NationStates Jolt Archive

You know something? I defended your absence of punctuation and lack of real sentences and structure. This is how you respond in kind? By not even bothering to use the one-click quote button on the formatting palette, thereby forcing me to sort out your jumbled mess without seeing which posts you're replying to? I may be wrong, but that seems rude to me. It makes me think I'm wasting my time showing you any courtesy whatsoever.

I don't know you, but I know your type. Your supposed intelligence does not absolve you of common courtesy. If you didn't have the time to respond with a simple select-text-and-click-quote-icon added to your rambling prose, then just say that and save yourself even more time by not bothering to reply at all. Now I've gotta wade though all of your dreck to try and fish out the incongruities. I'll do this ONCE. If you can't be bothered to organize at the least level, I can't be bothered to take you seriously or reply again.

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

Proof? Link? Backing of any kind whatsoever? The infinite variability in human cognitive development makes compost out of your statement before you failed to support it.

living creatures have to be protected, there is no argument against that. children should not be afforded unneccesary protections

Nor should they be subject to anyone's notions of sexuality besides their parents' without their permission. Who are you to decide what is or isn't necessary for every child?

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,

It would be bleeding IMPOSSIBLE. I can't overstate that, and I won't let you understate it.

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

Assuming every desire deserves an outlet. A few do not.

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

Rather extreme. You're entitled to your opinion. I'd rather the state not kill in my name, but that's me.

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

But it can become exactly that, and when it does, we've got trouble. All it takes is for recurring fantasies to become obsessions, and your notion that fantasies are harmless grind to a halt. A fantasy deferred becomes a fantasy obsessed. You're a teenager. How do you react to something you're told you can't have or "aren't ready for"?

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

I'm not sure I understand this statement. What law is hated by society that hasn't been repealed or amended as a result of that hate being expressed through elections, the initiative process, or other nominal democratic means? A society that hates its own laws but does not change them seems like a pretty stupid society to me. Can you name any examples?

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

Have you never heard of someone's reaction to a heinous crime being "I never dreamed he'd do that". We know only what we observe. We think we know everything else. In some cases, that's benign: we don't need to go to Rome to know it's there. In other cases, not so much.

how isnt it like civil rights struggles?

Because thoughts in your head are easy to conceal. Skin color is not, sexuality is easier than skin color to hide, but certainly no picnic. Fantasies? Invisible. Seen or heard only at the imaginer's choosing.

That's how.

and double standards suck, wouldnt you agree?

Usually, but since I'm hip-deep in your word flood, I can't figure out what you've replied to with that. See my first paragraph before I started quoting.

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

Here, we are in agreement.

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

Aw. You were doing so well. Then a stray adjunct "like" escaped. I tease.

Surely those who wish to can fantasize about harm to those they deem worthy of harm, so long as they don't act on it, right? Now where have I heard that before? :wink:

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

It was a reference to the Missouri Compromise (the fact that you don't know that is less your fault than it is that of your US history teachers). Not a very clever one, either. I blew that one.

The compromise is that private fantasies are just that. I don't care what you imagine. What you do is another matter. The majority is far from like-minded, however, and that's why you're never going to get a NAMBLA parade that doesn't include shitloads of police officers in riot gear. It will be centuries, if ever, before the US relaxes it's collective sphincter that much.

i meant innocent in a legal standpoint, not everyones committed a crime, and some people never will, no matter how minor the crime

This is simply wishful thinking, apart from being untrue. Unless you mean to tell me nobody's ever crossed a road without the legal protection of a crosswalk.

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

A bit like saying you're into watermelon without having tried it, but hey. You're more accurate to say that you like the idea. You're not into anything unless you've participated.

still, nothing is harmful about incest, but once again off topic

Okay, I respect your posts so far, but this is the third time you've hurled that cow-pie, and it makes the same smelly splat when it hits every time. "Nothing harmful about incest" is the kind of sentence that could make some people who'd see their way to supporting your cause leave skid marks running away from you. There is definitely harm with incest. I defy you to show me any reputable source that says otherwise. You can say anything you like over and over again, but that's never going to make it either true or acceptable. Well, present Administration excepted, of course.

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

Called what? I can't reference what you're referencing. This is what irritates me about how you've responded.

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

And I like to believe I'm the starting strong safety for the Seahawks. So what? What you like to believe and what IS are two different things. Believing what you do without accepting disillusionment is asking to be duped.

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)

Anything can cause pain or harm when it gets out of hand. Your point makes little sense. Think about what you type and choose your words. It's one hell of a lot easier to edit than retract. The safe word is there precisely to avoid intolerable levels of pain that pass the pain/pleasure threshold. Regardless of the mechanics of the safe word, consent is still the issue. An issue you seem to continue to dodge.

of course, what you say is right, but i dont think we were talking about the same thing...

Then it's your job to clarify.

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'll refer you to "Saving Private Power: The Hidden History of 'the Good War'", a book by Michael "Mickey Z" Zezima. It's far too long to summarize here, so I'll just say your assumption about WWII is at least mostly incorrect, not in the effects or results of the US entering the war, but the reasoning and the supposed "goodness" of it. Link (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQP/is_326/ai_30335564). Just one example of how we set logic aside when we assume and stop questioning.

i was referring to the actual act of consensual statutory, when the child fully consents, knowing the meaning behind their consent

This does not exist, legally speaking. Why bother calling it "consensual statutory" when the term is self-contradictory, and "statutory" itself is derived from it's pairing with "rape", and carries the shorter word's connotations with it? Say what you mean and define your own terms, don't let your opposition define what you understand to be harmless in a way that paints it the opposite color.

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 don't believe you, but please believe what you like. I can no more prove what you felt than I can prove that dogs can taste the difference between their own crotches and chicken (they seem to lick both with equal alacrity. I can say it's nonsense, but that doesn't really matter.

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

I'm not sure that lust can be abstract. You'll have to do better than that. I don't have to know you. I know the psychology and physiology of the developing mind (occupational hazard). There's not a five-year-old alive that understands the concept of lust as it is. Saying it was "abstract" appears to be your way of acknowledging that. It's "edgy" to say you lusted at five. Whatever. I'm not here to tell you how to fly your freak flag. Your 16-year-old self looks back on that time quite fondly and applies concepts you now grasp (though I'm not sure 100%) to how you remember feeling then. It's not uncommon. Were I to read of examples of what you claim in any documented journals or APA annals, I'd be more inclined not to think you're romanticizing your past.

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

This ignores the reality of the typical American parent, and the politicians who cater to them. Not gonna happen, even if it should, and I'm not disagreeing with you on that.

well where they live its illegal, anyways, they did it they were both emotionally secure with it and what have you

As far as you've observed.

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

How many times must I repeat it? The line must be drawn. If the 17/X year old combo can't wait a year or less, why not? What is lost? Is the X older person afraid that once 17 is 18 the feelings will change? Seems to me that if it's just lust, it can be sated elsewhere within the law, and if it's love, it can wait.

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

Perhaps. I've met people with doctorates who I wouldn't trust crossing the street. Sheepskin is easy. Relevance is harder.

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

Funny, that's the second time your question could've been answered by a five second Google search, and you didn't bother. I'm beginning to feel I owe RhynoD an apology.

Sorry, but I'm simply not buying it. Again, I'm fine with your hippie attitude toward sentence structure, but your amorphous replies are just plain inconsiderate given how we're replying to you.

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

Again, fine by me. Organize your responses and things will be much friendlier on my end.

I think the whole attempt to use the word natural in your debate is a mistake. Why does something being natural or artificial make it any better or worse than any other thing. For instance: wisdom teeth are natural, yet they can cause problems and sometimes need to be surgically removed; pace-makers are artificial, yet they provide a very tangible benefit to people with weakening hearts.

Instead, I believe the focus of the debate should be more along the lines of the root causes of paedophilia as opposed to other sexual identities. It is my belief that paedophilia is problematic because the mind of a child is substantially different to that of an adult in how they view the world. Therefore, a paedophile will never be able to develop a fully fledged relationship with a child. I would imagine that there would be strong imbalance of power in such a relationship. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that a paedophile desires sexual relations with a child. Maybe they think that they will always be able to be in control of such a relationship in a way they would not be able to in an adult-adult relationship.

This is one of the reasons why I think that paedophila is problematic, in that is a symptom of a person with issues about power and control and being unable to relate properly to other adults.

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to compare paedophilia to heterosexuality or homosexuality as I do not know what motivates such sexual behaviour.

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.

According to you? Pardon me, but so what? You've no proof and have done nothing to back up your assertion.

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.

Or is there (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13902692&postcount=237)?

Say what you mean. "Natural" has too broad a meaning, and too many connotations in this context, period.

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.

That is true, but it is wrong to say that because someone is abnormal, they are un-natural and thus should seek medical help to do with it. If you're going to talk about people being natural/un-natural then you can't compare it with abnormal.

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.

Well, you just proved my point. I said "exactly". You said "largly", there is a huge difference involved, its perfectly possible that you doing one tiny thing differently at one point in your life would have drastically affected who you turned out to be. Sure we can generally know, but we can never be certain.



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.



I agree totally with this, but i don't see how it affects my point? I've never mentioned in all cases, just possibly in some cases people are born like that.

Side note:- I remember hearing a story about a women who banged her head and woke up French, she said "You have no idea how scary it is to wake up in the morning and think you're French". I'm sure the French people appreciated that :p



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?



Well, primarly because your usage doesn't apply, as another poster said, people often take "un-natural" to mean "abnormal" - that is perfectly fine in most situations, but if you then proceed on to use un-natural in your arguement as meaning abnormal, then it creates problems. I am fairly certain you would not want to force all abnormal people to go to the doctors for help, yet you do seem to want to send all un-natural people to the doctors for help (I'm sorry if this isn't the case, its just the sort of impression i am getting from you.)


It was an example to show that mental health issues do not always stem from brain defects present at birth.

Agreed, but as stated before, whats your point?

According to you? Pardon me, but so what? You've no proof and have done nothing to back up your assertion.

So you think that the brain of a peadophile is working perfectly normal, you would not equate pedophilia with mental illness?


Say what you mean. "Natural" has too broad a meaning, and too many connotations in this context, period.

I think my usage of the word 'unatural' says exactly what I mean. Some people don't like it because it imparts a certian emotion, it tells people exactly what I feel about pedophila, if I say 'pedophilia is unatural' what I mean is 'pedophilia is unatural'.

Anything wrong with that?

If I said 'pedophiles are scum' would we be arguing about the definition of the word scum?

Or is there (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13902692&postcount=237)?

Say what you mean. "Natural" has too broad a meaning, and too many connotations in this context, period.

Describing pedophilia as unnatural is neither overbroad nor unclear. The meaning is perfectly clear in context. Tell me specifically what is objectionable about it?

Well, you just proved my point. I said "exactly". You said "largly", there is a huge difference involved, its perfectly possible that you doing one tiny thing differently at one point in your life would have drastically affected who you turned out to be. Sure we can generally know, but we can never be certain.

*shrug* a fair point.


Well, primarly because your usage doesn't apply, as another poster said, people often take "un-natural" to mean "abnormal" - that is perfectly fine in most situations, but if you then proceed on to use un-natural in your arguement as meaning abnormal, then it creates problems.

Why?


I am fairly certain you would not want to force all abnormal people to go to the doctors for help, yet you do seem to want to send all un-natural people to the doctors for help (I'm sorry if this isn't the case, its just the sort of impression i am getting from you.)

Now I really don't now where you are getting that? All I said was pedophilia is unatural, I have thus far made no comment on how to deal with them.

That is true, but it is wrong to say that because someone is abnormal, they are un-natural and thus should seek medical help to do with it. If you're going to talk about people being natural/un-natural then you can't compare it with abnormal.

If we were discussing someone with unnaturally high intelligence, I doubt this would even be an issue. (Even though said person could also legitimately be described as abnormal).

You all are dragging your own baggage into this discussion, and it is devolving into a silly semantic exercise for reasons that are totally opaque to me.

I'm uncertain as to whether it's allowed, I'll likely TG you the link instead.

I would appreciate that.

I blame myself for nothing, nothing I tell you!

The hook of denial. Lyrical you are.

You don't start a lot of threads. Having tried it myself, I know why.

The best threads are started by trolls. A bad post is easier to reply to than a good one, I guess. And once in, wailing on a stupid OP, posters stay in.

We speak wisdom in a stupid medium. But at least we aren't vegging-out in front of a TV.

If we were discussing someone with unnaturally high intelligence, I doubt this would even be an issue. (Even though said person could also legitimately be described as abnormal).

You all are dragging your own baggage into this discussion, and it is devolving into a silly semantic exercise for reasons that are totally opaque to me.

Let me explain.

Both Rubgish and Avriia are Hammurab.

OK, that's probably bullshit but tell me that just for one second, a lightbulb didn't turn on above your head, before futzing from impractical brilliance.

Bottle, I spent at least an hour composing a reply to yours.

It was time well-spent. I looked deep in my heart, and I saw extraordinary things.

Which of those is fit to print, though, I am not competent to say. Too drunk.

Thanks for your reply. It did all that a post can do.

I will reply, when I am fit for it.

Let me explain.

Both Rubgish and Avriia are Hammurab.

OK, that's probably bullshit but tell me that just for one second, a lightbulb didn't turn on above your head, before futzing from impractical brilliance.

Yah. Well I hope so. The alternative isn't pleasant.

I have no idea who you are talking about, so your alternative can go be as unpleasant as you want it to be.

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.
Not to mention, there's bodies of evidence and research that exposing children to sex too early damages them.

of course id make the comparison, if its rape there isnt a comparison, but statutory =/= rape. its consensual sex the government doesnt approve of.
Doesn't approve of because it's abuse.

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
With your refusal to use proper punctuation or any capitalization I can only imagine this is where your sentence ends. [Note: Refusal to use proper capitilization doesn't make one look cute, it makes one look uneducated.]

If you felt that, then you weren't having age- appropriate sexual feelings.
https://www.healthforums.com/library/1,1258,article~9472,00.html

^That's age-appropriate.

I'll tell you what. I know you're just going to respond with a "Nu-uh, cuz that's not how any of my friends feel. There's exceptions to the rules." Instead of that, what you need to do to prove me wrong is find a credible source to back your claims. I trust I don't have to explain what a credible source is.
we dont send people with rape fetishes to therapists, why pedophiles?
Please learn to spell. Because rape fantasies are about power and control between two consenting adults. Paedophelia is more akin to beastiality insofar as one of the parties cannot consent.
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
Sexual orientation is not the same as sexual attraction. That's like tring to compare viruses to bacteria. Yes, they both can make you sick, but that's where the similarities end.
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
Really? Studies. And once again, don't bring out studies on homosexuality. We aren't discussing sexual orientation. Just because you don't understand a subject, doesn't mean you get to make wildly inaccurate comparisons because it suits your argument.


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
^That demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of human sexuality. Learn about the topic you wish to debate, dear.

Let me explain.

Both Rubgish and Avriia are Hammurab.

OK, that's probably bullshit but tell me that just for one second, a lightbulb didn't turn on above your head, before futzing from impractical brilliance.

Nah, because the former would have to be funny trolls. More likely they're DK.

I have no idea who you are talking about, so your alternative can go be as unpleasant as you want it to be.

I think you're posting great. But I have already admitted to being drunk, so you can take that with a grain of salt.

It's like this. If you have very few posts (17 is very few) no-one really knows who you are.

It's an unfortunate fact of this forum that registering is incredibly easy. There is no limit on one person (on one computer) having several accounts to post by.

People who know the forum well, and know what does and does not get a reaction, often make a new account and pretend to be a new user. It's kind of fun, except that sometimes people who have made themselves really unpopular (ie offended other users) keep making new accounts and posting unpopular things, and using their practiced skills, putting their hands up and saying "gee, I didn't know that would worry you so much."

As a new user (I assume that because it is only decent, instead of calling you by an old poster's name which I did before as a JOKE) you might be unaware of this.

If you be in fact a new user (poster) it would serve you well to read a lot before posting, and try to ease into the debate instead of leaping in and expecting to be accepted right away.

The more confident and "at home" you appear at first, the more likely you are to be called a "troll" or "puppet." It's just a weakness of the forum model, and if you make allowances for it the strength of your opinions and of your self-expression will serve you well.

:)

I'd guess it'd be forumophobia of some sort, but you never know, some forums have crazy-in-jokes that it could have been. And to all you acient forum readers, next time try googling peoples names before you shout troll, you might be able to see they already have active accounts on other games and forums that indicate they are actually just a new person.

next time try googling peoples names before you shout troll, you might be able to see they already have active accounts on other games and forums that indicate they are actually just a new person.
Yeah, because that proves something. I didn't realize someone had sole use of a name once they used it once on the internet...

Let me explain.

Both Rubgish and Avriia are Hammurab.
Almost certainly not. They just happen to be intelligent new posters with well thought out posts.

I'd guess it'd be forumophobia of some sort, but you never know, some forums have crazy-in-jokes that it could have been. And to all you acient forum readers, next time try googling peoples names before you shout troll, you might be able to see they already have active accounts on other games and forums that indicate they are actually just a new person.

I think this forum SHOULD welcome people who know how to post, having learnt it elsewhere.

We SHOULD be competitive with other forums. We should welcome the good posters, not just those who "grew up" here as I did. We should accept that some of our best posters go elsewhere because those other forums are better for them.

But we should Google your name? Get over yourself.

Almost certainly not. They just happen to be intelligent new posters with well thought out posts.

It was a joke joyce.

Google someones name before you insist on calling them trolls, if you're not going to call them a troll, feel free to go do whatever it is you people do instead of googling peoples names.

It was a joke joyce.

Well , your joke miscarried and did not work as intended as you've certainly gotten Rubgish on the defensive, and it was not apparently a joke to me either, Shirley.

Yeah, because that proves something. I didn't realize someone had sole use of a name once they used it once on the internet...

Yeah. That too.

It would be nice is there was a central repository of User Names, like the system of Universal Resource Locators (URL's) but it's too late for that.

Posters impersonating others of the same name, on different boards/forums doesn't seem to be much of a problem. It's kinda sweet really. Even if the source of it is Ego and the pride in speaking only for oneself.

Well , your joke miscarried and did not work as intended as you've certainly gotten Rubgish on the defensive, and it was not apparently a joke to me either, Shirley.

How about you butt out and let Rubgish speak for themself?

Excuse you?

You accused someone of being a troll, and attached another nation's name to it.

I politely pointed out you were incorrect, and that if it was a joke, it miscarried, and you're telling me to butt out?

Why don't you take a moment to think before you type some smart-ass remark when it was your actions that necessitated me to act in my official capacity?

Google someones name before you insist on calling them trolls, if you're not going to call them a troll, feel free to go do whatever it is you people do instead of googling peoples names.

I called you by another posters name. It was a joke, as I would have thought the "almost certainly bullshit" rider in the next phrase made fairly plain.

But no, I won't "google your name." I would do that if I thought your name carried some arcane meaning. If your name was a Latin phrase, for instance, I would want to know it's meaning.

I don't see any reason why, with posters all around me I have never even seen the name of before, I should investigate your name. I don't see why your posting history ELSEWHERE is in any way relevant to what you are putting across here.

Now let's get back to the debate, in which both of us have invested effort, and not make this a head-butting contest about who is the biggest name in Internet history ... hmm?

Excuse you?

You accused someone of being a troll, and attached another nation's name to it.

I politely pointed out you were incorrect, and that if it was a joke, it miscarried, and you're telling me to butt out?

Why don't you take a moment to think before you type some smart-ass remark when it was your actions that necessitated me to act in my official capacity?

Act in your official capacity.

At least that would be honest.

You always demand the respect due to a Mod, whatever self-indulgent crap you post up.

So go on. Ban Me.

Act in your official capacity.

At least that would be honest.

You always demand the respect due to a Mod, whatever self-indulgent crap you post up.

So go on. Ban Me.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13902731&postcount=243

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13902939&postcount=268

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13902822&postcount=260

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13902946&postcount=270

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13902959&postcount=271

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13902962&postcount=272

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13902973&postcount=274

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13903001&postcount=277

Well, fine then, I will.
Since apparently you have said at least twice that you are too drunk to post competently, and since you've asked so nicely, wish granted. Go dry out.

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?

im my opinion, NO.

2 reasons.

not absurd enough and not enough posts. if it were hammurab avirriia AND rubgish would both have added up at leat 25% of the posts in this thread and would be dominating the discussion with increasingly absurd posts.

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

If other posters, like myself, have the courtesy to proof-read our ideas so that when they are presented to you they are grammatically coherent and therefore easier for you to understand and respond to, it's only fair that you show us the same amount of respect. A lack of initiative in proof-reading what you post detracts from your argument, makes you appear uneducated, and is insulting to those of us who take the time to make our posts presentable.

And getting into the habit of using correct grammar will help you later when you try to get published, unless you intend to be a student of, say, E. E. Cummings.

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

I never said that puberty defined readiness to have sex. But puberty and sex are profoundly linked together. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most people are still not ready to have sex until a good deal after puberty. Puberty is not just a set of physical changes to your body, it is also a serious personal and emotional change. The readiness to have sex that comes with puberty does not come from physical changes, but from those psychological changes.

And for the record: masturbation is not sex. Masturbation only involves you, so most of the emotional and psychological aspects of sex are not there. That said, masturbation can be a helpful tool that makes young children aware of their parts and pubescent teenagers aware of their feelings. But, exploratory masturbation like that should not be guided: it's something that a child figures out on its own, outgrows, and then possibly falls back into with puberty.

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'?

This is a moot point since that is not at all what I meant about puberty.

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

I'm not talking about fetish sex, I'm talking about plain, missionary position, male and female sexual intercourse. If you are a male, your penis is inside of another person. It is inside of her body, and you have no control over what she does with it while it is inside. There is little difference between putting it inside her vagina and putting inside her hand: either way, you are giving up your control over it to her and trusting her to have taken care of her body and to take care of your body. If you are the female, you are allowing something that is not a part of your body into your body - into a very personal and private part of your body. You don't have a say in what his penis does while it is inside of you.
Further, you are trusting your emotional well-being to this other person. You are trusting them to make you feel good. An orgasm is not something to be taken lightly: it is an incredible feeling, and to put that in the hands of someone else is an act of faith that this other person will be responsible with your endorphins.

The reason why rapists rape (and I'm not calling your friends rapists, I'm talking about conventional rape, if there is such a thing) is not only to have sex. Physically having sex is actually a small part of the reason for rape. The real reason for rape is that the rapist is getting control over the person they are raping: complete, utter control over not only her body, but also her emotions. Rape is all about inadequacy, overcompensation, and control. More often than not, the sense of inadequacy exists because control was taken from them when they were not ready for it: that is why a child who has been molested is more likely to commit rape later in life.

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'

This is true. However, adults are more capable of handling the responsibilities of dealing with an addictive substance or habit, and are more capable of making an informed decision about what they are getting themselves into. This is the reason for age limits on alcohol and cigarettes. If a child is not capable of handling the responsibilities that come with drinking alcohol (and they're not - and I'm not talking about 16-20ish, I'm talking about young children), then why would they be capable of handling the emotional responsibilities of sex?

you just created a hell of a slippery slope, might i ask exactly what youre basing this idea on?

Experience that I have that you don't, which is the reason why I believe children aren't ready for sex: because they don't have the experience.

Something you will learn as you get older and look back is that you are a fucking dumbass at 16. I say this admitting that at 16 I was a fucking dumbass. And when you get to 18 you'll look back and realize that at 17 you were less of a dumbass, but still a dumbass. And the older you get, the less often you look back and realize how stupid you were, and the difference is smaller and smaller, but especially during your teen years you gain so much experience in so little time that it is always glaringly obvious how much of a moron you used to be.

That's not to say that you should stop thinking or think you're a dumbass now. We must approach the world with the knowledge we have, and no one can be faulted for lacking experience that they simply have not had the time to acquire. Nor am I calling you a dumbass, nor do I think you are a dumbass. The point is that someday you will think you were a dumbass. When that happens, a lot of what I have said here will make a lot more sense.

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)

She's your age, though. At your age, sex is just about the only thing you are capable of thinking about for more than a minute or so. Everything else holds your attention for a short amount of time, but it's not sex so eventually you stop thinking about it so you can think about sex. But this is for a very specific reason, which is your raging pubescent hormones that are making your body physically and mentally prepared for having sex. Children should not think about sex that much: they should think about childish things like puppies and ponies and playing pretend and building with Legos and tag and what have you.
Getting a child to think about and truly understand the nature of sex is like getting a child to think about and truly understand his or her own mortality or the stresses of making ends meet as an adult: it's just a downer. It turns the kids into adults, and kids aren't adults, they're kids, and they should act like kids because it's emotionally healthy. And anyways, they're going to have to be adults and deal with adult problems soon enough, so you might as well let them be kids while they can. Sex brings a lot of emotional and psychological baggage with it, which kids are not ready to deal with. And even if they are, they shouldn't have to deal with it, because it takes away from being a carefree kid.

By your standard there is no definitive definition for anything, so let's all just stop talking altogether.

Meh.

There's no definition that cannot be argued to be the incorrect definition.

Which is why, at least in English, there are so many different words that mean almost, but not quite the same thing. The words we use and the order we put them in create a communicative idea that expresses what we want, or at least close enough.

It is also why, no matter how meticulously we arrange our words, someone always manages to get it completely wrong.

I'm not talking about fetish sex, I'm talking about plain, missionary position, male and female sexual intercourse. If you are a male, your penis is inside of another person. It is inside of her body, and you have no control over what she does with it while it is inside.

Unless her vagina comes with the teeth upgrade, I don't see what she can reasonably to your penis while it's in there aside from take it out.

Unless her vagina comes with the teeth upgrade, I don't see what she can reasonably to your penis while it's in there aside from take it out.

With that image, I ain't sleeping tonight....

With that image, I ain't sleeping tonight....

It'll come back to haunt you just before sex for the rest of your life.

I never said that puberty defined readiness to have sex. But puberty and sex are profoundly linked together. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most people are still not ready to have sex until a good deal after puberty. Puberty is not just a set of physical changes to your body, it is also a serious personal and emotional change. The readiness to have sex that comes with puberty does not come from physical changes, but from those psychological changes.

And for the record: masturbation is not sex. Masturbation only involves you, so most of the emotional and psychological aspects of sex are not there. That said, masturbation can be a helpful tool that makes young children aware of their parts and pubescent teenagers aware of their feelings. But, exploratory masturbation like that should not be guided: it's something that a child figures out on its own, outgrows, and then possibly falls back into with puberty.

This post may wander into TMI territory, so consider yourselves warned, but...

I masturbated for the first time before I was potty trained. I remember my mother explaining to me (quite calmly) that it was okay for me to touch my private parts, but that I should only do it in private. I didn't associate anything sexual with it. I didn't have sexual thoughts while doing it. It was rather like scratching an itch. I would generally just let my mind wander and, erm, scratch away. Having two very earthy and sexually-sane parents meant that I grew up viewing my genitalia as basically the same as any other body part, so I didn't think of rubbing my genitals as any weirder than rubbing any other part of my body. And grown-up kissing and sex were gross, so why the hell would I ever want to think about those?

It wasn't until after I started puberty that I started associating sexual thoughts with masturbation and vice versa, and that only came gradually.

The reason I share this is because, from personal experience, I know that it's simply not accurate to think that a little kid can have a mature comprehension of sex, no matter how informed or well-educated that kid might be. There are some circuits that simply have not kicked in yet.

I knew all the mechanics of sex and sexual reproduction by the time I started kindergarten, but I didn't "get" it in any mature sense.

I knew masturbation felt nice before I was able to write my own name, but I didn't have an awareness of sexual pleasure and sexual feelings until about a decade later.

It is simply not fair to expect children to have mature understanding of sex. That's like expecting a 4 year old to drive a car when she can't even reach the pedals. It's not about us big meanie-head grown-ups denying kids their fun; it's about recognizing that children are NOT FULLY DEVELOPED in many key ways, and it's stupid to treat them as if they are.

It'll come back to haunt you just before sex for the rest of your life.

should stick something less valuable in first, like your nose

So you think that the brain of a peadophile is working perfectly normal, you would not equate pedophilia with mental illness?

Certainly not. I would equate mental illness with mental illness until such time as it can be determined that an individual's pedophilia is a result of mental illness. I'm not prepared to allow you to sit in judgment on an entire swath of people without being called on it. Especially when you cannot tell me that you or anyone have never had sexual attractions, even brief ones, for someone society would deem inappropriate. Of course, we could outlaw most religions and this colossal hang-up with sex would shrink dramatically in generation, but since that's no more likely than a rain of Sudwerk Doppelbock (sweet, sweet dark nectar), I'll just enjoy the idea.

I think my usage of the word 'unatural' says exactly what I mean. Some people don't like it because it imparts a certian emotion, it tells people exactly what I feel about pedophila, if I say 'pedophilia is unatural' what I mean is 'pedophilia is unatural'.

It's not the emotion, it's the inaccuracy.

Anything wrong with that?

Yes.

If I said 'pedophiles are scum' would we be arguing about the definition of the word scum?

No. Because "scum" has a narrow definition. It's either a substance or a person whose characteristics and/or behavior make an anthropomorphism out of the substance.

Your use of "natural" is what's emotional. Cries of "it's not natural" have been a apart of the homophobia community's arguments for quite some time. It's rubbish there, and it's rubbish here. Choose your words with more care if you want to be considered something more than a willing panel in an echo chamber.

Describing pedophilia as unnatural is neither overbroad nor unclear. The meaning is perfectly clear in context. Tell me specifically what is objectionable about it?

It's woefully inaccurate. What's so hard to understand about that? When a word is used to sell things, it loses a lot of its meaning and becomes unavoidably broadened by that use. Example: do you ever use "zesty" or "tangy" in actual sentences? Probably not very often, but it's all over ads for many foods. Those words, like natural, don't really mean anything without a very specific context. As a musician, "natural" means either "valveless" (natural horn) or "a symbol that neutralizes the increase or decrease by a half-step of a note which was previously sharp or flat". In dog breeding, "natural ears" refers to ears that have not been cropped. In D&D, a "natural 20" is a roll, on an icosaherdron with sequentially numbered sides from one to twenty, that shows 20 as its result.

The word is too broad to be used in the sense of whether a personal sexual predilection is "natural" or not. The user of that term in this context is loading it to the gills with a "not right in my opinion" connotation that is not part of the word's denotation. This renders the word pejorative and therefore useless in any objective discussion about pedophilia, which is what this thread (via the OP) is trying to be (and succeeding fairly well, I might add).

If Peeps wants to make that particular opinion known, it's been done already. The restatement of that position without any elaboration or defense is pointless. Not illegal or deserving of censorship of any kind, but certainly pointless.

The best threads are started by trolls. A bad post is easier to reply to than a good one, I guess. And once in, wailing on a stupid OP, posters stay in.

We speak wisdom in a stupid medium. But at least we aren't vegging-out in front of a TV.

Holy shit, NH, apart from the belligerence, alcohol brings out the sage in you. Bummer, 'cause that's some insightful thinking right there.

With your refusal to use proper punctuation or any capitalization I can only imagine this is where your sentence ends. [Note: Refusal to use proper capitilization doesn't make one look cute, it makes one look uneducated.]

I don't think you can read what she's posting and come to that conclusion. In general, yes, but not (apparently) with Avriia.

I'll tell you what. I know you're just going to respond with a "Nu-uh, cuz that's not how any of my friends feel. There's exceptions to the rules." Instead of that, what you need to do to prove me wrong is find a credible source to back your claims. I trust I don't have to explain what a credible source is.

She hasn't bothered yet, and I hold out little hope, but I hold it out nonetheless.

Please learn to spell. Because rape fantasies are about power and control between two consenting adults. Paedophelia is more akin to beastiality insofar as one of the parties cannot consent.

This is actually incorrect. Avriia's spelling is quite good, and I couldn't see any errors in the post you quoted. She deserves censure for not having reply courtesy, but spelling is only a microscopic problem for her, if it is one at all.

Sexual orientation is not the same as sexual attraction. That's like tring to compare viruses to bacteria. Yes, they both can make you sick, but that's where the similarities end.

Amen.

Really? Studies. And once again, don't bring out studies on homosexuality. We aren't discussing sexual orientation. Just because you don't understand a subject, doesn't mean you get to make wildly inaccurate comparisons because it suits your argument.

Amen twice.

If other posters, like myself, have the courtesy to proof-read our ideas so that when they are presented to you they are grammatically coherent and therefore easier for you to understand and respond to, it's only fair that you show us the same amount of respect. A lack of initiative in proof-reading what you post detracts from your argument, makes you appear uneducated, and is insulting to those of us who take the time to make our posts presentable.

Hallelujah.

I never said that puberty defined readiness to have sex. But puberty and sex are profoundly linked together. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most people are still not ready to have sex until a good deal after puberty. Puberty is not just a set of physical changes to your body, it is also a serious personal and emotional change. The readiness to have sex that comes with puberty does not come from physical changes, but from those psychological changes.

Lay on, the truth shall set you free.

And for the record: masturbation is not sex. Masturbation only involves you, so most of the emotional and psychological aspects of sex are not there. That said, masturbation can be a helpful tool that makes young children aware of their parts and pubescent teenagers aware of their feelings. But, exploratory masturbation like that should not be guided: it's something that a child figures out on its own, outgrows, and then possibly falls back into with puberty.

Thanks for saying what I was thinking but could not articulate.

I'm not talking about fetish sex, I'm talking about plain, missionary position, male and female sexual intercourse. If you are a male, your penis is inside of another person. It is inside of her body, and you have no control over what she does with it while it is inside. There is little difference between putting it inside her vagina and putting inside her hand: either way, you are giving up your control over it to her and trusting her to have taken care of her body and to take care of your body. If you are the female, you are allowing something that is not a part of your body into your body - into a very personal and private part of your body. You don't have a say in what his penis does while it is inside of you.
Further, you are trusting your emotional well-being to this other person. You are trusting them to make you feel good. An orgasm is not something to be taken lightly: it is an incredible feeling, and to put that in the hands of someone else is an act of faith that this other person will be responsible with your endorphins.

Best. Explanation. Ever. I'd sig it if it weren't too long. More people thinking in this way about sex might solve a lot of problems.

The reason why rapists rape (and I'm not calling your friends rapists, I'm talking about conventional rape, if there is such a thing) is not only to have sex. Physically having sex is actually a small part of the reason for rape. The real reason for rape is that the rapist is getting control over the person they are raping: complete, utter control over not only her body, but also her emotions. Rape is all about inadequacy, overcompensation, and control. More often than not, the sense of inadequacy exists because control was taken from them when they were not ready for it: that is why a child who has been molested is more likely to commit rape later in life.

I know it's fanboyish to keep saying "YEAH!", but, well, YEAH!

Experience that I have that you don't, which is the reason why I believe children aren't ready for sex: because they don't have the experience.

Careful, Avriia's already on record as believing that experience is exactly what children need, at least in the form of full explanations of sex. Since you've already explained why that's not a good idea, I'll just add that only those raising a child should be in the position to decide how and when to explain sex to their child.

Something you will learn as you get older and look back is that you are a fucking dumbass at 16. I say this admitting that at 16 I was a fucking dumbass. And when you get to 18 you'll look back and realize that at 17 you were less of a dumbass, but still a dumbass. And the older you get, the less often you look back and realize how stupid you were, and the difference is smaller and smaller, but especially during your teen years you gain so much experience in so little time that it is always glaringly obvious how much of a moron you used to be.

This statement should be used to generate theoretically impossible things like warp fields or wormholes. Why? Because it is one of those statements so desperately in need of comprehension by its target audience, which is virtually unequipped to comprehend it.

She's your age, though. At your age, sex is just about the only thing you are capable of thinking about for more than a minute or so. Everything else holds your attention for a short amount of time, but it's not sex so eventually you stop thinking about it so you can think about sex. But this is for a very specific reason, which is your raging pubescent hormones that are making your body physically and mentally prepared for having sex. Children should not think about sex that much: they should think about childish things like puppies and ponies and playing pretend and building with Legos and tag and what have you.
Getting a child to think about and truly understand the nature of sex is like getting a child to think about and truly understand his or her own mortality or the stresses of making ends meet as an adult: it's just a downer. It turns the kids into adults, and kids aren't adults, they're kids, and they should act like kids because it's emotionally healthy. And anyways, they're going to have to be adults and deal with adult problems soon enough, so you might as well let them be kids while they can. Sex brings a lot of emotional and psychological baggage with it, which kids are not ready to deal with. And even if they are, they shouldn't have to deal with it, because it takes away from being a carefree kid.

At this point, I can't agree more, so I'm just quoting for the sake of having these words appear again.

There's no definition that cannot be argued to be the incorrect definition.

Which is why, at least in English, there are so many different words that mean almost, but not quite the same thing. The words we use and the order we put them in create a communicative idea that expresses what we want, or at least close enough.

This is also what makes puns, satire and comedy such a rich idiom in English. Shakespeare saw to that.

It is also why, no matter how meticulously we arrange our words, someone always manages to get it completely wrong.

Sometimes even without intending to do so.

Unless her vagina comes with the teeth upgrade, I don't see what she can reasonably to your penis while it's in there aside from take it out.

I know that's a joke, and a funny image, but I think you know what he meant. If you're gonna invite someone in, make sure the place is clean. Having someone over and then sending them home with the sexual equivalent of food poisoning (curable STI) or cancer (incurable STI) is no way to treat a guest.

With that image, I ain't sleeping tonight....

Just be wary of any woman who casually refers to her vagina as "Sarlacc", and you'll be okay.

Pedophilia is simply a sexual perversion (if it is not a perversion, what is?) Perverts deserve the same rights as everybody else, provided they do not harass people in a manner distinctive to said perversion.

Unless her vagina comes with the teeth upgrade, I don't see what she can reasonably to your penis while it's in there aside from take it out.

Vagina dentata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina_dentata) which actually does happen occasionally. It's spectacularly rare, but it does happen.

Beyond that, STDs. She could lean the wrong way and break it (yes, you can break your penis: more specifically, you can break the main artery that supplies the blood that makes your penis erect).

The idea is more a mental state than anything else, anyways. It's part of the control issue that arises, say, during rape: it's my penis and I have control over it, not you, see?

Then again, she can also blue-ball you and leave you writhing in pain clutching your balls. That's trust right there.

Careful, Avriia's already on record as believing that experience is exactly what children need, at least in the form of full explanations of sex. Since you've already explained why that's not a good idea, I'll just add that only those raising a child should be in the position to decide how and when to explain sex to their child.

Yes, but my point is that this experience comes with time and age: it can't be given to you, you have to get it yourself.

Best. Explanation. Ever. I'd sig it if it weren't too long. More people thinking in this way about sex might solve a lot of problems.

So sig a link to it?

It'll come back to haunt you just before sex for the rest of your life.

Like your mum :D

Like your mum :D

thinking about your mom before sex?

thinking about your mom before sex?

No, yours.


*ba dum tish* :D

Pedophilia is simply a sexual perversion (if it is not a perversion, what is?) Perverts deserve the same rights as everybody else, provided they do not harass people in a manner distinctive to said perversion.

Simple. Elegant. Direct. Accurate. Good to read you again, Parkissimo.

Vagina dentata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina_dentata) which actually does happen occasionally. It's spectacularly rare, but it does happen.

Uh...your Wiki link repeatedly calls it a myth.

Then again, she can also blue-ball you and leave you writhing in pain clutching your balls. That's trust right there.

Speaking of myths. Unless this is some new definition of "blue balls" I've not yet heard.

Yes, but my point is that this experience comes with time and age: it can't be given to you, you have to get it yourself.

Precisely.

So sig a link to it?

I would, but it's buried in your multifaceted response to Avriia. Tell you what: re-post just that bit and I'll sig a link to that. Deal?

No, yours.


*ba dum tish* :D

a think i just felt a chill wind

a think i just felt a chill wind

It was asking for it.


*tumbleweed*



No? Anyone? :$

i have several friends who are pedophiles

By friends do you mean yourself?

*snip*


I'm not sure that lust can be abstract. You'll have to do better than that. I don't have to know you. I know the psychology and physiology of the developing mind (occupational hazard). There's not a five-year-old alive that understands the concept of lust as it is. Saying it was "abstract" appears to be your way of acknowledging that. It's "edgy" to say you lusted at five. Whatever. I'm not here to tell you how to fly your freak flag. Your 16-year-old self looks back on that time quite fondly and applies concepts you now grasp (though I'm not sure 100%) to how you remember feeling then. It's not uncommon. Were I to read of examples of what you claim in any documented journals or APA annals, I'd be more inclined not to think you're romanticizing your past.

*snip*

First of all, heaps of praise for this whole post and all of your other responses to this thread. Level-headed logic and patience for the win.

Secondly, I think you may have hit upon one of the biggest problems with the OP's arguments here--if the OP is indeed 16, she herself has not finished maturing physically or mentally (which generally occurs around 23-26), and so she's attempting to speak with authority about a maturation process she hasn't completed. Her assertion that five-year-old children can "understand" the physical, mental and social ramifications of sex ignores the fact that she herself can only understand these things through the perspective of a teenager.

I think the OP is also deliberately confusing physical arousal and mental/emotional arousal, or lust. Children can absolutely derive physical pleasure from sexual activity--this is one of the aspects of molestation that can cause great confusion. The capacity to feel pleasure, however, does not correlate to the capacity to participate in a sexual relationship. This is one of many reasons we have age of consent laws.

No, yours.


*ba dum tish* :D

You stole my answer! :gundge:


:p

Perhaps they should try this. (http://thisrecording.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/lolicon.jpg)

:eek: .......


I seriously wish I hadn't clicked on this thread.......

*snip*

Ah, liquid courage. That's all I'm going to say.

:eek: .......


I seriously wish I hadn't clicked on this thread.......

Too late to go back now...

:eek: .......


I seriously wish I hadn't clicked on this thread.......

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/net02.gif

This goes for threads too :)

First of all, heaps of praise for this whole post and all of your other responses to this thread. Level-headed logic and patience for the win.

Most kind -- thank you. And similar praise to you in return.

Secondly, I think you may have hit upon one of the biggest problems with the OP's arguments here--if the OP is indeed 16, she herself has not finished maturing physically or mentally (which generally occurs around 23-26), and so she's attempting to speak with authority about a maturation process she hasn't completed. Her assertion that five-year-old children can "understand" the physical, mental and social ramifications of sex ignores the fact that she herself can only understand these things through the perspective of a teenager.

I think the OP is also deliberately confusing physical arousal and mental/emotional arousal, or lust. Children can absolutely derive physical pleasure from sexual activity--this is one of the aspects of molestation that can cause great confusion. The capacity to feel pleasure, however, does not correlate to the capacity to participate in a sexual relationship. This is one of many reasons we have age of consent laws.

Exactly. Arousal from touching oneself is a five-year-old possibility. Thinking about another person and deriving the same arousal from that thought rather than from touching oneself is not. Those hormonal connections aren't awake yet, and on the extremely rare possibility that they truly are, it's an abnormal prematurity, and there's no way to legislate for such a nanoscopic minority.

Too late to go back now...

Really? Dammit!

*commits seppuku*

Really? Dammit!

*commits seppuku*

:D Might I suggest you bleed to death outside sir?

All kinds of fantasies could be deemed "perverted" by others...

After all, if you look at places like Fredericks of Hollywood, they have all kinds of costumes for play -- French Maid, Nurse... I know some folks like the school girl fantasy as well -- as well as some folks whose tastes are more into leather and cuffs.

So long as all parties involved in physical play are over the age of consent, have at it. I think there is an abuse of authority and power if a legal adult, however, is having a sexual relationship with a minor.

So... thoughts not a crime yet, and enacting a fantasy with someone who's of legal age who is playing the part of a minor is fine. Actually engaging a minor in sex is bad.

lets see... i think youre apprx where i left off, anyways i wont do much posting today - ive confirmed we leave tomorrow but i have a lot of stuff to do to get ready, so thisll probably be one of my few posts for today:

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.

(Lateral-thinking moment: someone hack Avriia's computer now and record those Messenger logs.)

youd be correct, it is all about the fantasy for any of them, no matter how much they might want to have done something they havent done anything in terms of sex with minors etc
why take my posts as sincere yet doubt im female?
theres more than two sides to everything, and more than the third side of my being a troll as well:
im not into s&m, i dont like feeling pain (unless you count picking at scabs, but most people do that), i dont like causing pain, i dont think i could cause even light pain (like spanking in a sexual context) if someone asked me to and i wouldnt want to try spanking as part of my sex life in a receiving context either, id be willing to try it once, but its really much more of a turn off for me
they havent raped anyone, im merely discussing what i perceive to be injustices against them as well as my opinion on pedophilia and age of consent as a whole
*hisses* no one hacks my precious laptop, it only just got over being broken, it cant go through other hardships like that :(

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.

im fairly sure i covered it in the previous points, but its up to you to believe it either way, and since i dont have much/ any of a reputation here (except what im inadvertantly getting from this thread as being a troll) i dont expect you to take my word over that, though it would be nice if you gave me the benefit of the doubt
i wasnt the one who brought pedobear into this first, just so you know, read back a ways to my other posts and what i responded to, it was merely a response to someone else
rape fetish =/= rape, im NOT talking about rapists, im talking about people whom the idea of rape is sexually arousing for, be they on the receiving end of the rape or the giving end
erm, vocal about rape fetishes, so bringing it up to a close and trusted friend will automatically lands you in therapy? being young automatically will land you in therapy? thats really not the smartest move on societies part than
yes by we i meant society in general, though not all of society, because there are some countries where things like that would be commonplace
of course i do read, i always read whats said beforehand, i always proofread, and i always read what im responding to piece by piece as needed

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 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.

As in my previous post, the government has no choice. A line must be drawn.

So "you" = "many children"? You've claimed this twice now, and it reads as bullshit both times. I don't know what you felt, but it wasn't romantic/sexual love and it wasn't lust.

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.

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.

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.

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).

At what age? Also, proof please?

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.

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.

That's because it's not a word. Sometimes the answer is simple. :wink:

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.

Whose morals? What grounds? You wanna talk slippery slopes....

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).

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?

their hand/ a fleshlight/ a vibrator/ a dildo/ a butt plug/ other sex toys
it can be measured, true, but that doesnt mean its the best thing to go by
i suppose its more practical, but its not so far fetched to at least lower the age of consent

of course me =/= many children, its a fact. i believe whoever it was that provided the source that tried to disprove something i said actually backed me up, its common for young kids to masturbate
um... written record of the experience of masturbating... at age 5? which would put me in kindergarten or first grade depending on what part of the school year, i didnt learn how to write until first grade, and i wasnt proficient at it or even interested in it until third grade when the concept of story telling through writing was first introduced in a way other than being made to read a book on something
prior to that i could write all letters in print and a few from my name in script and read very small picture books on my own, that was it
either way the fact was shown to be true by whoever provided that source, if you want me to find some sources myself still, feel free to ask
you dont know what i felt yet you still feel i didnt feel what im saying? i do know it was romantic feelings for a guy, and lust for... well, nothing exactly, it was non specific and abstract as ive said before
uhh...? yeah, i can, its not common that pedophiles are raped or sexually abused as children, same with gay people, some in both instances do get raped or sexually abused, but either way thats the same with non deviants and straight people yet people dont make the claim that theyre non deviant or straight because of that
im talking about the majority of people, perhaps i shouldve made that a bit more clear
if it doesnt matter what i like why do people have debates? surely it doesnt matter what anyone likes, unless youre saying its only my opinion that doesnt matter?
proof was provided in the link someone talking to me gave, if you wish ill provide my own sources though i dont know if ill have the time today, im already behind schedule replying to these posts and way behind schedule in getting things done for the day
it was a point i was responding to, the original point was worded poorly, hence i responded to the original point alone
it was neither stupidity nor deliberate stupidity
how do i portray them of incapable as thought?
the cap would be only to provide for an amount of time for which they learned what sex is, and it wouldnt be a fixed age range, merely after theyve had sex ed as in depth as would be necessary, which would depend on their school curriculum
*mutters* aint isnt a word either according to people (its a word, just informal). its still in the dictionary.
sources in time, i cant provide sources for today because right now i have like 5 pages to go through and respond to anything i need to, i also have to brush my hair which is horribly matted (damn thick hair to hell), pack for our upcoming vacation, and shower if i have the time
parents dont control the childrens education though, the schools do, they can control it insofar that they enroll them in schools that teach it later, but thats all
im not looking for reactions from anyone, merely discussing my opinions, i didnt honestly expect this thread to get either half as large as it did or to be taken as seriously by some, mostly expected thered be like two people with actual discussion and the other people wouldnt take me seriously or would just say 'pedophilia = rape = evil = should die' or something to that extent
his cousin is 12, hes 15, hes into (interested in, not actually experimented with) children as young as 5 or so though
unfortunately though not everyones like you, or even like the people here who can discuss this rationally but would nonetheless disagree, ive found overall on most forums (unless theyre deliberatly conservative) many of the people are predominantly liberal, or have at least more liberal views than the majority of their fellow conservatives, they also tend to learn to accept and tolerate - in reality very few people make an attempt to tolerate pedophiles
no it isnt, if you wanted to do something you liked but knew was illegal, but the idea of it brought you great pleasure wouldnt you want someone to confide in/ talk to about it?
not mine, not yours, not the other people in this thread, those that are best for the nation in question as a whole, and it should be done objectively with personal biases set aside
mentioned depression twice and its a recurring theme? rebellion hasnt been mentioned. no, see, im pretty sure depression was the result of me being bullied from pre k till 10th grade (going into 12th this year) combined with the fact that my dad is verbally abusive, for the 15 yr old its not my place to say what caused it, though i do know
no, they actually meant origin, if it was a misunderstanding id dismiss it as such and wouldnt have brought it up

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?

im not an alt of whoever that is (having read all of the pages before deciding to respond i already know the outcome of this) nor am i trolling
of course this relies on you to trust what i say

You know something? I defended your absence of punctuation and lack of real sentences and structure. This is how you respond in kind? By not even bothering to use the one-click quote button on the formatting palette, thereby forcing me to sort out your jumbled mess without seeing which posts you're replying to? I may be wrong, but that seems rude to me. It makes me think I'm wasting my time showing you any courtesy whatsoever.

I don't know you, but I know your type. Your supposed intelligence does not absolve you of common courtesy. If you didn't have the time to respond with a simple select-text-and-click-quote-icon added to your rambling prose, then just say that and save yourself even more time by not bothering to reply at all. Now I've gotta wade though all of your dreck to try and fish out the incongruities. I'll do this ONCE. If you can't be bothered to organize at the least level, I can't be bothered to take you seriously or reply again.

i thanked you by saying thank you several times.
its nothing to do with common courtesy, im new to the forums ive read stuff throughout wherever i find it on how to do it, youre lucky i found this quote button at all, either teach me how to do it or i merely wont bother writing long winded responses, the only other forums ive been on are on newgrounds in which quoting is vastly different from here, the entire layout is vastly different from here, and its much easier to learn but what ive learned of it does not translate to here; the only other similar thing ive been onto is 4chans image boards which im still learning how to do things there, but i know enough to get by and enough to know how to sage/ reply/ some of the other basics, yet still what i do know of it doesnt translate well into aiding me on navigation of this forums

Yah. Well I hope so. The alternative isn't pleasant.

what alternative? that im not a troll or alt so that i obviously must believe what im saying?

Doesn't approve of because it's abuse.

With your refusal to use proper punctuation or any capitalization I can only imagine this is where your sentence ends. [Note: Refusal to use proper capitilization doesn't make one look cute, it makes one look uneducated.]

If you felt that, then you weren't having age- appropriate sexual feelings.
https://www.healthforums.com/library/1,1258,article~9472,00.html

^That's age-appropriate.

I'll tell you what. I know you're just going to respond with a "Nu-uh, cuz that's not how any of my friends feel. There's exceptions to the rules." Instead of that, what you need to do to prove me wrong is find a credible source to back your claims. I trust I don't have to explain what a credible source is.

Please learn to spell. Because rape fantasies are about power and control between two consenting adults. Paedophelia is more akin to beastiality insofar as one of the parties cannot consent.

Sexual orientation is not the same as sexual attraction. That's like tring to compare viruses to bacteria. Yes, they both can make you sick, but that's where the similarities end.

Really? Studies. And once again, don't bring out studies on homosexuality. We aren't discussing sexual orientation. Just because you don't understand a subject, doesn't mean you get to make wildly inaccurate comparisons because it suits your argument.

^That demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of human sexuality. Learn about the topic you wish to debate, dear.

they believe it to be such, they do not know conclusively that that is the case
you understand the gist of it, thats enough.
oh well, im not trying to look cute.
...uhh, you just proved my point...
ive not said that once for anyones replies, go ahead and make the assumption until your hearts content though
please dont nitpick over spelling, i miss a typo or make a mistake, big deal, im human, okay?
uhh, youre joking right?
rape fantasies are fantasies that are based around acting out rape or having rape acted out upon ones self; bdsm is between consenting adults, rape fantasies whether they remain fantasies or not, whether role playing them is done or not, HINGE AROUND NONCONSENT OTHERWISE THEY ARE NOT RAPE FANTASIES
its a part of it, theres a much bigger similarity to the two than bacteria to virus
...
i have learned about it

Nah, because the former would have to be funny trolls. More likely they're DK.

who? and once again im neither a troll nor an alt, i dont think rubgish is either, but i could be wrong

next time try googling peoples names before you shout troll, you might be able to see they already have active accounts on other games and forums that indicate they are actually just a new person.

googling it wont always work, i usually sign up with the same thing for all my e mail accounts, the same thing for accounts i take seriously, and a different thing if the name will be shown as more than a username (like in nationstates its your nation, and i dont want my nation to have #s in it like my usual account name does, so i made up a pretty word)
its a good idea, but that doesnt mean its always going to prove conclusively one way or another

Almost certainly not. They just happen to be intelligent new posters with well thought out posts.

thanks
though ive noticed something:
in most forums if you have an unusual idea and are a regular its merely an eccentricity you have, or they accept it another way - but youre not called a troll or alt
however if youre lower level and happen to have an unusual view youre suddenly a troll or an alt
im sure trolls have noticed this and dont give a fuck one way or another, but alts have noticed it as well and would try to blend in by having unoriginal ideas until they were more of a regular

It was a joke joyce.

i didnt take it as such, until after i read it was a joke, but nonetheless i still find it slightly offensive
im willing to ignore it since you didnt mean it as such, but thats still my take on things and i think rubgish has a similar one

---

ugg im just gonna go and post this stuff now, theres too much to respond to and im falling way behind and my dinners getting cold... ill try to respond to more while i brush my hair and eat... but heres this for now

Uh...your Wiki link repeatedly calls it a myth.

It's just as well, it was a joke. Could have sworn I heard about a real case. Odd genetic defect or something like that.

EDIT:
Well, that woman had a dermoid cyst. Dermoid cysts are derived from the outer layers of embryonic skin, and they are capable of growing hair and teeth and bones, anything that comes from the outer layers of the embryo. They can occur anywhere.

So this woman had one in the pelvic region and the cyst grew teeth, and when it ruptured through the wall where her uterus joins her vagina - there were the teeth. In my practice once, I saw one in the eyelid.

http://www.healthcentral.com/drdean/408/13198.html

Maybe, maybe not. Beware.

Speaking of myths. Unless this is some new definition of "blue balls" I've not yet heard.

Blue balls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_balls), slang for Vasocongestion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasocongestion) of the prostate. Apparently it's the same thing that causes the unpleasantness before mentstruation.

I would, but it's buried in your multifaceted response to Avriia. Tell you what: re-post just that bit and I'll sig a link to that. Deal?

I'll try to get un-lazy enough.
EDIT: Done (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13904375&postcount=312).

So "Blue balls" is a form of cramp?

Well I never... :eek:

I'm not talking about fetish sex, I'm talking about plain, missionary position, male and female sexual intercourse. If you are a male, your penis is inside of another person. It is inside of her body, and you have no control over what she does with it while it is inside. There is little difference between putting it inside her vagina and putting inside her hand: either way, you are giving up your control over it to her and trusting her to have taken care of her body and to take care of your body. If you are the female, you are allowing something that is not a part of your body into your body - into a very personal and private part of your body. You don't have a say in what his penis does while it is inside of you.
Further, you are trusting your emotional well-being to this other person. You are trusting them to make you feel good. An orgasm is not something to be taken lightly: it is an incredible feeling, and to put that in the hands of someone else is an act of faith that this other person will be responsible with your endorphins.

So "Blue balls" is a form of cramp?

Well I never... :eek:

I know, right? Girls are the only ones that can have pain in their genitalia. When guys complain they're just whining so they can get more sex.

I'm not talking about fetish sex, I'm talking about plain, missionary position, male and female sexual intercourse. If you are a male, your penis is inside of another person. It is inside of her body, and you have no control over what she does with it while it is inside. There is little difference between putting it inside her vagina and putting inside her hand: either way, you are giving up your control over it to her and trusting her to have taken care of her body and to take care of your body. If you are the female, you are allowing something that is not a part of your body into your body - into a very personal and private part of your body. You don't have a say in what his penis does while it is inside of you.
Further, you are trusting your emotional well-being to this other person. You are trusting them to make you feel good. An orgasm is not something to be taken lightly: it is an incredible feeling, and to put that in the hands of someone else is an act of faith that this other person will be responsible with your endorphins.

Sig whore.

Sig whore.

I'm not going to deny it.

I think that's three people now that have sigged me.

I'm not going to deny it.

I think that's three people now that have sigged me.

OMG, you're counting you whore.

*feels bad has only been sigged once*

why dont you just have you friends "talk" to a survivor of molestation,I AM FINISHED WITH THIS SITE,THE FAWKING MODS WILL LET THIS SHYT PASS AND BAN SOMEONE FOR SPAM???????

WTF?????????????????

why dont you just have you friends "talk" to a survivor of molestation,I AM FINISHED WITH THIS SITE,THE FAWKING MODS WILL LET THIS SHYT PASS AND BAN SOMEONE FOR SPAM???????

WTF?????????????????

This site works because it allows all viewpoints. Either refute or stop whining.

Chaotic, chill. If you don't like the content and can't frame a rational response, there are hundreds of other threads to choose from.

why dont you just have you friends "talk" to a survivor of molestation,I AM FINISHED WITH THIS SITE,THE FAWKING MODS WILL LET THIS SHYT PASS AND BAN SOMEONE FOR SPAM???????

WTF?????????????????

first id like to say: sorry everyone who deserves a response way more than this, but i dont have time to give well thought out responses and this is too entertaining to pass up responding to
next: what does that have to do with anything? theyd feel sorry for them, but theyd get turned on by it still
also: for the record ive been on /b/ once
i prefer other boards on 4chan, though /b/ doesnt seem half bad
and lastly: no one said you had to read this, dont like it, dont read it, or come up with a well thought out response

first id like to say: sorry everyone who deserves a response way more than this, but i dont have time to give well thought out responses and this is too entertaining to pass up responding to
next: what does that have to do with anything? theyd feel sorry for them, but theyd get turned on by it still
also: for the record ive been on /b/ once
i prefer other boards on 4chan, though /b/ doesnt seem half bad
and lastly: no one said you had to read this, dont like it, dont read it, or come up with a well thought out response

I think he was censoring "bastard", not calling you a btard.

I think he was censoring "bastard", not calling you a btard.

oh well
doesnt make the post less entertaining or wrong
and besides, i have a father, and a father figure
theyre two separate people, but ive got both
so technically hes wrong
and excuse the nit picking, im only doing that out of boredom and because he doesnt deserve a serious response about any of it
besides, tons of people brought 4chan up its reasonable to assume either or
kinda wish more people had expressed their dissaproval this way as opposed to 'kill them'
this ways much funnier
anyways, god damn my hair... honestly, how does my hair manage to get so bad that i struggle to even finger comb it? *sighs* stupid hair

oh well
doesnt make the post less entertaining or wrong
and besides, i have a father, and a father figure
theyre two separate people, but ive got both
so technically hes wrong
and excuse the nit picking, im only doing that out of boredom and because he doesnt deserve a serious response about any of it
besides, tons of people brought 4chan up its reasonable to assume either or
kinda wish more people had expressed their dissaproval this way as opposed to 'kill them'
this ways much funnier
anyways, god damn my hair... honestly, how does my hair manage to get so bad that i struggle to even finger comb it? *sighs* stupid hair

Stop talking about 4chan and start responding to my posts. Good grammar included.

Stop talking about 4chan and start responding to my posts. Good grammar included.

...
if you read my last serious post (the one before i indulged in responding to that guy) youd know IM TOO BUSY
typing a few short lines is doable, but for now i cant type out other things
especially because if i finish my hair by today i get an iphone (dont ask, i dont understand the logic either, but my hair is so badly matted my mom said that, i want an iphone. its my dream phone.)
anyways, you cant have your cake and eat it too
stop complaining about grammar, the lot of you

...
if you read my last serious post (the one before i indulged in responding to that guy) youd know IM TOO BUSY
typing a few short lines is doable, but for now i cant type out other things
especially because if i finish my hair by today i get an iphone (dont ask, i dont understand the logic either, but my hair is so badly matted my mom said that, i want an iphone. its my dream phone.)
anyways, you cant have your cake and eat it too
stop complaining about grammar, the lot of you

In fact I often have cake and eat it, too. I'm cool like that.

And we'll stop complaining when you start complying.

In fact I often have cake and eat it, too. I'm cool like that.

And we'll stop complaining when you start complying.

-.-
oh well, have fun complaining

-.-
oh well, have fun complaining

I often do.

I often do.

lol, anyways i really have to get my hair done + get a bunch of other stuff done, so thisll be my last post for today, and most likely until i get back
bye everyone

1. ok Kat your right, just a gut level utter revulsion response you see i am married to a survivor of serious molestation at a young age and a violent rape
and my sister was raped so unfortuatley i have seen first hand the end results of these so called "fantasies"

2.The "fantasy" is one thing,but the "act" is totaly different,usualy someone who has these thoughts or desires has probably been abused themselves,not neccessariliy sexualy but in some way.

3.realisticly,the age of consent in most of the u.s. is 16

4.rape and molestation IS NOT about the sex,it is a control issue again most offenders fit a profile of low self esteem,picked on or abused themselves

5.the ages of some of the people mentioned in the first post really disturbed me because these for the most part are children themselves,probably computer geeks and nerds like i was.

6. most true pedophiles who get caught and go to prison are and will be repeat offenders,treatment historicly DOES NOT WORK

7.I really hope the mkids mentioned in the first post do get help because it is seriously indicated

No worries, CN, and your points would add a lot to this thread. You've got to make them calmly, though.

...
if you read my last serious post (the one before i indulged in responding to that guy) youd know IM TOO BUSY
typing a few short lines is doable, but for now i cant type out other things
especially because if i finish my hair by today i get an iphone (dont ask, i dont understand the logic either, but my hair is so badly matted my mom said that, i want an iphone. its my dream phone.)
anyways, you cant have your cake and eat it too
stop complaining about grammar, the lot of you
let it go, do your hair and come back after your <whatever>.

participate in a different topic when you get back and youll be fine here. we need thoughtful posters (who cant be bothered to use capitals and punctuation)

Apparently it's the same thing that causes the unpleasantness before mentstruation.

For some reason I find that terribly funny. I can imagine working a guy up to the point of orgasm, stopping, and then meeting his bewildered indignation with, "PMS is not a myth, motherf***er, that's how it feels!"

For some reason I find that terribly funny. I can imagine working a guy up to the point of orgasm, stopping, and then meeting his bewildered indignation with, "PMS is not a myth, motherf***er, that's how it feels!"
Ohhhh, that's cold. And not cool.

For some reason I find that terribly funny. I can imagine working a guy up to the point of orgasm, stopping, and then meeting his bewildered indignation with, "PMS is not a myth, motherf***er, that's how it feels!"

I think there are many guys who would punch you in the ovaries repeatedly and meet your indignation with, "It fucking hurts to get kicked in the balls. Don't fucking laugh."

LOL Kat not my strong point but anyways heres some stuff the poster should find interesting its rather long but if the first poster wants to understand better then its worth the read



To the pedophile ...

I. Sex with children is "free" and "daring"

Sex with subteens implies freedom of action with impunity. It enhances the pedophile's magical sense of omnipotence and immunity. By defying the authority of the state and the edicts of his culture and society, the pedophile experiences an adrenaline rush to which he gradually becomes addicted. Illicit sex becomes the outlet for his urgent need to live dangerously and recklessly.

The pedophile is on a quest to reassert control over his life. Studies have consistently shown that pedophilia is associated with anomic states (war, famine, epidemics) and with major life crises (failure, relocation, infidelity of spouse, separation, divorce, unemployment, bankruptcy, illness, death of the offender's nearest and dearest).

It is likely - though hitherto unsubstantiated by research - that the typical pedophile is depressive and with a borderline personality (low organization and fuzzy personal boundaries). Pedophiles are reckless and emotionally labile. The pedophile's sense of self-worth is volatile and dysregulated. He is likely to suffer from abandonment anxiety and be a codependent or counterdependent.

Paradoxically, it is by seemingly losing control in one aspect of his life (sex) that the pedophile re-acquires a sense of mastery. The same mechanism is at work in the development of eating disorders. An inhibitory deficit is somehow magically perceived as omnipotence.

II. Sex with children is corrupt and decadent

The pedophile makes frequent (though unconscious) use of projection and projective identification in his relationships with children. He makes his victims treat him the way he views himself - or attributes to them traits and behaviors that are truly his.

The pedophile is aware of society's view of his actions as vile, corrupt, forbidden, evil, and decadent (especially if the pedophiliac act involves incest). He derives pleasure from the sleazy nature of his pursuits because it tends to sustain his view of himself as "bad", "a failure", "deserving of punishment", and "guilty".

In extreme (mercifully uncommon) cases, the pedophile projects these torturous feelings and self-perceptions onto his victims. The children defiled and abused by his sexual attentions thus become "rotten", "bad objects", guilty and punishable. This leads to sexual sadism, lust rape, and snuff murders.

III. Sex with children is a reenactment of a painful past

Many pedophile truly bond with their prey. To them, children are the reification of innocence, genuineness, trust, and faithfulness - qualities that the pedophile wishes to nostalgically recapture.

The relationship with the child provides the pedophile with a "safe passage" to his own, repressed and fearful, inner child. Through his victim, the pedophile gains access to his suppressed and thwarted emotions. It is a fantasy-like second chance to reenact his childhood, this time benignly. The pedophile's dream to make peace with his past comes true transforming the interaction with the child to an exercise in wish fulfillment.

IV. Sex with children is a shared psychosis

The pedophile treats "his" chosen child as an object, an extension of himself, devoid of a separate existence and denuded of distinct needs. He finds the child's submissiveness and gullibility gratifying. He frowns on any sign of personal autonomy and regards it as a threat. By intimidating, cajoling, charming, and making false promises, the abuser isolates his prey from his family, school, peers, and from the rest of society and, thus, makes the child's dependence on him total.

To the pedophile, the child is a "transitional object" - a training ground on which to exercise his adult relationship skills. The pedophile erroneously feels that the child will never betray and abandon him, therefore guaranteeing "object constancy".

The pedophile – stealthily but unfailingly – exploits the vulnerabilities in the psychological makeup of his victim. The child may have low self-esteem, a fluctuating sense of self-worth, primitive defence mechanisms, phobias, mental health problems, a disability, a history of failure, bad relations with parents, siblings, teachers, or peers, or a tendency to blame herself, or to feel inadequate (autoplastic neurosis). The kid may come from an abusive family or environment – which conditioned her or him to expect abuse as inevitable and "normal". In extreme and rare cases – the victim is a masochist, possessed of an urge to seek ill-treatment and pain.

The pedophile is the guru at the center of a cult. Like other gurus, he demands complete obedience from his "partner". He feels entitled to adulation and special treatment by his child-mate. He punishes the wayward and the straying lambs. He enforces discipline.

The child finds himself in a twilight zone. The pedophile imposes on him a shared psychosis, replete with persecutory delusions, "enemies", mythical narratives, and apocalyptic scenarios if he is flouted. The child is rendered the joint guardian of a horrible secret.

The pedophile's control is based on ambiguity, unpredictability, fuzziness, and ambient abuse. His ever-shifting whims exclusively define right versus wrong, desirable and unwanted, what is to be pursued and what to be avoided. He alone determines rights and obligations and alters them at will.

The typical pedophile is a micro-manager. He exerts control over the minutest details and behaviors. He punishes severely and abuses withholders of information and those who fail to conform to his wishes and goals.

The pedophile does not respect the boundaries and privacy of the (often reluctant and terrified) child. He ignores his or her wishes and treats children as objects or instruments of gratification. He seeks to control both situations and people compulsively.

The pedophile acts in a patronizing and condescending manner and criticizes often. He alternates between emphasizing the minutest faults (devalues) and exaggerating the looks, talents, traits, and skills (idealizes) of the child. He is wildly unrealistic in his expectations – which legitimizes his subsequent abusive conduct.

Narcissistic pedophiles claim to be infallible, superior, talented, skillful, omnipotent, and omniscient. They often lie and confabulate to support these unfounded claims and to justify their actions. Most pedophiles suffer from cognitive deficits and reinterpret reality to fit their fantasies.

In extreme cases, the pedophile feels above the law – any kind of law. This grandiose and haughty conviction leads to criminal acts, incestuous or polygamous relationships, and recurrent friction with the authorities.

. The pedophile regards sex with children as an ego-booster

Subteen children are, by definition, "inferior". They are physically weaker, dependent on others for the fulfillment of many of their needs, cognitively and emotionally immature, and easily manipulated. Their fund of knowledge is limited and their skills restricted. His relationships with children buttress the pedophile's twin grandiose delusions of omnipotence and omniscience. Compared to his victims, the pedophiles is always the stronger, the wiser, the most skillful and well-informed.

VI. Sex with children guarantees companionship

Inevitably, the pedophile considers his child-victims to be his best friends and companions. Pedophiles are lonely, erotomanic, people.

The pedophile believes that he is in love with (or simply loves) the child. Sex is merely one way to communicate his affection and caring. But there are other venues.

To show his keen interest, the common pedophile keeps calling the child, dropping by, writing e-mails, giving gifts, providing services, doing unsolicited errands "on the kid's behalf", getting into relationships with the preteen's parents, friends, teachers, and peers, and, in general, making himself available (stalking) at all times. The pedophile feels free to make legal, financial, and emotional decisions for the child.

The pedophile intrudes on the victim's privacy, disrespects the child's express wishes and personal boundaries and ignores his or her emotions, needs, and preferences. To the pedophile, "love" means enmeshment and clinging coupled with an overpowering separation anxiety (fear of being abandoned).

Moreover, no amount of denials, chastising, threats, and even outright hostile actions convince the erotomaniac that the child not in love with him. He knows better and will make the world see the light as well. The child and his guardians are simply unaware of what is good for the kid. The pedophile determinedly sees it as his or her task to bring life and happiness into the child's dreary and unhappy existence.

Thus, regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the pedophile is convinced that his feelings are reciprocated - in other words, that the child is equally infatuated with him or her. He interprets everything the child does (or refrains from doing) as coded messages confessing to and conveying the child's interest in and eternal devotion to the pedophile and to the "relationship".

Some (by no means all) pedophiles are socially-inapt, awkward, schizoid, and suffer from a host of mood and anxiety disorders. They may also be legitimately involved with the child (e.g., stepfather, former spouse, teacher, gym instructor, sibling) - or with his parents (for instance, a former boyfriend, a one night stand, colleagues or co-workers). They are driven by their all-consuming loneliness and all-pervasive fantasies.

Consequently, pedophiles react badly to any perceived rejection by their victims. They turn on a dime and become dangerously vindictive, out to destroy the source of their mounting frustration. When the "relationship" looks hopeless, some pedophiles violently embark on a spree of self-destruction.

Pedophilia is to some extent a culture-bound syndrome, defined as it is by the chronological age of the child involved. Ephebophilia, for instance - the exclusive sexual infatuation with teenagers - is not considered to be a form of pedophilia (or even paraphilia).

In some cultures, societies and countries (Afghanistan, for instance) the age of consent is as low as 12. The marriageable age in Britain until the end of the nineteenth century was 10. Pedophilia is a common and socially-condoned practice in certain tribal societies and isolated communities (the Island of Pitcairn).

It would, therefore, be wise to redefine pedophilia as an attraction to or sexual acts with prepubescent children or with people of the equivalent mental age (e.g., retarded) in contravention of social, legal, and cultural accepted practices

Ohhhh, that's cold. And not cool.

Well, it would only be for guys who say PMS is a myth and that women whine too much about it. I'm not randomly cruel, I'm... specifically cruel. :D

I think there are many guys who would punch you in the ovaries repeatedly and meet your indignation with, "It fucking hurts to get kicked in the balls. Don't fucking laugh."

I would probably deserve that at least once, as repayment for kneeing my cousin in the balls when we were 10 or so. I'd seen it on TV or something and was curious about whether it was really as dramatic as it looked. I've never quite seen that expression on someone's face before. :(

evil women!!!!!!!!

yes,I'm a guy and i will vouch PMS exists

I would probably deserve that at least once, as repayment for kneeing my cousin in the balls when we were 10 or so. I'd seen it on TV or something and was curious about whether it was really as dramatic as it looked. I've never quite seen that expression on someone's face before. :(

Guys may complain about bitchy PMS, but at least guys don't cause girls to menstruate just to see what happens.



Mind, guys can't do that. They might if they could.

The same way wanting to have sex with an 80 year old is a disturbed mind.

So 80-year olds who want to have sex with their peers are pervs? Got it.

Pedophilia >< its basically a given that its fucked up and the people need help. While its very nice and informative to read up on information that tells us why the fuck pedos are pedos. I don't really know why OP has even brought this to NSG, i mean seriously WTF! How can you even pretend to defend a fucking pervert that wants to rape his cousin, the little girl down the street and perhaps even a dog for all i know, this is less specific than a breakdown of mind and wanting of little girls, this is a total lust rage which makes said freak want to clamp onto every moving object s/he sees. Might be more exciting if its a she... but -.-

I don't think you can read what she's posting and come to that conclusion. In general, yes, but not (apparently) with Avriia.
Oh lawd!


She hasn't bothered yet, and I hold out little hope, but I hold it out nonetheless.
She has returned. Yippee!


This is actually incorrect. Avriia's spelling is quite good, and I couldn't see any errors in the post you quoted. She deserves censure for not having reply courtesy, but spelling is only a microscopic problem for her, if it is one at all.
It's paedophile, not pedophile. A pedophile would be into feet.


Amen.



Amen twice.
Thank you, thank you. :D



Well, miss, I'll try to figure out exactly what you're replying to. The "quote" button is a wonderful tool
they believe it to be such, they do not know conclusively that that is the case.
Actually, yeah. Proof?
you understand the gist of it, thats enough.
Not really, no.
oh well, im not trying to look cute.
Do you have a moral objection to capitilization? I just don't understand why one would willfully choose to look ignorant. To each his own I guess.
...uhh, you just proved my point...
Quote? Source? Nowhere in there did it say children recieved sexual gratification, merely that they explored they're genitalia. For a completely different reason.
ive not said that once for anyones replies, go ahead and make the assumption until your hearts content though
I have no idea what this is referring to. But I will say I did ask you for sources and proof and as of yet, you've come up empty. All you are doing is essentially saying "nu-uh." But keep on, it just makes you look willfully uninformed and unfamiliar with how a debate works. You are on a debate forum afterall.
please dont nitpick over spelling, i miss a typo or make a mistake, big deal, im human, okay?
You've repeatedly spelled "paedophile" "pedophile." It's not a small typo.
uhh, youre joking right?
See, if you'd taken more than highschool physchology, you'd know I wasn't. You'd know how hard I laugh that I have to point this out to you. But please, provide credible sources to back up your claims.
rape fantasies are fantasies that are based around acting out rape or having rape acted out upon ones self; bdsm is between consenting adults, rape fantasies whether they remain fantasies or not, whether role playing them is done or not, HINGE AROUND NONCONSENT OTHERWISE THEY ARE NOT RAPE FANTASIES
They're consensually non-consensual. For instance, if someone fantasizes about rape, they really don't want to actually be stranger raped. Likewise, people who fantasize about raping, don't actually go out and rape strangers. They find a consenting partner that will allow them to have "non-consensual" sex. It's ultimately consensual.

its a part of it, theres a much bigger similarity to the two than bacteria to virus
Source?
...
i have learned about it
Really? Where did you get your PsyD from, and where did you do your clinicals? One psych class in highschool and/or reading a few books doesn't make you an expert. You still don't know what you don't know. You've proven this by your inability to converse on any kind of technical level about the subject. All you're doing is putting together wild conjectures that are laughably wrong to anyone who knows anything about psychology and neurobiology.

Edit: Apparently a pedophile is one who is attracted to the ground, not feet.

I can't help but notice the number of people having violent homicidal fantasies right here in this thread....

Should they be arrested and imprisoned for murder?

And Snafturi, in the US, pedophile is in fact the correct spelling for someone who wishes to have an adult-child romantic/sexual relationship.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophile

So 80-year olds who want to have sex with their peers are pervs? Got it.

No. A great deal of rapes are perpetrated on the elderly. The obvious answer for this is that elderly women are weak, and thus easy targets. Are kids any different? Of course not.

Then they should do the only decent thing,
and end their lives and the suffering of those whom they hurt.

Go out buy a gun and shoot your self.

Those " people" are not humans except for their genetics, they are
a plague and should be dealt with.
( by their own hands hopefully )

Or by what ever means they find like jumping off of bridges or hair dryers in
the tub...

who? and once again im neither a troll nor an alt, i dont think rubgish is either, but i could be wrong

You can cry "not a troll" all day, sweetie, but it doesn't make it so. If you want people to stop assuming you're a troll, then start providing proof to back up your claims. That's why you're only getting half serious and highly cynical responses. Providing sources will generate a discussion. Quoting from sources others provide and then providing a well sourcd counter-argument will get a genuine discussion going.

Several people have tried giving you good advice on the good faith assumption that you aren't a troll. Take their advice. They've been here awhile and they're trying to help you acclimate to the forum.

Then they should do the only decent thing,
and end their lives and the suffering of those whom they hurt.

Go out buy a gun and shoot your self.

Those " people" are not humans except for their genetics, they are
a plague and should be dealt with.
( by their own hands hopefully )

Or by what ever means they find like jumping off of bridges or hair dryers in
the tub...

What? People who are unfortunate enough to be sexually attracted to children? Or just those who act on those attractions?

What? People who are unfortunate enough to be sexually attracted to children? Or just those who act on those attractions?
Don't you know, New Drakonia, there's no difference.

That's why I've alerted the FBI and Interpol to these folks talking about killing pedophiles... these homicidal maniacs should be kept off the street in case they actually do kill someone.

What? People who are unfortunate enough to be sexually attracted to children? Or just those who act on those attractions?

That's another lie. As if people are "hardwired" into having a sexual attraction to children. People aren't biologically attracted to children the same way as rapists aren't biologically inclined to rape.
I'm sure this defense has been tried in court before.

That's why I've alerted the FBI and Interpol to these folks talking about killing pedophiles... these homicidal maniacs should be kept off the street in case they actually do kill someone.

Hope you don't think I'm advocating that. I want pedophiles executed by the state. Vigilante justice of that type is still murder, imo.

That's another lie. As if people are "hardwired" into having a sexual attraction to children. People aren't biologically attracted to children the same way as rapists aren't biologically inclined to rape.
I'm sure this defense has been tried in court before.

Source?

You can cry "not a troll" all day, sweetie, but it doesn't make it so. If you want people to stop assuming you're a troll, then start providing proof to back up your claims. That's why you're only getting half serious and highly cynical responses. Providing sources will generate a discussion. Quoting from sources others provide and then providing a well sourcd counter-argument will get a genuine discussion going.

Several people have tried giving you good advice on the good faith assumption that you aren't a troll. Take their advice. They've been here awhile and they're trying to help you acclimate to the forum.

Seems to me the OP has provided plenty of evidence that she has "acclimated" to the forum, by coming back to the debate, answering points raised and giving explanations when she expects to be away from the thread.

Regardless, the subject itself has developed its own momentum. That being so, there is little to be gained by querying the motives of the OP. Please don't hijack an interesting thread with a fruitless pursuit.

My post was a bit much. I don't want to sound like a nutcase, but I feel that execution by the state is the only way to take care of pedophiles.

I think if the OP is serious, he really needs to contact someone about this. This isn't funny at all. I don't know how he or she could just turn a blind eye to this, but potential victims of his or her "friends" would greatly appreciate these wackos being stopped in advance.

My post was a bit much. I don't want to sound like a nutcase, but I feel that execution by the state is the only way to take care of pedophiles.

I think if the OP is serious, he really needs to contact someone about this. This isn't funny at all. I don't know how he or she could just turn a blind eye to this, but potential victims of his or her "friends" would greatly appreciate these wackos being stopped in advance.

Do you support state-sanctioned executions of psychopaths?

Do you support state-sanctioned executions of psychopaths?

I don't believe pedophilia to be a mental disorder; or at least it is one that can be prevented by the pedophile himself.
I guess you could say it is the same as rape (well, it is, actually) - some rapists are insane, and deserve to be put in mental hospitals for the rest of their life. The rest are just evil and need to be in jail, or removed from society.

Seems to me the OP has provided plenty of evidence that she has "acclimated" to the forum, by coming back to the debate, answering points raised and giving explanations when she expects to be away from the thread.

Regardless, the subject itself has developed its own momentum. That being so, there is little to be gained by querying the motives of the OP. Please don't hijack an interesting thread with a fruitless pursuit.

My apologies. She was asking for an explanation of the comment I made to NH, I was merely clarifying why (from my perspective) she's the repeated target of assumptions from many posters that she's a troll. IIRC, the comment she quoted was the only time I've even alluded to thinking she's a troll.

In no way was I trying to derail the thread.

I don't believe pedophilia to be a mental disorder; or at least it is one that can be prevented by the pedophile himself.
I guess you could say it is the same as rape (well, it is, actually) - some rapists are insane, and deserve to be put in mental hospitals for the rest of their life. The rest are just evil and need to be in jail, or removed from society.

So you're not quite sure what pedophilia is, but consider those that are afflicted "evil", deserving nothing but death? Are you implying that some people just chose to be attracted to children? Or are you saying that one isn't a pedophile unless one actively attempt to rape children?

So you're not quite sure what pedophilia is, but consider those that are afflicted "evil", deserving nothing but death? Are you implying that some people just chose to be attracted to children? Or are you saying that one isn't a pedophile unless one actively attempt to rape children?

I have a smaller problem with people who are attracted to children, though I think it's sick. My problem is with those who act out on their attraction and destroy lives.
Unfortunately, however, no pedophile can be trusted. They have a dellusion that often causes them to put fantasies into reality.

I have no problem with people who are attracted to children, though I think it's sick. My problem is with those who act out on their attraction and destroy lives.

Which becomes unclear with jewels such as
but I feel that execution by the state is the only way to take care of pedophiles.

Those " people" are not humans except for their genetics, they are
a plague and should be dealt with.
( by their own hands hopefully )


Because it seems like you're condemning all pedophiles regardless of whether they actually have sex with minors or not.

[edit]
Unfortunately, however, no pedophile can be trusted. They have a dellusion that often causes them to put fantasies into reality.

You seem to have an unparalleled insight to the mind of the pedophile. Or is this guesswork?

What? People who are unfortunate enough to be sexually attracted to children? Or just those who act on those attractions?

Because the only thing we should pity them for, is that society no longer takes
the necessary measures to deal with that problem.

You cannot tell me that you'd feel comfortable with their kind living next door
to you and your ( probably future ) children ?

I would even be prepared to settle for the " Island of perverts " scenario
previously discussed.

But I'd be happier if they just died, ( Not advocating murder, just death with dignity )

People aren't biologically attracted to children the same way as rapists aren't biologically inclined to rape.

Are you sure of this? Mutations do exist. Who you choose to do it with is more frequently a product of your genes, how you go about doing it is more frequently a product of your social upbringing and environment. Rape is more similar to fetishes than to pedophilia.

Those who are are attracted to children and those who act on it that's a line I'd rather
not have to draw.
Just hold up a small child, everyone who got a hard on is put on the train...

Then they should do the only decent thing, and end their lives and the suffering of those whom they hurt.

That may apply for many....

Go out buy a gun and shoot your self.

I?

Those " people" are not humans except for their genetics,

They are simply in possession of excess candor. There are few truly "noble" human beings; without laws and social taboos to inspire fear, most of us would be just like them (maybe not in exact desires, but in tendency toward "evil" acts).

they area plague and should be dealt with. ( by their own hands hopefully )

Plague? I believe many people are detrimental--but I do not call them "a plague".

I once was like you: ruthlessly logical...until I realized how arbitrary and utterly tedious logic was. Besides, you are not using logic; you simply hate perverts so you think they should die.

Or by what ever means they find like jumping off of bridges or hair dryers in the tub...

I was severally reprimanded by the Moderators for discussing doing things of this nature to myself, and you will most certainly not be commended for demanding them of others.

.

I want to get predators off of the internet. I do feel that having a sexual attraction to a kid makes you a bad person. I have read their chatlogs, and have seen what they can do. They are manipulative narcissists.

Snip

As long as that hypothetical person doesn't act upon those urges, why should I care?

As long as that hypothetical person doesn't act upon those urges, why should I care?

There's no reason to, but most do not keep to themselves. Narcissism seems to be related to pedophilia.

Those who are are attracted to children and those who act on it that's a line I'd rather
not have to draw.
Just hold up a small child, everyone who got a hard on is put on the train...

Oh dear...

There's no reason to, but most do not keep to themselves. Narcissism seems to be related to pedophilia.

So you say. If your only experiences, however, are a bunch of chat logs from sexual predators on the internet, I'm not sure I'd base my judgment solely on that.

There's no reason to, but most do not keep to themselves. Narcissism seems to be related to pedophilia.

It would have to go beyond narcissism into sociopathy. IIRC that's not a co-morbid trait with paedophelia.

So you say. If your only experiences, however, are a bunch of chat logs from sexual predators on the internet, I'm not sure I'd base my judgment solely on that.

Why not? Are there different types of pedophiles? They all seem the same to me. None of them seem to care about anything but themselves. They all also seem to have the same personality.

It would have to go beyond narcissism into sociopathy

Pedophiles are indeed sociopaths.

Because it's a corruption regardless of whether or not they have acted on it yet.
( The odds of someone "liking children" but not acting on it ? )
Those genes should not be spread, nor should they be put in a place where they could act.

Oh and to clarify I only meant that the child toucher's should shoot themselves, not you the person on the forum.
I apologize for the confusion. I'm rather fanatical on this topic.

Pedophiles are indeed sociopaths.

Again, it's not exclusively the case. They may just have an inability to inhibit behaviour. Many paedophiles feel extreme remorse for their thoughts or actions.

Why not? Are there different types of pedophiles? They all seem the same to me. None of them seem to care about anything but themselves. They all also seem to have the same personality.



Pedophiles are indeed sociopaths.

I would guess that being a pedophile doesn't make you part of an indistinguishable mass of sociopaths. Not that I have your expansive knowledge about this topic, mind.

Because it's a corruption regardless of whether or not they have acted on it yet.
( The odds of someone "liking children" but not acting on it ? )
Those genes should not be spread, nor should they be put in a place where they could act.

I do not believe there is a "perversion gene".

Oh and to clarify I only meant that the child toucher's should shoot themselves, not you the person on the forum.

One would have to be very selfish to indulge in erotic activities with an object which does not wish to participate; yet one would have to be remarkable selfless to shoot oneself for society's benefit.

I apologize for the confusion. I'm rather fanatical on this topic.

I do not recommend fanaticism, even under such apparently excusable circumstances.

Again, it's not exclusively the case. They may just have an inability to inhibit behaviour. Many paedophiles feel extreme remorse for their thoughts or actions.

Though I agree with the above, I must also state that I do not care if any pedophiles have remorse if it cannot control their actions.

Though I agree with the above, I must also state that I do not care if any pedophiles have remorse if it cannot control their actions.

I don't either. In no way take my post as defending peadophiles. I was merely pointing out a glaring flaw in the argument.

I don't either. In no way take my post as defending peadophiles. I was merely pointing out a glaring flaw in the argument.

Unfortunately on NSG, pathos arguments tend to house more holes than there are asses to accommodate.

I do not believe there is a "perversion gene".



One would have to be very selfish to indulge in erotic activities with an object which does not wish to participate; yet one would have to be remarkable selfless to shoot oneself for society's benefit.



I do not recommend fanaticism, even under such apparently excusable circumstances.

The genetics issue I will admit is arguable. Like Homosexuality we do not
fully understand how certain things seem to happen
( NO I"M NOT GETTING THE PEDIFILE / HOMOSEXUAL ISSUES CROSSED )
But there has been some good evidence the a number genetic markers
exist which seem to be present in the cases where they've done the tests.
Public Broad Casting has done some interesting shows on genetic predispositions and crimes.
Though I freely admit that how you are raised plays a much larger role
in how you turn out.
And ultimately you have to answer for your crimes.

And suicide is perfectly acceptable in this case and many others.

Unfortunately on NSG, pathos arguments tend to house more holes than there are asses to accommodate.
Very true.

The genetics issue I will admit is arguable. Like Homosexuality we do not
fully understand how certain things seem to happen
( NO I"M NOT GETTING THE PEDIFILE / HOMOSEXUAL ISSUES CROSSED )
But there has been some good evidence the a number genetic markers
exist which seem to be present in the cases where they've done the tests.
Public Broad Casting has done some interesting shows on genetic predispositions and crimes.
Though I freely admit that how you are raised plays a much larger role
in how you turn out.
And ultimately you have to answer for your crimes.

And suicide is perfectly acceptable in this case and many others.

Like Napoléon, I believe suicide is every man's--(interruption: or woman's)--or woman's--inherent right. But I digress.

Anyway, this is all opinion unless an acceptable citation is linked.

Very true.

I was under the impression that truth and beauty are the same--of course, I tend toward nihilism.

I was under the impression that truth and beauty are the same--of course, I tend toward nihilist beliefs.

Beauty is only skin deep. Truth is, well something more substantial.

And on the topic of citing sources, here's the DSM-IV-TR criteria for paedophelia:
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm

And a decent description of paedophelia:
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/explaining-pedophilia

Beauty is only skin deep. Truth is, well something more substantial.

And on the topic of citing sources, here's the DSM-IV-TR criteria for paedophelia:
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm

And a decent description of paedophelia:
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/features/explaining-pedophilia

It's the muscles and shape of the bones, the appropriate level of fat spread over the tissues so they don't look like Paris Hilton.

It's the muscles and shape of the bones, the appropriate level of fat spread over the tissues so they don't look like Paris Hilton.

Truth always comes in varying tones.

It's the muscles and shape of the bones, the appropriate level of fat spread over the tissues so they don't look like Paris Hilton.

Fat is certainly important for anything other than the Skeletor look.

Okay, so truth comes from somewhere inside the internal organs.

a girl with a proper build ( it's what 15-20 % body fat according to doctors? )
is always going to turn my head, where as those skin and bones creatures just make
you want to shudder.
Cute girls are always the one's who you don't see in the shopping market catalogs.

a girl with a proper build ( it's what 15-20 % body fat according to doctors? )
is always going to turn my head, where as those skin and bones creatures just make
you want to shudder.
Cute girls are always the one's who you don't see in the shopping market catalogs.

I prefer women to be curvier than that. I'd say in the 24%-29% range.

Either way, real women are way prettier than "super models".
Because real women are real people, and you can do stuff.
Like cook a magnificent dinner for them while you're back packing in the
national wilderness.
Where as super models wouldn't leave the city / vomit the food up later.

Either way, real women are way prettier than "super models".
Because real women are real people, and you can do stuff.
Like cook a magnificent dinner for them while you're back packing in the
national wilderness.
Where as super models wouldn't leave the city / vomit the food up later.

I totally agree with you. Clothes hangars are not attractive and not fun (well, maybe if you're into purging as a hobby).

Now, women that are naturally that thin, and haven't vomited/starved themselves thin are attractive in their own way. Not my type, but not gag inducing.

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


Yeah, they never express plans, then one day, WHAM! They go and rape some innocent kid.

Pedophila isn't a valid sexual orientation, it's a fetish, and people don't love people based on fetishes, fetishes are what get's your rocks off on.

IF someone is a dangerous person, they are a DANGEROUS PERSON, irregardless if they've committed a crime or not.

... she's the repeated target of assumptions from many posters that she's a troll. IIRC, the comment she quoted was the only time I've even alluded to thinking she's a troll.

In no way was I trying to derail the thread.

Gotcha. I didn't think you were actually trying to derail it, just that you and NH and a few others were straying off the path and, because of the thread's controversial subject*, I'm sheepdogging it a bit.

*as opposed to all those other controversial subjects.

Yeah, they never express plans, then one day, WHAM! They go and rape some innocent kid.

Pedophila isn't a valid sexual orientation, it's a fetish, and people don't love people based on fetishes, fetishes are what get's your rocks off on.

IF someone is a dangerous person, they are a DANGEROUS PERSON, irregardless if they've committed a crime or not.

How do you judge a dangerous person if they've never committed a crime? Is a dangerous person anyone who has ever considered committing a crime? Even fntasized about it? Lots of children fantasize about fighting? Or fantasize about shooting people? Hell, there are video games that allow them to act out the fantasies.

So should we start labeling all of these people dangerous? Clearly, you're able to determine who is and who isn't, so let me know so I can protect my nephews.

In Afghanistan children are married off sometimes before they are even born, because of the parents debt. These are known as Opium Brides... now isnt THAT a little bit fucked up? And these men may have 6 or 7 Opium Brides.. or for that matter Opium Boy Toys.. and nobody is telling them no.

Pedophilia >< its basically a given that its fucked up and the people need help. While its very nice and informative to read up on information that tells us why the fuck pedos are pedos. I don't really know why OP has even brought this to NSG, i mean seriously WTF! How can you even pretend to defend a fucking pervert that wants to rape his cousin, the little girl down the street and perhaps even a dog for all i know, this is less specific than a breakdown of mind and wanting of little girls, this is a total lust rage which makes said freak want to clamp onto every moving object s/he sees. Might be more exciting if its a she... but -.-

I'm pretty confident in saying that your argument was just shot through the lungs by this last line. You should be ashamed of yourself for knowingly harboring such an appalling double standard.

It's paedophile, not pedophile. A pedophile would be into feet.

In England. Guess where I'm not. Look, if I were a poster who beat the dead horse of US superiority with regard to anything, but especially spelling, I could see you making a point of zinging me on this issue. The fact is that "pedophile" is the accepted US spelling, with "paedophile" listed as a British variant. Best we let it go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Love and Peacedom View Post
Pedophilia >< its basically a given that its fucked up and the people need help. While its very nice and informative to read up on information that tells us why the fuck pedos are pedos. I don't really know why OP has even brought this to NSG, i mean seriously WTF! How can you even pretend to defend a fucking pervert that wants to rape his cousin, the little girl down the street and perhaps even a dog for all i know, this is less specific than a breakdown of mind and wanting of little girls, this is a total lust rage which makes said freak want to clamp onto every moving object s/he sees. Might be more exciting if its a she... but -.-
I'm pretty confident in saying that your argument was just shot through the lungs by this last line. You should be ashamed of yourself for knowingly harboring such an appalling double standard.


I'm obviously not serious in the last line get over yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Love and Peacedom View Post
Pedophilia >< its basically a given that its fucked up and the people need help. While its very nice and informative to read up on information that tells us why the fuck pedos are pedos. I don't really know why OP has even brought this to NSG, i mean seriously WTF! How can you even pretend to defend a fucking pervert that wants to rape his cousin, the little girl down the street and perhaps even a dog for all i know, this is less specific than a breakdown of mind and wanting of little girls, this is a total lust rage which makes said freak want to clamp onto every moving object s/he sees. Might be more exciting if its a she... but -.-


I'm obviously not serious in the last line get over yourself.

Tell you what, when you've been here long enough for the room to be able to tell when you're joking and when you're serious, you can tell anyone you want to get over themselves. Until then, you're coming off like a milk-toothed whelp with delusions of adequacy.

Seeing as how your entire paragraph was inaccurate, vitriolic and vacant of any attempt to read the thread at all and understand the difference between thought and deed, I had to assume you were also just as rantingly committed to the last line. Not my problem.

EDIT: Nobody's "pretending" to defend anyone because nobody's actually done anything wrong. If you can't get that, there's no hope for you.

Eh, people are entitled to their thoughts-- fantasies don't hurt anyone no matter what their content. So long as someone with an attraction to children doesn't actually act on it, they're fine by me.

I happen to think that, ironically, it's society's insistence on sex as a taboo that can make it so mentally damaging to a young person, but that can't really be changed.

Eh, people are entitled to their thoughts-- fantasies don't hurt anyone no matter what their content. So long as someone with an attraction to children doesn't actually act on it, they're fine by me.

I happen to think that, ironically, it's society's insistence on sex as a taboo that can make it so mentally damaging to a young person, but that can't really be changed.

agreed entirely
you dont become a victim until youre victimized, even for things like rape if it was socially acceptable the vast majority of people wouldnt be traumatized by it (providing it was just rape and didnt involve anything like attempted murder or assault, in which case those would have to be socially acceptable too)
of course, thats not to say we should go and make those things socially acceptable
but pedophilia and statutory doesnt really harm anyone, thoughts cant harm people and as long as its consensual, maybe it harms people that have the sudden mental image and get grossed out by it, but no more than someone who has a sudden mental image of their parents having sex to create them (and finds their parents unattractive), but than its up to them to try to dismiss it

anyways, ive still got a lot to do to get ready (and i am still brushing my hair, at 6 fucking 20 am... yet to go to sleep) but according to my dad well probably be leaving around 11 - 12, of course he prefers to be hours early for everything... so that could mean anywhere between 9 - 12 if my mom and i can convince him to wait and go by the time he said)
ill try to read through some of the stuff posted that i havent gotten a chance to read yet, but i doubt ill have enough time to write any responses unless its just to one or two people

but pedophilia and statutory doesnt really harm anyone, thoughts cant harm people and as long as its consensual, maybe it harms people that have the sudden mental image and get grossed out by it, but no more than someone who has a sudden mental image of their parents having sex to create them (and finds their parents unattractive), but than its up to them to try to dismiss it

Wait, if its just an image consent is not needed. If its more than an image, consent is irrelevant with pedophilia. Also it would not be statutory unless an act were committed. Are you simply expressing the rather twisted opinion that those images are ok, and horribly mixing up terminology, or are you arguing that acting on those images does not harm?

Lastly, there's a world of difference between an image of something illegal flashing through your head, and enjoying it/wanting to do it. People can imagine just about anything once they've heard about it. Thinking of something does not equate to a desire to do it. If a director makes a horror movie, does that mean he wants to carry out the acts he imagined in the film?

Wait, if its just an image consent is not needed. If its more than an image, consent is irrelevant with pedophilia. Also it would not be statutory unless an act were committed. Are you simply expressing the rather twisted opinion that those images are ok, and horribly mixing up terminology, or are you arguing that acting on those images does not harm?

Lastly, there's a world of difference between an image of something illegal flashing through your head, and enjoying it/wanting to do it. People can imagine just about anything once they've heard about it. Thinking of something does not equate to a desire to do it. If a director makes a horror movie, does that mean he wants to carry out the acts he imagined in the film?

image consent...? what does this have to do with what i said?
my point was if you (in general) find it icky but get a sudden mental image of it thats your problem to deal with it because as long as both parties are consenting to the sex its not damaging until victimization occurs
neither, though i do believe acting on sex with a minor is perfectly okay as long as its consensual
you completely misunderstood what i was saying :s
and of course not, i was referring to people that find it icky and gross but get the mental image of it (because some peoples justifications for either the act or thought being illegal on this thread have boiled down to they find it icky)
and for the record, im aware what statutory is the act, and not the thought

I think when it really comes down to it, people here do not have such great difference when it comes down to the pedophilia itself - I think 90% of us agree that is fine for people to be attracted to children, so long as they never do anything. It also seems to be that no-one is advocating having sexual contact with children without consent.

I think what really needs to be discussed is simply the age of consent, as that is the major difference between people.

I think when it really comes down to it, people here do not have such great difference when it comes down to the pedophilia itself - I think 90% of us agree that is fine for people to be attracted to children, so long as they never do anything. It also seems to be that no-one is advocating having sexual contact with children without consent.

I think what really needs to be discussed is simply the age of consent, as that is the major difference between people.

hmm, agreed, though the other 10% is a bit scary insofar that theyd try to deny a non criminal rights... and even suggest killing them in some instances x.x yet somehow we get marked as the trolls, sure the other users might not be trolls, but not being a troll doesnt mean someone cant troll occasionally - on the other hand its a relatively common belief, as... damn lethologica ...as uhh, as, something or other it may be.
oh. right. disturbing. bleh, if im forgetting words like disturbing i should go to sleep

anyways im getting too tired to post (or think) coherently, so im going to get off of nationstates before i start to babble about random incoherent things. - bye bye

In England. Guess where I'm not. Look, if I were a poster who beat the dead horse of US superiority with regard to anything, but especially spelling, I could see you making a point of zinging me on this issue. The fact is that "pedophile" is the accepted US spelling, with "paedophile" listed as a British variant. Best we let it go.
That's the most illogical bastardization I've run across yet. I actually never noticed it was spelled any other way.

I wonder what would be like to have a fixation with feet...:eek2:

Pedophilia And Statutory Doesnt Really Harm Anyone

What the fuck!?!

What the fuck!?!

Elaborate, please, otherwise it's just spam.

Pedophilia and statutory really does harm people. Small children being raped is not harmless.

Maybe you missunderstand, by saying pedophilia, what is being meant is purely the attraction to children, not the act of having sex with them or touching them against their will. Everyone agrees that raping small children is bad, but we are discussing if its wrong to want to do it, among other things.

Maybe you missunderstand, by saying pedophilia, what is being meant is purely the attraction to children, not the act of having sex with them or touching them against their will. Everyone agrees that raping small children is bad, but we are discussing if its wrong to want to do it, among other things.

DSM-IV-TR states that the persona had either acted on these urges or they are causing marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. So we aren't jsut talking about people that fantasize, are happy with their fantasies, and never touch a child.

Well then we are using a different meaning of the word pedophile to them. We've already had several pages of discussions about the meaning of the word "nature", we don't need anymore.

We most certainly are talking about people who are attracted to children but have never touched them, that is what this discussion is about, as I mentioned previously, we all agree that someone who sexualy touches/abuses children against their will is bad. What we are discussing is if being attracted to children is wrong, and what should the legal age of consent be.

Well then we are using a different meaning of the word pedophile to them. We've already had several pages of discussions about the meaning of the word "nature", we don't need anymore.

We most certainly are talking about people who are attracted to children but have never touched them, that is what this discussion is about, as I mentioned previously, we all agree that someone who sexualy touches/abuses children against their will is bad. What we are discussing is if being attracted to children is wrong, and what should the legal age of consent be.

If you ar going to use a definition other than the DSM-IV-TR, will you please link to a source that trumps it? We can't very well go around making up definintions of words. The DSM, as I'm sure you know, is the definative source (unless you can find a suitable alternative), for all things psychological.

You are going to waste time trying to bring people around to a new definition you invented. But be my guest.

Paedophile - an adult who is sexually attracted to children (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paedophile)

I didn't invent it, its the most common use of the word. And you state its the definative source, but the website states its only to do with American psychiatrists, so for me in England, my psychiatrists would have their own book which may tell them something totally different.

I have explained what everyone else in the thread means when talking about pedophiles, so I figure you can now post with that in mind.

Paedophile - an adult who is sexually attracted to children (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paedophile)

I didn't invent it, its the most common use of the word. And you state its the definative source, but the website states its only to do with American psychiatrists, so for me in England, my psychiatrists would have their own book which may tell them something totally different.

I have explained what everyone else in the thread means when talking about pedophiles, so I figure you can now post with that in mind.
Using a dictionary to define a pyschiatric condition. Tsk tsk. And who's to say the dictionary you chose is more authoritative than another dictionary?

You're more than welcome to use the British verision of the DSM (DSM is used world wide, fyi). This helps you out too. You can automatically select out the population you don't want to talk about. For example "I'm not talking about the clinical condition of paedophelia, I'm talking about men and women who are attracted to children."

As an aside, why on earth are you using American spelling if you're British? **Note, I'm not poking fun, language fascinates me.

A large part of this discussion has been people pointing out that pedophilia (in my sense) shouldn't be considered a pyschiatric condition, that is is in fact relatively normal to be attracted to children. So yes i'll use a dictionary.

Also, I can use the WHO definition if you would appreciate that more? WHO - "it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children". I think we can all settle on the WHO's decision, seeing as how it speaks for the whole world.

And as for the spelling, It just helps to make things easier if everyone uses the same spelling, to avoid discussions on how it is actually meant to be spelt, which always tend to crop up but is actually just a waste of time.

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.

I agree. Homosexual people can do what they want without breaking laws or hurting people: they can get consent. Their partners can have a mature view of what they are doing.
I think 5 year old girls don't know how to dress properly, least what sex is. So if your pedophillic friends ever fulfill their dream, they would do it messing some kids life. That is the problem. It's like, you are entitled to have whatever sexual preference you might have, until it hurts someone. My advice to your friends is to get a grown woman with a petit body or do roleplay or something.
And, shamefully, they will be always shunned down, even if they control the situation. It's easy to fear for your son's life, and people fear what they don't understand.

image consent...? what does this have to do with what i said?
my point was if you (in general) find it icky but get a sudden mental image of it thats your problem to deal with it because as long as both parties are consenting to the sex its not damaging until victimization occurs
neither, though i do believe acting on sex with a minor is perfectly okay as long as its consensual
you completely misunderstood what i was saying :s
and of course not, i was referring to people that find it icky and gross but get the mental image of it (because some peoples justifications for either the act or thought being illegal on this thread have boiled down to they find it icky)
and for the record, im aware what statutory is the act, and not the thought

I'm sorry if I found your post unclear. I asked for clarification, and you gave it.

A large part of this discussion has been people pointing out that pedophilia (in my sense) shouldn't be considered a pyschiatric condition, that is is in fact relatively normal to be attracted to children. So yes i'll use a dictionary.

Also, I can use the WHO definition if you would appreciate that more? WHO - "it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children". I think we can all settle on the WHO's decision, seeing as how it speaks for the whole world.

And as for the spelling, It just helps to make things easier if everyone uses the same spelling, to avoid discussions on how it is actually meant to be spelt, which always tend to crop up but is actually just a waste of time.
I wasn't talking of your spelling of paedophelia, I was talking about your spelling in general. It's 100% American. I mention it, becaue it's quite peculiar for a Brit to use mangled, bastardized American spelling. The British are quite elitist on that front, with good reason.

No, I'll take a psychiatric definition of a psychiatric condition. Like I said, the DSM is used world wide. And I didn't say disorder, it's a disorder when it falls into DSM criteria. I think we can all agree it's a disorder when it comes to that. You want to exlcude the disordered people, very rationally, from your discussion. Seems perfect to me that you have a label that defines everyone you aren't talking about.

According to the DSM, pedophilia is a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)

Defeated by your own source, it means both, which I stated earlier.

Also, I fail to see how my spelling is 100% American, you've seen nothing like enough of my writing to say that. The two things that come to mind immediately are colour and doughnut, both of which I use the english spelling for. My spelling in general isn't great, never has been and never will be, but its accurate enough for people to get my point.

According to the DSM, pedophilia is a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.According to the DSM, pedophilia is a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)

Defeated by your own source, it means both, which I stated earlier.

Also, I fail to see how my spelling is 100% American, you've seen nothing like enough of my writing to say that. The two things that come to mind immediately are colour and doughnut, both of which I use the english spelling for. My spelling in general isn't great, never has been and never will be, but its accurate enough for people to get my point.

Uhhh... you linked to wikipedia, not the DSM. I linked to the DSM.

And don't get defensive on this side convo, please. I'm not criticising your spelling or your prefrered spellings of certain words. It's just irregular, that's why I commented and questioned a bit. I didn't know if you picked it up from forums, if it was intentional (like you pointed out it was in a few cases), or if you lived abroad for a few years. I have an unhealthy fascination with language.

Edit: Here is the link one more time: http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm

Edit2: and you actually quoted exaclty what I said which is what I paraphrased from the DSM. See the part about cause distress? I said that. That's part of the cirteria. Underlines mine.
According to the DSM, pedophilia is a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty.
Edit 3: What wiki leaves out is the "or molested a child" part. Which I never said was exclusive.

Are you sure of this? Mutations do exist. Who you choose to do it with is more frequently a product of your genes, how you go about doing it is more frequently a product of your social upbringing and environment. Rape is more similar to fetishes than to pedophilia.

Al[most al]l humans are biologically inclined to have sex. But no one has sex with everyone they see. Or even try. Or even try to with everyone they are attracted to. If there happens to be someone who does, we say there's something wrong with them.

The point is, also built in with desire, is inhibition. Those without inhibitions are said to be "psychopathic". I imagine everyone can trace the logical path here.

And I love how Avriia hasn't responded to my rather long and thought-out post. I put a lot of effort into that, you know.

Al[most al]l humans are biologically inclined to have sex. But no one has sex with everyone they see. Or even try. Or even try to with everyone they are attracted to. If there happens to be someone who does, we say there's something wrong with them.

The point is, also built in with desire, is inhibition. Those without inhibitions are said to be "psychopathic". I imagine everyone can trace the logical path here.

And I love how Avriia hasn't responded to my rather long and thought-out post. I put a lot of effort into that, you know.
To be fair, I think she had stuff going on last night and I haven't seen her here this morning. She might have Real Life stuff she's attending to. And she had said her mom was getting her an iPhone if she brushed out (I think) her hair. And I'm sure an iPhone is more exciting than NSG.*


*At least until she learns to browse NSG with her iPhone.

To be fair, I think she had stuff going on last night and I haven't seen her here this morning. She might have Real Life stuff she's attending to. And she had said her mom was getting her an iPhone if she brushed out (I think) her hair. And I'm sure an iPhone is more exciting than NSG.*


*At least until she learns to browse NSG with her iPhone.

I never got the hype of the iPhone.

And anyways, she took the time to respond to other, less details posts.



Mostly I'm just complaining to bring attention to it.

I never got the hype of the iPhone.

And anyways, she took the time to respond to other, less details posts.



Mostly I'm just complaining to bring attention to it.

I'm not saying either way. I'm waiting for a reply too.

I'm a total Mac fangirl, however, so if I had a shiny new iPhone right now I'd be licking the touch screen and pirating a copy of I'mRich.

To everyone who went "Pedophiles? GROSS!" in this thread distancing themselves: The Internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Also, Welcome to the Internet; Where the Women are Men, the Men are Pedophiles and the Children are FBI Agents.

Seriously people, this is a re-hashed topic that, if it does bare re-hashing, can do without the usual self-righteous eww gross comments.

Contribute something worth reading/arguing about, or lurk.

Oh wait...this is General.

Nevermind.

I'm not saying either way. I'm waiting for a reply too.

I'm a total Mac fangirl, however, so if I had a shiny new iPhone right now I'd be licking the touch screen and pirating a copy of I'mRich.

Eeewww, macs.

Using a dictionary to define a pyschiatric condition. Tsk tsk.

There is scientific and political controversy regarding the continued inclusion of sex-related diagnoses such as the paraphilias (sexual fetishes) and female hypoactive sexual desire disorder (low female sex drive).[53][54] Some cite the APA's decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM as evidence that the APA incorrectly referred to these states of being or orientations as mental illnesses.[55][56]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders
If there's controversy around the status of paraphilias as mental illnesses then it doesn't really matter what the current incarnation of the DSM says. The people the book is meant for aren't all convinced the current definition is useful, why should we be convinced?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders
If there's controversy around the status of paraphilias as mental illnesses then it doesn't really matter what the current incarnation of the DSM says. The people the book is meant for aren't all convinced the current definition is useful, why should we be convinced?

It's not all paraphelia's that are under controversy. Actually, wiki agrees with me.

Edit: And I didn't say "no other source but the DSM." I did say it seemed reasonable to use a clinical definition. If there's other clinical definitions out there, then fine. DSM was just my starting point. A very precise defintion would seem to do this discussion a greater service than a broad one. DSM seemed rational insofar as it defined attraction to children to not be a problem until:
a. someone abuses a child
b. the thoughts/fantasies cause distress
or c. the thoughts/fatasies cause interpersonal difficulties

These seem to be the folks that fellow was trying to exclude, very rationally, from the discussion. Seemed quite convienient.

Also, in the other article I linked to, the APA was very, very clear that paedophelia was not under controversy as to whether or not it was a mental disorder. And wiki makes zero mention of any controvery. It does, however, say there's a small, fringe, pro-peado movement.

Edit: And after looking at the wiki article, I don't think that's the side Rubgish is arging for. If I'm understanding him, he agrees that touching children is bad, but he doesn't think punishing people for thinking touching children is a good idea.

Also, in the other article I linked to, the APA was very, very clear that paedophelia was not under controversy as to whether or not it was a mental disorder. And wiki makes zero mention of any controvery. It does, however, say there's a small, fringe, pro-peado movement.

Okey doke :)

Oh, Rugbish, quoth wiki:
The ICD-10, an international classification of diseases published by the World Health Organization, lists pedophilia as a paraphilia, and refers to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), mentioned below, for its definition.
So the WHO agrees with the DSM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism
Bolded mine. And if you follow the link, it's the exact same definition I gave.

Also, in the other article I linked to, the APA was very, very clear that paedophelia was not under controversy as to whether or not it was a mental disorder. And wiki makes zero mention of any controvery. It does, however, say there's a small, fringe, pro-peado movement.

Edit: And after looking at the wiki article, I don't think that's the side Rubgish is arging for. If I'm understanding him, he agrees that touching children is bad, but he doesn't think punishing people for thinking touching children is a good idea.
i would have to agree with him that punishing people for having bad thoughts about children is not right.

but if a person is having strong sexual urges toward prepubescent children, urges that affect their lives and are hard to fight off, they need to get into therapy. even if they dont act out they have a serious psychological problem.

Never mind, statement I was responding to was amended in a later post.

i would have to agree with him that punishing people for having bad thoughts about children is not right.

but if a person is having strong sexual urges toward prepubescent children, urges that affect their lives and are hard to fight off, they need to get into therapy. even if they dont act out they have a serious psychological problem.

I agree entirely. If one has those thoughts, but they aren't intrusive or otherwise detrimental and they would never act on them, then there's no reason to punish them.

Edit: Here is the link one more time: http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/pedophiliaTR.htm



That link on point A supports what I said in the last post - both definitions are acceptable, pedophilia doesn't have to involve anything more than the desire to commit sexual acts with children. If you'd read the rest of the discussion, you would realise that is the definition that people are primarily discussing, as everyone agrees that commiting sexual acts with children against their will is wrong. Commiting sexual acts with children where they want it is a different part of the discussion.

Finally on that point, I think we are becoming way too bogged down with the meaning of one word, I honestly don't care who is technically correct, so long as we both know what is meant by the word pedophile in this thread.

I never got the hype of the iPhone.

And anyways, she took the time to respond to other, less details posts.



Mostly I'm just complaining to bring attention to it.

Back on page sixteen avriia wrote this:

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,

So I assume she is busy and will reply when she returns next week.

Pedophilia and statutory really does harm people. Small children being raped is not harmless.

Agreed. Having relations with children, who by definition cannot consent, is a moral and legal crime.

Having thoughts about it that you don't act on in any way... well, thinking's not illegal yet, is it?

That link on point A supports what I said in the last post - both definitions are acceptable, pedophilia doesn't have to involve anything more than the desire to commit sexual acts with children. If you'd read the rest of the discussion, you would realise that is the definition that people are primarily discussing, as everyone agrees that commiting sexual acts with children against their will is wrong. Commiting sexual acts with children where they want it is a different part of the discussion.


no.

sexual acts and sexual touching (no-no zones) of any kind of a prepubescent child is wrong.

Personally I agree with you on that, prepubescent children wouldn't really understand the meaning so well. But to me, I don't personally find prepubescent children attractive anyway, however over the age of 11 or so I do, prehaps that is just to do with my age, cosidering I am only just 16 (The definition of pedophilia involves a clause about being more than 5 years younger than you, of which 11 doesn't qualify for me, so technically i'm normal).

Personally I agree with you on that, prepubescent children wouldn't really understand the meaning so well. But to me, I don't personally find prepubescent children attractive anyway, however over the age of 11 or so I do, prehaps that is just to do with my age, cosidering I am only just 16 (The definition of pedophilia involves a clause about being more than 5 years younger than you, of which 11 doesn't qualify for me, so technically i'm normal).
its not right to call being attracted to a "child" who has reached puberty pedophilia.

they are sexual beings. not "fair game" mind you but its not sick to find them attractive.

I think generally it depends on the age of the person who is attracted to them, while people may be fine with a teenager being attracted to children around 11, if you said that a 40 year old was attracted to 11 year olds, then people will call him a pedophile and many will react violently towards him/her.

Realistically, if you look at how man evolved, being attracted to children as soon as they are capable of bearing child is a sound evolutionary tactic, as they are likely to live longer and bear you more children.

I think generally it depends on the age of the person who is attracted to them, while people may be fine with a teenager being attracted to children around 11, if you said that a 40 year old was attracted to 11 year olds, then people will call him a pedophile and many will react violently towards him/her.

Realistically, if you look at how man evolved, being attracted to children as soon as they are capable of bearing child is a sound evolutionary tactic, as they are likely to live longer and bear you more children.
people who are attracted to those far younger than they are have problems but are not necessarily "sick".

the worst problems with that kind of thing is taken care of by the age of consent laws. its far too easy for a 25 year old to manipulate a 13 year old into an unwise sexual relationship.

That link on point A supports what I said in the last post - both definitions are acceptable, pedophilia doesn't have to involve anything more than the desire to commit sexual acts with children. If you'd read the rest of the discussion, you would realise that is the definition that people are primarily discussing, as everyone agrees that commiting sexual acts with children against their will is wrong. Commiting sexual acts with children where they want it is a different part of the discussion.

Finally on that point, I think we are becoming way too bogged down with the meaning of one word, I honestly don't care who is technically correct, so long as we both know what is meant by the word pedophile in this thread.
Funny. Now that I've proved that there is (according to the WHO) a worldwide accepted definition of paedophelia, now you don't want to discuss it. I pwnd you by your own sources. So now we're "getting bogged down" in defining the word. That's hilarious.

Don't forget where this started. I quoted the DSM, you disagreed with their defintion. Then wiki (who was quoting the DSM) and the WHO agree with me.

My original assertion still stands, this discussion will be more meaningful if we can clearly define what we are disucssing. This is an emotionally charged issue.
no.

sexual acts and sexual touching (no-no zones) of any kind of a prepubescent child is wrong.
^That.

Funny. Now that I've proved that there is (according to the WHO) a worldwide accepted definition of paedophelia, now you don't want to discuss it. I pwnd you by your own sources. So now we're "getting bogged down" in defining the word. That's hilarious.

Don't forget where this started. I quoted the DSM, you disagreed with their defintion. Then wiki (who was quoting the DSM) and the WHO agree with me.

My original assertion still stands, this discussion will be more meaningful if we can clearly define what we are disucssing. This is an emotionally charged issue.

^That.

You know what? just no. You're not reading my posts, so from now onwards, i'm not going to waste time replying when you just say the same point over and over and over and over and over again.

Funny. Now that I've proved that there is (according to the WHO) a worldwide accepted definition of paedophelia, now you don't want to discuss it. I pwnd you by your own sources. So now we're "getting bogged down" in defining the word. That's hilarious.

Don't forget where this started. I quoted the DSM, you disagreed with their defintion. Then wiki (who was quoting the DSM) and the WHO agree with me.

My original assertion still stands, this discussion will be more meaningful if we can clearly define what we are disucssing. This is an emotionally charged issue.

^That.
yeah. i find that when there is a disagreement on the evils of pedophilia its because of a bad definition on someone's part.

the media and the feds seem to think that any sexual contact with a legal minor is pedophilia. thats just crazy. it is in no way sick to be very attracted to a 17 year old. (unwanted sexual contact and obsessive thoughts not included).

if you understand that its an attraction (etc) to children who havent yet reached puberty its far less likely that you will disagree that its wrong. (many people find that idea--being sexually attracted to 5 year olds so shocking that it never occurred to them that it would be part of the definition)

people who are attracted to those far younger than they are have problems but are not necessarily "sick".

the worst problems with that kind of thing is taken care of by the age of consent laws. its far too easy for a 25 year old to manipulate a 13 year old into an unwise sexual relationship.

That is true at current, but I think that could easily be avoided if adequate sexual education was put in place. If people understand what sex is from an early age, and any repocussions that can occur with having sex, then it wouldn't be easy for a 25 year old to manipulate a 13 year old into having sex. If sexual education was improved, then I feel the age of consent can be lowered, two 13 year olds who feel confident and mature enough to explore sexual contact with each other would then be allowed to do so, safe in the knowledge that they know what sex means and what it can do. After all, when things start changing, its only natural to explore what that can lead to, and it happens at the moment - the only difference is now when it happens, its done without anyone knowing so if something is wrong then they don't feel like they can tell anyone, thus ending up in things like STI's spreading and unwanted pregnancies.

That is true at current, but I think that could easily be avoided if adequate sexual education was put in place. If people understand what sex is from an early age, and any repocussions that can occur with having sex, then it wouldn't be easy for a 25 year old to manipulate a 13 year old into having sex. If sexual education was improved, then I feel the age of consent can be lowered, two 13 year olds who feel confident and mature enough to explore sexual contact with each other would then be allowed to do so, safe in the knowledge that they know what sex means and what it can do. After all, when things start changing, its only natural to explore what that can lead to, and it happens at the moment - the only difference is now when it happens, its done without anyone knowing so if something is wrong then they don't feel like they can tell anyone, thus ending up in things like STI's spreading and unwanted pregnancies.

its not really a matter of education although education certainly helps.

its a matter of brain development and maturity. that cant be taught. its biology. there will always be 25 year olds who want the easy score and unquestioning adoration of a 13 year old. there will always be 13 year olds who want to give it. having the possiblity of bringing law enforcement into it is sometimes the only leverage a parent has in the situation.

when it comes to 13 year olds being together...well...if they both start out as beginners they wont start at intercourse eh? (maybe some do, poor things) you start slow and work your way up over the course of an actual relationship. by the time you would be ready for some kind of sex you are probably long broken up. thats not manipulation its human nature.

You know what? just no. You're not reading my posts, so from now onwards, i'm not going to waste time replying when you just say the same point over and over and over and over and over again.
Don't worry, the previous posts speak for themselves. Everyone will see that I posted a defintion, you disagreed, you posted sources, I pwnt you with your own sources since they said exactly what I said, and then you wouldn't conceed that you were wrong.

yeah. i find that when there is a disagreement on the evils of pedophilia its because of a bad definition on someone's part.

the media and the feds seem to think that any sexual contact with a legal minor is pedophilia. thats just crazy. it is in no way sick to be very attracted to a 17 year old. (unwanted sexual contact and obsessive thoughts not included).

if you understand that its an attraction (etc) to children who havent yet reached puberty its far less likely that you will disagree that its wrong. (many people find that idea--being sexually attracted to 5 year olds so shocking that it never occurred to them that it would be part of the definition)
When it comes to teens, I think people's views will vary more than with children. It's a completely different relationship dynamic, and the question and debate seems to focus around whether or not there's an unfair balance of power.

When the discussion focuses around adults finding kids attractive, public opinion is near universal in condemnation. With good reason.

its not really a matter of education although education certainly helps.

its a matter of brain development and maturity. that cant be taught. its biology. there will always be 25 year olds who want the easy score and unquestioning adoration of a 13 year old. there will always be 13 year olds who want to give it. having the possiblity of bringing law enforcement into it is sometimes the only leverage a parent has in the situation.


I'm not sure you would find many 13 year olds who give unquestioning adoration to anyone, especially an adult, but I digress - I think the main problem is working out a time when the majority of people are mature enough, some people will be mature enough at 13 to make their own decisions, and involving the police would just make them more secretive and more likely to rebel against their parents and authority, and yet others at 13 are still totally immature and wouldn't cope well with a sexual relationship. I guess that in an ideal world, consent would be based on maturity, but in a realistic world an arbitary number needs to be set, be that 12, 16, 18 or whatever age has been decided upon by any given country.



when it comes to 13 year olds being together...well...if they both start out as beginners they wont start at intercourse eh? (maybe some do, poor things) you start slow and work your way up over the course of an actual relationship. by the time you would be ready for some kind of sex you are probably long broken up. thats not manipulation its human nature.

I think you'd be surprised how much some 13 years have done, and how many do actually form long-term relationships at that age. I know two of my closest friends first started going out at that age, and two and a half years later, they are still going out.

its not really a matter of education although education certainly helps.

its a matter of brain development and maturity. that cant be taught. its biology. there will always be 25 year olds who want the easy score and unquestioning adoration of a 13 year old. there will always be 13 year olds who want to give it. having the possiblity of bringing law enforcement into it is sometimes the only leverage a parent has in the situation.

when it comes to 13 year olds being together...well...if they both start out as beginners they wont start at intercourse eh? (maybe some do, poor things) you start slow and work your way up over the course of an actual relationship. by the time you would be ready for some kind of sex you are probably long broken up. thats not manipulation its human nature.

And don't forget, the prefrontal cortex (the part of our brain that manages our decision making) doesn't work correctly in the teen years. It's been shut down for remodeling (a process called "pruning"). So a teen quite literally isn't at the same place as a 25 year old.

Don't worry, the previous posts speak for themselves. Everyone will see that I posted a defintion, you disagreed, you posted sources, I pwnt you with your own sources since they said exactly what I said, and then you wouldn't conceed that you were wrong.



Lol. Just lol.


When it comes to teens, I think people's views will vary more than with children. It's a completely different relationship dynamic, and the question and debate seems to focus around whether or not there's an unfair balance of power.

When the discussion focuses around adults finding kids attractive, public opinion is near universal in condemnation. With good reason.

You say "with good reason", without stating any of what they are. At current I can't find where I read or heard this, but I am fairly certain that a study found that 90% of men have found themselves attracted to girls below the age of consent at some point. The figures were lower with females, and I can't remember them off the top of my head, but once I find them, i'll post them too.

Lol. Just lol.



You say "with good reason", without stating any of what they are. At current I can't find where I read or heard this, but I am fairly certain that a study found that 90% of men have found themselves attracted to girls below the age of consent at some point. The figures were lower with females, and I can't remember them off the top of my head, but once I find them, i'll post them too.
the age of consent is irrelevant (as you know)

its not wrong to be attracted to anyone who is past the age of puberty. its problematical to ONLY be attracted to those who are past puberty but still under the age of consent. but that is some other kind of psychological problem--and a bad one since everyone ages.

who has claimed that its is SICK to be attracted to a well formed 16 year old? some 13 year olds can easily pass for 18. how could it be wrong to find that person attractive?

its SICK to be sexually attracted to the undeveloped, hairless, innocent prepubescent child.

Lol. Just lol.
So where did you prove me wrong then? Hmmmm????


You say "with good reason", without stating any of what they are. At current I can't find where I read or heard this, but I am fairly certain that a study found that 90% of men have found themselves attracted to girls below the age of consent at some point. The figures were lower with females, and I can't remember them off the top of my head, but once I find them, i'll post them too.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I mean, I understand how an adult male (over the age of 18) could be attracted to a teen (13-18). Acting, depending on the age of both parties, would be the point of debate. By what you've written, I can only assume that they are talking about all girls under age 18. Which means a goodly deal of the men could have been attracted to a 17 y/o.

That, in my mind, is completely different than being attracted to a 5 y/o. Which is reprehensible.

If a person had expressed that he wanted to do terrorist acts eventhough he hasnt done it yet, the government would send HIS ASS TO GUANTANAMO!!!

WHY SHOULD PHEDOPHILES BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENT, AND BY THE WAY U HAVE SOME PREEEEETY SICK FRIENDS, AND ID KICK THEIRS AND URES ASS IF I EVER MEET U!!

FUCKING SICK CHILD MOLESTERS

If a person had expressed that he wanted to do terrorist acts eventhough he hasnt done it yet, the government would send HIS ASS TO GUANTANAMO!!!

WHY SHOULD PHEDOPHILES BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENT, AND BY THE WAY U HAVE SOME PREEEEETY SICK FRIENDS, AND ID KICK THEIRS AND URES ASS IF I EVER MEET U!!

FUCKING SICK CHILD MOLESTERS

bolding notwithstanding, thinking isnt the same as planning.

if everyone who ever THOUGHT of killing an american got put into jail, we would have to use australia as a holding pen.

So where did you prove me wrong then? Hmmmm????



I never set out to prove you wrong, as I have mentioned at least twice previously. What I said was that the defintion that we are talking about is merely attraction to Children, not a pedophilic act, which is another definition of the same word. Both are correct, but if you remember your initial post, you said pedophilia is disgusting, and that touching a child is never right. I simply replied by saying that when we say pedophilia is not a problem, we mean the thought is not a problem. I have agreed all along that the action most definately is a problem.



Perhaps I wasn't clear. I mean, I understand how an adult male (over the age of 18) could be attracted to a teen (13-18). Acting, depending on the age of both parties, would be the point of debate. By what you've written, I can only assume that they are talking about all girls under age 18. Which means a goodly deal of the men could have been attracted to a 17 y/o.

That, in my mind, is completely different than being attracted to a 5 y/o. That's just wrong.

Yes it is completely different, but I think a lot of confusion may have mounted over the various usages of words in this discussion. When I say children, I mean anyone aged below 16 (the age of consent for my country), so in that sense attraction when I say attraction to a child isn't bad, I can mean a 15 year old. But when you read that, you assume I mean a younger age, such as 5. Hence why we both disagree.

I don't think it is a problem to be attracted to someone who is going through puberty or past puberty. Being attracted to someone pre-puberty is not only wrong on moral grounds, its also wrong on biological grounds. I can understand an attraction to someone who is able to bear child, as that is how our bodies work, the attraction to someone unable to bear children, is however, bad for the body, as it would waste energy better used on someone who could have children.

I know that sounds very basic, but I tend to look on things in scientific terms rather than moral terms.

bolding notwithstanding, thinking isnt the same as planning.

if everyone who ever THOUGHT of killing an american got put into jail, we would have to use australia as a holding pen.

*agrees*. We tried that one anyway... it didn't work so well :(

Also, it would mean that I would have been imprisoned at the age of 5 or so, as I do remember regulary thinking "How awesome would it be to blow some place up, like America or something like that".

Being attracted to someone pre-puberty is not only wrong on moral grounds, its also wrong on biological grounds.

How can a feeling or thought you are unable to control be described as morally wrong?

Am I the only one who has heard the saying "Pedophilia is the spice of life" ?

Am I the only one who has heard the saying "Pedophilia is the spice of life" ?
yes you are

How can a feeling or thought you are unable to control be described as morally wrong?

sorry i'll clarify that, the majority of people would consider it morally wrong.

And I think you can quite easily, you can think of something and be disgusted at yourself for thinking of it.

yes you are

That's too bad.. Now I'm going to have to make some T-shirts with that saying on it. Spread the love nationwide.

That's too bad.. Now I'm going to have to make some T-shirts with that saying on it. Spread the love nationwide.
yeah i can imagine that a shirt that marks the wearer as a child molestor will be an excellent seller.

yeah i can imagine that a shirt that marks the wearer as a child molestor will be an excellent seller.

Especially in prison.

I never set out to prove you wrong, as I have mentioned at least twice previously. What I said was that the defintion that we are talking about is merely attraction to Children, not a pedophilic act, which is another definition of the same word. Both are correct, but if you remember your initial post, you said pedophilia is disgusting, and that touching a child is never right. I simply replied by saying that when we say pedophilia is not a problem, we mean the thought is not a problem. I have agreed all along that the action most definately is a problem.



Yes it is completely different, but I think a lot of confusion may have mounted over the various usages of words in this discussion. When I say children, I mean anyone aged below 16 (the age of consent for my country), so in that sense attraction when I say attraction to a child isn't bad, I can mean a 15 year old. But when you read that, you assume I mean a younger age, such as 5. Hence why we both disagree.

I don't think it is a problem to be attracted to someone who is going through puberty or past puberty. Being attracted to someone pre-puberty is not only wrong on moral grounds, its also wrong on biological grounds. I can understand an attraction to someone who is able to bear child, as that is how our bodies work, the attraction to someone unable to bear children, is however, bad for the body, as it would waste energy better used on someone who could have children.

I know that sounds very basic, but I tend to look on things in scientific terms rather than moral terms.

A) That's not scientific. B) So homosexuality is biologically wrong according to you?

A) The whole purpose of our existance is to reproduce. On the assumption that attraction to small children would lead to attempts to reproduce with them, and that then failing, it is a failure of our purpose. If you assume the purpose of life is scientific in the sense of repoduction, then we do fail in terms of science.

B) In terms of being purely homosexual, then biologically we should try and eliminate it as prevents us from repoducing. So the short answer is yes.

I never set out to prove you wrong, as I have mentioned at least twice previously. What I said was that the defintion that we are talking about is merely attraction to Children, not a pedophilic act, which is another definition of the same word.
I never talked about just the act. Did you even read my initial post?

Both are correct, but if you remember your initial post, you said pedophilia is disgusting, and that touching a child is never right.
That had nothing to do with the definition and wasn't at all in the post that started this debate:
DSM-IV-TR states that the persona had either acted on these urges or they are causing marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. So we aren't jsut talking about people that fantasize, are happy with their fantasies, and never touch a child.
I simply replied by saying that when we say pedophilia is not a problem, we mean the thought is not a problem. I have agreed all along that the action most definately is a problem.
Which wasn't the converstation we were having. It might have been a convo you were having with someone else.


Yes it is completely different, but I think a lot of confusion may have mounted over the various usages of words in this discussion. When I say children, I mean anyone aged below 16 (the age of consent for my country), so in that sense attraction when I say attraction to a child isn't bad, I can mean a 15 year old. But when you read that, you assume I mean a younger age, such as 5. Hence why we both disagree.
Right, when I say child, I mean a person who hasn't hit puberty. And I'm not talking about a 13 y/o who thinks an 11 y/o is attractive when I express my disdain.

I don't think it is a problem to be attracted to someone who is going through puberty or past puberty. Being attracted to someone pre-puberty is not only wrong on moral grounds, its also wrong on biological grounds. I can understand an attraction to someone who is able to bear child, as that is how our bodies work, the attraction to someone unable to bear children, is however, bad for the body, as it would waste energy better used on someone who could have children.
Post-puberty is a matter of debate, and in my mind there are many factors I use to determine the "rightness" of a relationship. An 18 y/o and a 16 y/o isn't a problem in my mind, where a 35 y/o and a 14 y/o is a huge problem. I still wouldn't call the 35 y/o a paedophile, a sex offender, or scumbag (again, if he or she is acting and not jsut fantasizing.)


I know that sounds very basic, but I tend to look on things in scientific terms rather than moral terms.

There's always more than one perspective.

A) The whole purpose of our existance is to reproduce.

Nonsense, naturalistic fallacy, subjective etc...


B) In terms of being purely homosexual, then biologically we should try and eliminate it as prevents us from repoducing. So the short answer is yes.

Humanity does not need to reproduce any more, and according to some the world is over populated (I don't quite agree but that's neither here no there), so perhaps homosexuality is actually a benefit in this regard.

A) The whole purpose of our existance is to reproduce. On the assumption that attraction to small children would lead to attempts to reproduce with them, and that then failing, it is a failure of our purpose. If you assume the purpose of life is scientific in the sense of repoduction, then we do fail in terms of science.

B) In terms of being purely homosexual, then biologically we should try and eliminate it as prevents us from repoducing. So the short answer is yes.

Not to take this to far off track, but what about heterosexual people who are sterilized? Wouldn't that be the same as homosexuality (as far as reproductive value?)

Also, the drive to procreate is a seperate drive than the drive to have sex. Why would we evolve to have those two drives be seperate if one is biologically wrong (if I'm understanding you)?

If this turns into too far of a side discussion, might I suggest starting a new thread?

I never talked about just the act. Did you even read my initial post?


Your initial post was a reply to mine that was a reply to someone who said pedophiles are disgusting because they touch small children. So effectively, their initial post was yours. I replied saying that we are not talking about that type of pedophile, but the type of pedophile who is simply attracted to children rather than touches or does anything with them.



That had nothing to do with the definition and wasn't at all in the post that started this debate:


You've just gone ahead and taken this quote out of context, you can't read this bit of my post and not read the remainder of the paragraph which relates to it.

I will repeat, one final time - I am using the most common association of the word pedophile - meaning - A person who is attracted to children under the age of consent.. This may not be the technically accurate definition, but it is the one used by the majority of people and everyone else in this thread.


Which wasn't the converstation we were having. It might have been a convo you were having with someone else.



It's all part of the same conversation when it comes down to it.


Right, when I say child, I mean a person who hasn't hit puberty. And I'm not talking about a 13 y/o who thinks an 11 y/o is attractive when I express my disdain.


Now I know that, but the problem is things like this can waste a whole page of discussion because we are not talking about the same thing. Though I would be interested to know what you call someone once they have hit puberty?



Post-puberty is a matter of debate, and in my mind there are many factors I use to determine the "rightness" of a relationship. An 18 y/o and a 16 y/o isn't a problem in my mind, where a 35 y/o and a 14 y/o is a huge problem. I still wouldn't call the 35 y/o a paedophile, a sex offender, or scumbag (again, if he or she is acting and not jsut fantasizing.)



The whole topic is a matter of debate, it may not be in your opinion, but thats not all that counts.

Would I be right in saying you wouldn't mind a relationship between say, a 15 year old and a 14 year old, but you do mind one between a 35 year old and a 14 year old? If so, i'd like to know your reasons behind that.


There's always more than one perspective.

Morality is specific to each person. To a pedophile being a pedophile is morally acceptable or they wouldn't be one (or at least would be seeking help). As it is unique to each person, they have to have a right to do what they want so long as it doesn't affect other people, so fantasing about pre-pubescant children is fine so long as it doesn't affect anyone else.

That is primarly why I discounted other perspectives, as they are nearly all different for different people, but no-one can deny the fact that biologically having sex with a pre-pubescant child is not a good idea.

Not to take this to far off track, but what about heterosexual people who are sterilized? Wouldn't that be the same as homosexuality (as far as reproductive value?)

Also, the drive to procreate is a seperate drive than the drive to have sex. Why would we evolve to have those two drives be seperate if one is biologically wrong (if I'm understanding you)?

If this turns into too far of a side discussion, might I suggest starting a new thread?

well, sterilisation is not biological, nature doesn't sterilise us naturally. So thats different to homosexuality in that sense. (assuming you accept that some people are born homosexual and are not made homosexual).

About the sex and procreation having different drives, i'm not sure about this because I don't really know much about it. Though sex is a good way to keep two people together, so it may act as a bond, similar to love.

Nonsense, naturalistic fallacy, subjective etc...


Well, thats what cells do, they reproduce, then they gather up into bigger bundles and work together to increase the chance of survival. Thats what it comes down to in the long run, but please correct me on that if you think otherwise.


Humanity does not need to reproduce any more, and according to some the world is over populated (I don't quite agree but that's neither here no there), so perhaps homosexuality is actually a benefit in this regard.

Oh I would agree on that, we do already have too many people, and in that sense homosexuality is a benefit. I feel its important to note that I don't have anything against homosexuals, its just in terms of reproduction it doesn't make sense.

Your initial post was a reply to mine that was a reply to someone who said pedophiles are disgusting because they touch small children. So effectively, their initial post was yours. I replied saying that we are not talking about that type of pedophile, but the type of pedophile who is simply attracted to children rather than touches or does anything with them.
Which post? To whom? I quoted the one that started this discussion.


You've just gone ahead and taken this quote out of context, you can't read this bit of my post and not read the remainder of the paragraph which relates to it.
Seems like you're taking my entire argument out of context.

I will repeat, one final time - I am using the most common association of the word pedophile - meaning - A person who is attracted to children under the age of consent.. This may not be the technically accurate definition, but it is the one used by the majority of people and everyone else in this thread.
But not the WHO, as you claimed.

It's all part of the same conversation when it comes down to it.
Not sure what you're getting at, so:
A. I can't be held accountable for other poster's views.

B. If you are going to start a converstation about a reply I made to another poster, kindly quote me and respond. Don't just randomly drag things into a debate we were having about something else entirely.

Now I know that, but the problem is things like this can waste a whole page of discussion because we are not talking about the same thing. Though I would be interested to know what you call someone once they have hit puberty?
What I call someone who has hit puberty or someone attracted so someone who's hit puberty?


The whole topic is a matter of debate, it may not be in your opinion, but thats not all that counts.
I have no idea what you're talking about.

Would I be right in saying you wouldn't mind a relationship between say, a 15 year old and a 14 year old, but you do mind one between a 35 year old and a 14 year old? If so, i'd like to know your reasons behind that.
The balance of power, the fact that a 14 y/o brain is not the same as a 35 y/o brain by orders of magnitude. I mean, if there's a study that comes out that shows there's no detriment in these relatioships, then I'll revisit my stance. Until then, the overwhelming evidence suggests these are very damaging.

Morality is specific to each person. To a pedophile being a pedophile is morally acceptable or they wouldn't be one (or at least would be seeking help).
Or there's a comorbid psychiatirc condition. Sociopathy to name one.

As it is unique to each person, they have to have a right to do what they want so long as it doesn't affect other people, so fantasing about pre-pubescant children is fine so long as it doesn't affect anyone else.
And as long as it doesn't cause them marked distress or interpersonal problems. As the DSM says. People that keep it in their head in a non-intrusive way aren't the folks that are diagnosed paedophiles. They have an interest, they understand they can't act it out in the real world, and it's not causing them emotional distress. That's not a paedophile for diagnostic puroses. If you want to label those folks such, whatever. That's not the population I have a problem with.

That is primarly why I discounted other perspectives, as they are nearly all different for different people, but no-one can deny the fact that biologically having sex with a pre-pubescant child is not a good idea.
Or psychologically.

well, sterilisation is not biological, nature doesn't sterilise us naturally. So thats different to homosexuality in that sense. (assuming you accept that some people are born homosexual and are not made homosexual).
Homosexuality exists in almost every species, it has to serve a purpose, otherwise the genes would have disappeared long ago.

About the sex and procreation having different drives, i'm not sure about this because I don't really know much about it. Though sex is a good way to keep two people together, so it may act as a bond, similar to love.
They are two seperate and distinct drives. Men, by and large, don't have the drive for procreation. It's extremely common for a woman to literally have "baby cravings." This is something most men don't experience.

Now, I'm giving a few examples to keep this derailment short, so this is a highly abbreviated version. And yes there are women who don't have the procration drive and men that do. But generally, that's the way the hardware is designed.

Well, thats what cells do, they reproduce, then they gather up into bigger bundles and work together to increase the chance of survival. Thats what it comes down to in the long run, but please correct me on that if you think otherwise.


Just because they do it doesn't mean they have a purpose, the only way to have a purpose is to be created, I don't believe in a God so I don't believe we have any purpose to life. And that's not even considering the fact that not 'fulfilling your purpose' is not a reason to label something wrong.


Oh I would agree on that, we do already have too many people, and in that sense homosexuality is a benefit. I feel its important to note that I don't have anything against homosexuals, its just in terms of reproduction it doesn't make sense.

So?

Homosexuality exists in almost every species, it has to serve a purpose, otherwise the genes would have disappeared long ago.


Homosexuality tends to be used as a bonding mechanism between members of social species.

That being said, I'm not sure if Homosexuality is really an inheritable trait from mother to child; it may have different genes for female homosexuality verses male homosexuality.

Which post? To whom? I quoted the one that started this discussion.



Seems like you're taking my entire argument out of context.


But not the WHO, as you claimed.


Not sure what you're getting at, so:
A. I can't be held accountable for other poster's views.

B. If you are going to start a converstation about a reply I made to another poster, kindly quote me and respond. Don't just randomly drag things into a debate we were having about something else entirely.



I give up on your lack of ability to read. Go see the top of page 28. Thats when I started talking to you.



What I call someone who has hit puberty or someone attracted so someone who's hit puberty?

Just simply what you call someone who has hit puberty.



I have no idea what you're talking about.



The post I quoted. You can't simply say that one thing is up for debate, while implying that the other isn't:


Post-puberty is a matter of debate, and in my mind there are many factors I use to determine the "rightness" of a relationship.




The balance of power, the fact that a 14 y/o brain is not the same as a 35 y/o brain by orders of magnitude. I mean, if there's a study that comes out that shows there's no detriment in these relatioships, then I'll revisit my stance. Until then, the overwhelming evidence suggests these are very damaging.


You can't use orders of magnititude when comparing brains because they aren't numbers. They are different yes, but then everyones are different. These studys which you keep quoting will have found that in some cases it can have a detrimental effect. Sometimes it may have a positive effect, its down to the two people involved to be mature enough to decide what they want for themselves.



Or there's a comorbid psychiatirc condition. Sociopathy to name one.



True.



And as long as it doesn't cause them marked distress or interpersonal problems. As the DSM says. People that keep it in their head in a non-intrusive way aren't the folks that are diagnosed paedophiles. They have an interest, they understand they can't act it out in the real world, and it's not causing them emotional distress. That's not a paedophile for diagnostic puroses. If you want to label those folks such, whatever. That's not the population I have a problem with.



Agreed for once.




Or psychologically.

Most of the time yes, it probably does have a negative effect.

Homosexuality exists in almost every species, it has to serve a purpose, otherwise the genes would have disappeared long ago.


You have an appendix right? Thats useless to us, and yet we still have it.



They are two seperate and distinct drives. Men, by and large, don't have the drive for procreation. It's extremely common for a woman to literally have "baby cravings." This is something most men don't experience.

Now, I'm giving a few examples to keep this derailment short, so this is a highly abbreviated version. And yes there are women who don't have the procration drive and men that do. But generally, that's the way the hardware is designed.

I think that could possibly be to do with the men needing to be ready to have sex with anyone when the oportunity arises - a constant urge to have sex would mean that if they come across a female who is fertile they would get impregnanted, even if it wasn't intentional by the male.

Females would have the procreation drive when they are most fertile and healthy (I assume), indicating to them the ideal time to get pregnant.

Just because they do it doesn't mean they have a purpose, the only way to have a purpose is to be created, I don't believe in a God so I don't believe we have any purpose to life. And that's not even considering the fact that not 'fulfilling your purpose' is not a reason to label something wrong.


Maybe purpose is the wrong word, but instead I should have said designed for. Cells are designed to function and reproduce (at the most basic of levels). Homosexuality means they will eventually fail at this.


So?

You made a statement and I replied agreeing to it, and stating why. There is no so.

Maybe purpose is the wrong word, but instead I should have said designed for. Cells are designed to function and reproduce (at the most basic of levels). Homosexuality means they will eventually fail at this.


And explain why not doing what you are designed to do is wrong... Otherwise calling homosexuality wrong was just an error on your part.

And explain why not doing what you are designed to do is wrong... Otherwise calling homosexuality wrong was just an error on your part.

I never called homosexuality wrong... I said it doesn't make sense biologically. Biologically speaking, sucess is reproducing and creating offspring with my genes. If I do not repoduce, then biologically wise, I have failed in my primary purpose.

Homosexuality tends to be used as a bonding mechanism between members of social species.
That would certainly make sense. Too bad it's had the exact opposite effect in the human species.

That being said, I'm not sure if Homosexuality is really an inheritable trait from mother to child; it may have different genes for female homosexuality verses male homosexuality.
While female vs male homosexuality might have different orgins, there's mre than enough correlations to prove male homosexuality (at a minimum) is biologically based. What genes and how is yet to be determined.

I give up on your lack of ability to read. Go see the top of page 28. Thats when I started talking to you.
I'm on page 12, post numbers are most helpful in a forum where everyone can choose how many posts to a page.


Just simply what you call someone who has hit puberty.
An adolecent.


The post I quoted. You can't simply say that one thing is up for debate, while implying that the other isn't:

I never said that screwing a 5 y/o wasn't up for debate. I said there wouldn't be much debate. As you've admitted.



You can't use orders of magnititude when comparing brains because they aren't numbers. They are different yes, but then everyones are different. These studys which you keep quoting will have found that in some cases it can have a detrimental effect. Sometimes it may have a positive effect, its down to the two people involved to be mature enough to decide what they want for themselves.
An adolecent's prefrontal cortex is essentially shut down for pruning. That's the part of our brain that governs rational decision making. It doesn't work the same as adults. The brain literally funtcions different.

And where are your studies?


True.




Agreed for once.

:wink:

Most of the time yes, it probably does have a negative effect.
So we can also agree that sex with children (humans who have yet to reach puberty) is also a very bad thing?

I'm on page 12, post numbers are most helpful in a forum where everyone can choose how many posts to a page.

406 onwards. Sorry i'm fairly new to the forum, wasn't aware that settings could be changed.


An adolecent.

I hadn't thought of that, but still it seems a little vague really, where does childhood stop and adolecence start?


I never said that screwing a 5 y/o wasn't up for debate. I said there wouldn't be much debate. As you've admitted.


It was implied, you didn't actually mention anything about a debate to do with children, you stated that there is a debate for adolecents.



An adolecent's prefrontal cortex is essentially shut down for pruning. That's the part of our brain that governs rational decision making. It doesn't work the same as adults. The brain literally funtcions different.


I've looking up you synaptic pruning, and I can't find anywhere it states that the brain is shut down at all during this pruning. And of course the brain functions differently, everyones brain works in different ways. I'm merely saying that if it is done in the right way, it doesn't have to be harmfull.


And where are your studies?


Common sense tells me that if its done by a mature 14 year old who knows what is happening and is in love with the 35 year old, then it can work fine and not cause any long term damage. Plus, i'm sure I can find a study that has a less than 100% damage rating on children who have had relationships with adults.



So we can also agree that sex with children (humans who have yet to reach puberty) is also a very bad thing?

... yes... i've said this all along, which you would know if you've been reading my posts.

406 onwards. Sorry i'm fairly new to the forum, wasn't aware that settings could be changed.
Thanks, I'll go back and investigate.


I hadn't thought of that, but still it seems a little vague really, where does childhood stop and adolecence start?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_(biology)
^That's how I measure it.


It was implied, you didn't actually mention anything about a debate to do with children, you stated that there is a debate for adolecents.
Adolecents, yes. Which seems to be what this thread has evolved into. Everyone involved in the current debate seems to agree that adult sex with pre-adolecents isn't okay.



I've looking up you synaptic pruning, and I can't find anywhere it states that the brain is shut down at all during this pruning. And of course the brain functions differently, everyones brain works in different ways. I'm merely saying that if it is done in the right way, it doesn't have to be harmfull.

It's there in the techinical (and mostly fee-for-viewing) sites. And literally shut down, no. "Closed for repair" is the analogy I'm trying to get at. And yes, it's over simplified.

You're trying to jump in at the deep end without really knowing how to swim.

This is an abstract on the prefrontal cortex's role in decision making (a.k.a. executive function) http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1217780.1217801&coll=&dl=acm

Here's a few articles that hit the point indirectly, but might be easier to digest:
http://www.sadd.org/oped/short.htm
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=2923.3490.88.0 <mentions that teens use the back of their brain more than the prefrontal cortex.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec04/brain_10-13.html <Another rudimentary overview of how teen brains function differently.

Common sense tells me that if its done by a mature 14 year old who knows what is happening and is in love with the 35 year old, then it can work fine and not cause any long term damage. Plus, i'm sure I can find a study that has a less than 100% damage rating on children who have had relationships with adults.

Once again, they literally have two very different brains. It's not the same as saying "eveyone is a little different." Teens literally use their brain differently than adults and that primarily affects their executive funtion.


... yes... i've said this all along, which you would know if you've been reading my posts.

Hey, I wasn't the one who rehashed that point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_(biology)
^That's how I measure it.


Sounds good to me, though I never knew that :- Death (occurs at various ages, depending on person) :)


It's there in the techinical (and mostly fee-for-viewing) sites. And literally shut down, no. "Closed for repair" is the analogy I'm trying to get at. And yes, it's over simplified.

You're trying to jump in at the deep end without really knowing how to swim.

This is an abstract on the prefrontal cortex's role in decision making (a.k.a. executive function) http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1217780.1217801&coll=&dl=acm

Here's a few articles that hit the point indirectly, but might be easier to digest:
http://www.sadd.org/oped/short.htm
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=2923.3490.88.0 <mentions that teens use the back of their brain more than the prefrontal cortex.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/july-dec04/brain_10-13.html <Another rudimentary overview of how teen brains function differently.

Once again, they literally have two very different brains. It's not the same as saying "eveyone is a little different." Teens literally use their brain differently than adults and that primarily affects their executive funtion.



The brains don't have to be the same for a reasonable and beneficial relationship to form. I profress pretty much total ignorance on the topic, apart from my own personal experience, so i'm not going to try and argue any real points on it.

Rubgish, this is the post that started it all according to you. That wasn't me.
Pedophilia and statutory really does harm people. Small children being raped is not harmless.

You responded to him, and I stated:
DSM-IV-TR states that the person had either acted on these urges or they are causing marked distress or interpersonal difficulty. So we aren't jsut talking about people that fantasize, are happy with their fantasies, and never touch a child.
I never called those people disgusting, like you claimed I did.

A few posts down you state:
According to the DSM, pedophilia is a form of paraphilia in which a person either has acted on intense sexual urges towards children, or experiences recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about children that cause distress or interpersonal difficulty. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)

Defeated by your own source, it means both, which I stated earlier.

Also, I fail to see how my spelling is 100% American, you've seen nothing like enough of my writing to say that. The two things that come to mind immediately are colour and doughnut, both of which I use the english spelling for. My spelling in general isn't great, never has been and never will be, but its accurate enough for people to get my point.
Which is basically verbatim what I said.

Any discussion you were having about the disgusting nature of paedophelia wasn't with me. Until these last few posts, we've only been discussing the defintion.

Bolded, mine, of course.

Sounds good to me, though I never knew that :- Death (occurs at various ages, depending on person) :)
I found that amusing myself.:P


The brains don't have to be the same for a reasonable and beneficial relationship to form. I profress pretty much total ignorance on the topic, apart from my own personal experience, so i'm not going to try and argue any real points on it.

Yeah, it's pretty dense material and a complex subject. I applaud you for taking the effort to try to research it.

That would certainly make sense. Too bad it's had the exact opposite effect in the human species.
It didn't use too; it's sort of like public nudity in someways, our 'hate' of homosexuality has to do more with religion.


While female vs male homosexuality might have different orgins, there's mre than enough correlations to prove male homosexuality (at a minimum) is biologically based. What genes and how is yet to be determined.


Well I don't think there has been any studies on whether or not the child of a gay man, and a lesbian woman produces homosexuality in the offspring, which is why I said that.

You know, I've been staying out of this thread so far. There's generally been a pretty good discussion going, even if we have had people talking at cross purposes for the last few pages. But apart from that, it's been okay.

Except for the occasional poster like this.

If a person had expressed that he wanted to do terrorist acts even though he hasn't done it yet, the government would send HIS ASS TO GUANTANAMO!!!

WHY SHOULD PHEDOPHILES BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENT, AND BY THE WAY U HAVE SOME PREEEEETY SICK FRIENDS, AND ID KICK THEIRS AND URES ASS IF I EVER MEET U!!

FUCKING SICK CHILD MOLESTERS

So, if you'll permit me, I'd like to kick this guy's ass.

So, CheGuevaristan, in no particular order, you made the following mistakes in this post. Firstly, you threatened violence on another poster. That's actually forbidden under the forum rules, although I suppose we'll let that slide. It might also help if you learned about spelling and punctuation, and I suppose grammar would be useful. Finally, please don't shout so much.

With that out of the way, onto the content of your post. You make the mistake of assuming that any of us agree with the (US) government's policy with regard to "terrorists". I, for one, don't. I think that sending people off to prison camps with no trial, for merely speaking, is a travesty, immoral, and contradictory to the founding principles of any nation that claims to be free. Basically, your argument there fails because we don't agree with the government's actions.

Now, you also make the classic error of confusing paedophilia with child molestation. I'll just take a moment here and define my terms. By paedophilia, I mean experiencing attraction to young children, not necessarily acting on those urges. Child molestation, on the other hand, refers to having sexual contact with a young child. It is incredibly important to any discussion of these issues not to confuse the two, otherwise we get all sorts of emotional baggage carried into things where it doesn't belong.

So then. Having established that one cannot assume all paedophiles are child molesters (and the reverse --- not all child molesters are paedophiles), what can we conclude about how to treat paedophiles? Firstly, there is no way a nation that calls itself 'just' can justify imprisoning people for thoughts alone. It doesn't matter how abhorrent we consider these thoughts, how sick we consider those who hold them, how much we dislike their ideas and desires, we simply cannot call ourselves 'free' if we do so.

Now, I hope we can agree that, however evil and twisted we think their desires are, we can't punish them merely for thoughts. If we cannot employ the law there, how should society as a whole treat such people? Is exclusion the answer? Maybe they should be made to wear stars on their coats, or funny hats. Well, I can't speak for society as a whole here. But just for me. I'm a Christian, and one of the fundamental commandments of my religion is "Love your enemies". That doesn't refer just to the people I like, or the people I approve of. That's everyone, and (unfortunately) includes paedophiles. I don't like what they think. I don't approve of what they think. But I feel that the way to treat them is with love and acceptance, saying "I don't like what you think, but I still recognise you as a human being, as someone who is a part of society and needs to be accepted by that society".

However, don't assume that means I am saying that one must accept or include child molesters. There we as a society are, I feel, justified in saying "We cannot trust you to live with us and not harm us as a society, so we are going to remove you from us for a time". Also don't assume I'm saying that, if I had kids, I would necessarily approve of leaving them alone with someone I knew to be a paedophile. I would probably keep a closer eye on things, and not do so --- that is simply a sensible precaution. But advocating vigilante justice and pre-emptive imprisonment, no matter how sickening I feel their feelings are, is something I consider worse than those urges. I would be more proud to associate with someone who has paedophilic urges* than with someone who calls for vigilante 'justice' and such abuses of fair process as you have done.

Incidentally, paedophilia does seem likely to be a psychological disorder, and I would definitely recommend that any one of my friends who confessed to feeling that way that they see professional help. However, I don't feel that should be compulsory either, and I hope I would have the strength to stand alongside them and support them, given what our society seems to think is appropriate. Dealing with such feelings is likely traumatic enough already, without one's friends and family disowning you over it.

So, in what is, I suppose, some sort of conclusion. Paedophilia does not equal chld molestation, and assuming that a defense of the rights of one equates to a defense of the rights of another is a logical fallacy. However, as long as someone's thoughts are merely in their head, and not acted upon, I cannot call for their imprisonment or destruction, no matter how evil I think their thoughts are. going down the road of banning certain modes of thought is one we must never travel, else the very foundations of our society are threatened.

Finally, and with all due respect, could you please leave NS and never come back? Unless you're willing to learn how to express yourself politely and coherently, to defend your position, and to not threaten other posters, I don't want you around on this forum. You have the right to your opinions, but I have the right not to have to put up with your childish rantings, so please leave unless you're going to shape up. Thanks!

*Again, this does not equal child molestation. However, my religion again demands that I love my enemies, and this (really unfortunately) also includes child molesters. Again, I disagree completely with their actions, but I must recognise their humanity and not overreact.

Rubgish, this is the post that started it all according to you. That wasn't me.


You responded to him, and I stated:

I never called those people disgusting, like you claimed I did.

A few posts down you state:

Which is basically verbatim what I said.

Any discussion you were having about the disgusting nature of paedophelia wasn't with me. Until these last few posts, we've only been discussing the defintion.

Bolded, mine, of course.

Whoever is right, its fairly unimportant, as we agree on nearly everything (excluding slight differents in relationships during puberty), its just we dislike each others definitions :)

Whoever is right, its fairly unimportant, as we agree on nearly everything (excluding slight differents in relationships during puberty), its just we dislike each others definitions :)

Interestingly, you've actually both cited exactly the same definition. But that's possibly beside the point.

Yeah, it's pretty dense material and a complex subject. I applaud you for taking the effort to try to research it.

If it was something i'm interested in, i'd probably spend more time looking at it, but i'm more into chemistry and physics than biology (hence I'm taking them at A level and not biology.)

Interestingly, you've actually both cited exactly the same definition. But that's possibly beside the point.

I cited several different ones in the end, quoting the same one was a mistake on my part :) It varies anyway, just like good old nature (and all the arguements that went with that).

That is true at current, but I think that could easily be avoided if adequate sexual education was put in place. If people understand what sex is from an early age, and any repocussions that can occur with having sex, then it wouldn't be easy for a 25 year old to manipulate a 13 year old into having sex.

I have to disagree with you, given that plenty of teenagers do stupid shit just because their buddies dare them or tell them they are pussies if they don't.

No. If a teenager is often unable to make a rational informed choice concerning oh, drinking and driving, or the wisdom of unprotected sex, or binge drinking, what makes you think a thirteen year old -- whose emotional and logical thinking are that much MORE impaired and impressionable -- will be able to handle adult decisions?

C-C-C-C-Combo breaker. I mean, eh... As it has been said before, the quantity of kids around people, your friend's fantasies, not only of pedophilia, but also of raping cousins ($5 bucks s/he is underage) and the legality of having sexual intercourse with beings not able to give consent, as well as destroying completely their psyche, makes your friends ticking bombs. I would not see them different, mainly because I'm almost 18, and I look like 19, but if I had a child, a cousin or something like that, he wouldn't even know.

I never called homosexuality wrong...

"B) In terms of being purely homosexual, then biologically we should try and eliminate it as prevents us from repoducing. So the short answer is yes."

This is in response to Jocabia asking if homosexuality was wrong.

CheGuevaristan[/i], in no particular order, you made the following mistakes in this post. Firstly, you threatened violence on another poster. That's actually forbidden under the forum rules, although I suppose we'll let that slide. It might also help if you learned about spelling and punctuation, and I suppose grammar would be useful. Finally, please don't shout so much.

Expect a number of hit and runners. Someone decided to go report to Jolt that the discussion wasn't shut down immediately.

"B) In terms of being purely homosexual, then biologically we should try and eliminate it as prevents us from repoducing. So the short answer is yes."

This is in response to Jocabia asking if homosexuality was wrong.

Jocabia asked if homosexuality was wrong in terms of what I defined as being the biological purpose of life. As I had previously stated that the purpose of life is to reproduce, and homosexuality does not cause reproduction, then biologically speaking, homosexuality is bad.

As I posted in a later post, that in no-way means that I personally find homosexuality wrong, but just that according to that part of the arguement it is.

Expect a number of hit and runners. Someone decided to go report to Jolt that the discussion wasn't shut down immediately.

Ah well. I got the chance to pontificate and shout at a newbie, so I'm happy now. Just to clarify: I recall it being against the rules to threaten another poster. That is the case, isn't it?

Ah well. I got the chance to pontificate and shout at a newbie, so I'm happy now. Just to clarify: I recall it being against the rules to threaten another poster. That is the case, isn't it?

It is. I'd be surprised if we see another post from the guy, though.

Ah well. I got the chance to pontificate and shout at a newbie, so I'm happy now.

yeah but way to waste a most excellent post on someone who'll neither read it nor understand it.

Aye, but we can admire a logical well-crafted response, which was a good deal more than was deserved.

yeah but way to waste a most excellent post on someone who'll neither read it nor understand it.

That's alright. If there's one thing both NSG and formal debating has taught me, it's that you're very unlikely to change the opinions of your opponents. I'm normally arguing with my opponents, for the opinions of the audience.

It's the people who aren't involved in the debate, who are just reading and thinking about it, that my posts are looking to convince. A good debate presents the various positions to them, and lets them make up their mind about the best one.

Looking at it like that, I don't care if there's never a response to that post. I've put out my opinions and my position, I've hopefully spoken convincingly in its defense, and I'm looking to win over the minds of the audience, not my fellow debaters. As long as it's a most excellent post, I'm happy.

Edit: I'm not quite happy with how I've put the last paragraph there. Here's another try at it.

I debate here for two reasons. The first is the thrill of the argument, of trading logical and rhetorical points and phrases with other posters. I find that immensely enjoyable, and a good way to sharpen my own ability. From that side of things, it was a wasted post. However, there is a second reason, and that is for the hearts and minds of the audience. Looking at it like that, I think that post has done exactly what I wanted it to. It presented my position, made my case for it, and has hopefully influenced some of the readers here. For that reason, I'm happy with it.