormal.

abnormal yes, un-natural? no. Thats the whole point of what i'm trying to say. Normal =/= Natural
Ab-normal =/= un-natural

abnormal yes, un-natural? no. Thats the whole point of what i'm trying to say. Normal =/= Natural
Ab-normal =/= un-natural

If you are going to rigorously stick the the definition of natural as anything that occurs in nature, then it's just a semantic game.

People often use the word unnatural to mean abnormal. There's nothing wrong with doing that.

And I hope you will appreciate that it is impossible to state exactly why someone is like what they are. Unless you knew the exact outcome of every event that has happened in someones life it is impossible to tell why they are like what they are.


That is 100% wrong, you can of course get a very good idea why people are he way they are, I suggest you first try it on your self. Myself I am largly the way I am because of my upbrining, or as a direct result of me rebeling against the kind of person that my dad is.


I don't know what scientific research has been done on pedophiles, but i would also challenge you to prove to me that it isn't just because they are born that way.

Well I too do not know what sort of research has been odne on pedophiles. I do know a bit about that other mental illness I meantioned Schizophrenia. And yes some people are born that way, others are tht way as a result of hard times intheir life, some are that way because of head injury, and some because of drug missuse.

There is much evidance for strange happenings in the brain due to illness, accident or other physical brain damamge, I'm thinking of the woman who had a stroke and woke up speaking a Jamacian accent for example.


The whole purpose of it is to show you that your definition of natural is flawed in this case, and that if you insist on using such an ambiguous word then you should use a different definition of it.

Why? First of it is not flawed and you have certianly not showed me that it is, and secondly I have explained what I mean by my usage, so now you know, why should I have to use differant defintion, when the one I mean does the job of communicating exaclty what I mean to?


As for the extrapolation from one event of a pedophile who obviously acted on his feelings, that doesn't really have a place in this discussion. If i get a chance, i'll look up the figures on just how many people have been abused by pedophiles and see how this affects their mental health.

It was an example to show that mental health issues do not always stem from brain defects present at birth.

If you are going to rigorously stick the the definition of natural as anything that occurs in nature, then it's just a semantic game.

People often use the word unnatural to mean abnormal. There's nothing wrong with doing that.

Thank you.