# Cesario, you're awfully sanctimonious for a pedophile **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 29, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973 "2009-09-29T14:48:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 34
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/662 "2009-10-11T18:27:48Z")
**Mr Dibble** All children are sexual to some extent, but as I stated earlier, they tend naturally to explore this sexuality, such as it is, with their peers–a level playing field for the most part (slight age differences and strength of personality no doubt play a part). Children have no choice but to trust adults–all adults, and indeed must be taught to NOT trust adults by the very adults they trust most. The pleasure they may or may not receive at the hands of an adult is no defense for the abuse of that trust. Rape victims have been known to orgasm–that does not make the rape any less a violation. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Why does the “playing field” have to be “level” for something to be consensual? You’re asserting by implication that all adults are immediately in a coercive position over all children, something I don’t agree with. All adults aren’t in a coercive position over all children? You honestly believe that? Go ask a kid what she is supposed to do if an adult tells her to do something. All societies have adults as the authority figures over children–and authority brings with it coercion, even of the most loving kind. Please share the anecdotes about how you stood up to Mr Johnson down the street or how your friend Susie refused to get into that stranger’s car, or how your son would never, ever mind another adult–not his teachers, neighbors, aunts, store clerks, coaches etc. I’d like to hear them. > [@](#): > > Oh, and this?..is just appeal to emotion writ large. I swear I could hear the violins… I hope you do. It is emotional. It should be emotional. Children are not an exercise in logic or “intellectual” circle jerking. They are people who need guidance, teaching, support and love. You as an adult, whether you have kids or not, have a duty to all children to ensure their safety and future–which is why societies as a whole support families, schools, laws. You hope to be as derisive and dismissive as you can be in the hopes that your snark can undermine my argument. But there is no argument,\*\* Mr Dibble\*\*-you are defending the indefensible. Unlike **supergoose** , you seem to be advocating for **Cesario’s** position. Is it for the pleasure of attempting to knock me down or is there something else in play here? No snark, just asking. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/663 "2009-10-11T20:04:32Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > **Mr Dibble** > All children are sexual to some extent, but as I stated earlier, they tend **naturally** to explore this sexuality, such as it is, with their peers Cite? For the bit I bolded, I mean. > [@](#): > > All adults aren’t in a coercive position over all children? You honestly believe that? Yes, I do > [@](#): > > Go ask a kid what she is supposed to do if an adult tells her to do something. Wait a second… “Unles it’s mommy or daddy, grannie or granpa, [teacher’s name] or [doctor’s name], or a pleesmin, I mustn’t do anything they say” was the response. > [@](#): > > Please share the anecdotes about how you stood up to Mr Johnson down the street or how your friend Susie refused to get into that stranger’s car, or how your son would never, ever mind another adult–not his teachers, neighbors, aunts, store clerks, coaches etc. I’d like to hear them. I kicked a flasher in the knees once, does that count? > [@](#): > > I hope you do. It is emotional. It should be emotional. Children are not an exercise in logic or “intellectual” circle jerking. There are no children on this boards, you’re not debating with a child, and no children are actually under threat here. That’s kind of what makes it a fallacy. > [@](#): > > You hope to be as derisive and dismissive as you can be in the hopes that your snark can undermine my argument. But there is no argument,\*\* Mr Dibble\*\*-you are defending the indefensible. What **exactly** am I defending that is indefensible? > [@](#): > > Unlike **supergoose** , you seem to be advocating for **Cesario’s** position. I’m not advocating anything. I’m willing to debate the merits of a testing system., and I don’t believe _all_ underage sexual contact is _inherently_ harmful, no, and I do question the current average Age of Consent. But I’m certainly not advocating adults having sex with 2-year olds. The idea is personally abhorrent. I’m just able to put that aside for the sake of debate without feeling dirty or like it “legitimizes” anything, any more than debating the abolition of the death penalty legitimizes murder . To me, it’s pretty much the way I can debate demonology with **kanicbird** without feeling like a crazy person myself. > [@](#): > > Is it for the pleasure of attempting to knock me down or is there something else in play here? No snark, just asking. Yes, you outed me, I’m a closet beastialist. I’m hoping if kiddie diddling is legalised, then I can work on getting \*my \*paraphilia recognised. Soon, Fido, soon, our love will no longer hide its face…:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/664 "2009-10-11T20:07:58Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Exactly. And even if, and it’s a huge IF, what **Cesario** ’s saying to us is right, wouldn’t the relationship inevitably end when said child starts puberty? If we take **Cesario** at his word, it would only have to go on hiatus until the lover is an adult. Plus, really, as we all know, everyone else in the world leaves their lover when they no longer look as they did when they were first attracted to them… ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2009, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/665 "2009-10-11T22:47:53Z")
I am done here. I had no intent of “outing you” as anything-- I asked a question. Your reply to that and to Guin shows me that you are not interested in treating this as a serious topic. By all means, discuss child molestation with **Cesario** to your satisfaction. Don’t expect approval or accolades for being broad minded. HE is advocating sex with 2 year olds, no matter how you want to change that in order for it to be more acceptable. I will say it is good to know who wants to lower the AoC. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/666 "2009-10-12T02:49:50Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > I will say it is good to know who wants to lower the AoC. What, in your opinion, should be AoC? How did you determine that? ---
**Author:** ![supergoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@supergoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/supergoose)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/667 "2009-10-12T04:01:03Z")
Well, I failed. :smack: I wanted to address a couple of the questions you asked. Thank you for responding to mine. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > How do you know he isn’t a threat? Why are his words taken at face value? His integrity is right there: he wants to abuse the trust of children and the adults who are responsible for them. IMO, the threat posed is great enough to end the discussing. I can’t get behind the hypothetical, the “what if” for this issue. The problem with an anonymous message board is that our written words are the only bits of provable truth we have about one another, which is why I think we pretty much have to take them at face value. Certainly one can feel a poster is being dishonest and sense things that they aren’t saying and comment on it, but you can’t really use it as a point in an argument. If we could, others could throw in wild accusations and lies and they’re be just as provable/unprovable. It’d be a train wreck. I _don’t_ know he isn’t a threat, I don’t know anything except what he’s written, and I feel I can’t really argue outside those limitations, since like I said, there’s no proof. [QUOTE=eleanorigby] You’re last bit there is laughable. The reason the most graphic, disturbing descriptions have been from those “anti- **Cesario** ” folk is because we have been trying to get you all to understand that THIS is what he is talking about. Getting graphic is one way of driving the point home. What do you think **Cesario** is talking about? Cuddling a sleepy child? Holding hands? 😕 Sex with children is just that. Intercourse, oral, anal etc. Don’t whitewash it to make it easier to talk about. It’s not easy to talk about. It shouldn’t be. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=eleanorigby] Are you? Then why the puzzlement re the graphic descriptions? How is reading about it more disturbing than the possibility that it may happen, does happen? 😕 [/QUOTE] Not puzzled, just remarking on the irony of it, if that makes sense. After all, you employ those visuals in an argument against a pedophile, who you’d think would be the one writing the disturbing posts and dealing in graphic descriptions of sex with children. (As it happens, I’m a very visual person and can’t really help but picture what I read, so whitewashing isn’t an issue with me, though of course there’s no way to know that by reading my posts and it’s a good reminder to throw in to such a debate anyway. Reading about it \*is \*as disturbing as knowing it can happen/is happening - unless it happened to a child I personally knew in which case it would be much more so - which is one of the reasons I’m quitting this thread as well.) [QUOTE=eleanorigby] Nicely done and I have tried to rein it in. [/QUOTE] Thank you, I really appreciate it. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/668 "2009-10-12T04:10:08Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > If we take **Cesario** at his word, it would only have to go on hiatus until the lover is an adult. > > Plus, really, as we all know, everyone else in the world leaves their lover when they no longer look as they did when they were first attracted to them… Well, then the first, I’m thinking, is more proof that this whole fight for “youth sexual freedom” is merely about his own selfish desires, rather than caring about the feelings of his so-called “lover.” It’s all about HIS wants. It has nothing to do with sticking it to the man, and this whole, “homophobic, narrow-minded, bigoted society.” If the above is the case, then it’s simply him wanting his cake and eating it too. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Happy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cab0a1/32.png) [@Mr\_Happy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Happy)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/669 "2009-10-12T06:36:12Z")
Don’t we know that kids aren’t ready for sex by the fact that they aren’t having it? If 5 year olds wanted sex, they’d find a way to have it with each other. No one ever had a playdate with a member of the opposite sex at that age? Who here has ever been hit on by a child? no one? Didn’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/670 "2009-10-12T06:43:35Z")
> [@Mr\_Happy](#): > > Don’t we know that kids aren’t ready for sex by the fact that they aren’t having it? > If 5 year olds wanted sex, they’d find a way to have it with each other. No one ever had a playdate with a member of the opposite sex at that age? > > Who here has ever been hit on by a child? no one? Didn’t think so. That is a very smart observation, and rather elegant in its simplicity, and I am rather embarrassed that I didn’t think of it first. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/671 "2009-10-12T06:45:33Z")
> [@Mr\_Happy](#): > > Don’t we know that kids aren’t ready for sex by the fact that they aren’t having it? > If 5 year olds wanted sex, they’d find a way to have it with each other. No one ever had a playdate with a member of the opposite sex at that age? > > Who here has ever been hit on by a child? no one? Didn’t think so. I had sex at that age. Not penetration sex, but I touched other children, sucked, got sucked, etc… I had a girlfriend when I was 5, we were the power couple of my pre-school, the Alpha Male and Alpha Female on the playground. I had other girls who wanted me because she wanted me, and I even understood what their game was about. Christina is not here today, and Halcyon wants me, but I am loyal to Christina so even though I’d like to be with Halcyon today when Christina isn’t here, I shouldn’t be because it might hurt her feelings. I was madly in love with Christina at the time. That ended because we went to different elementary schools, we remained friends but drifted apart. When we were like 9 or 10, it ended when I wouldn’t fuck her. Originally I wanted to, and then she called me and said yes, and I said I didn’t want to because I was confused about it, and that’s pretty much the moment that ended. Another friend of mine and I used to suck each other’s dicks at like 6 or 7. So if my friends and I are any indication, then yes kids are sexual pretty much right from the start. I spent the rest of my awkward childhood lamenting my inability to be the mack daddy I was in pre-school. 😉 Luckily it came back to me in adulthood. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/672 "2009-10-12T07:35:30Z")
> [@eleanorigby](#): > > I am done here. B’bye, now. > [@](#): > > I had no intent of “outing you” as anything-- I asked a question. No, you asked a _loaded_ question, in a sensitive topic. Feigned innocence after the fact doesn’t quite change that. If you want to shut debate down, do it by convincing argument, not pathetic (I mean that literally) argument > [@](#): > > Your reply to that and to Guin shows me that you are not interested in treating this as a serious topic. Sarcastic replies to loaded questions by you and attempted mindreading by Guin have no bearing on how serious I take this topic > [@](#): > > By all means, discuss child molestation with **Cesario** to your satisfaction. I think you’ll find I haven’t actually exchanged any discussion with **Cesario** in this thread at all. He’s not the one I’ve been arguing with at all > [@](#): > > Don’t expect approval or accolades for being broad minded. Yeah, everyone who knows my Board history knows I live for Board approval.:rolleyes: > [@](#): > > HE is advocating sex with 2 year olds, no matter how you want to change that in order for it to be more acceptable. I have no intention of changing that. It should be fairly obvious to anyone who’s read these threads what **Cesario** ’s predilections are. I’m not going to convince anyone that they’re different, nor have I tried. What I have tried to do is correct the lies and baseless assumptions people have been substituting for his actual words. > [@](#): > > I will say it is good to know who wants to lower the AoC. Well of course it’s good to know what your debate opponents are proposing. FTR, I favour an AoC of 14-16 rather than the current common 16-18 range. I would also like there to be an opt-out option, similar to the kind of legal emancipation by court order that currently exists, where teenagers can elect to not have the AoC apply to them. This differs from **Cesario** ’s position in that it acts as a supplement to AoC laws, not a replacement, is something the recipient has to pro-actively request, and also doesn’t involve standardised testing, but rather court-supervised psych evaluation. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/673 "2009-10-12T07:39:23Z")
> [@Mr\_Happy](#): > > Don’t we know that kids aren’t ready for sex by the fact that they aren’t having it? But they are. > [@](#): > > Who here has ever been hit on by a child? no one? Didn’t think so. Not so fast…I have been hit on by children, including offers of BJs and anal sex. Pretty disturbing, let me tell you. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/674 "2009-10-12T07:42:22Z")
BTW, **Mr Happy** , are you going to name names, or what? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/675 "2009-10-12T07:45:32Z")
**MrDibble** Way to hold the fort for rationality. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/676 "2009-10-12T08:14:53Z")
> [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Congratulations, that’s the first intelligent thing you’ve said since you joined this message board. > Target ads?? Heck, for someone in your position, even a Powderpuff Girls DVD would raise eyebrows. Are you reffering to the Powerpuff Girls? Without the “d”? Or something else? > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > **Cesario** , I’m starting to wonder if your whole pedophile image is something you’ve just made up to get attention from people. You’ve shown no interest in debating the matter rationally, No, I’ve just refused to bow to your irrationality. There’s a difference. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > and you’ve been consistently snarky and confrontational when people challenge your belief system. If people could be bothered to come up with arguments when they’re “challenging my belief system” instead of thought-terminating cliches… > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > You clearly have no sense of how you come across to people, nor have you shown any concern for how utterly stupid and immature you are making yourself look. I’m actually starting to feel sorry for the members of GirlChat for having someone like you as a spokesman – frankly, if I were one of them, you would be the last person I would want arguing on my behalf. > > For your sake, I hope you’re just a petty troll. If not, then you are clearly delusional, and your obsession with children pales in comparison to your obsession with stupidity. So, did you actually have a rational argument to put forward, or was this just a misguided attempt at flaming? > [@miamouse](#): > > **Cesario** says: > umm, hmmm. So someone stalks you, but hacks the person running the site instead of hacking you. That makes about as much sense as your other claims. If it was some sort of site promoting child abuse then the police could take the woman’s claims seriously. I didn’t say the troll was smart or sane… Head over to Gaiaonline and ask Gunsmith Kitten about it. > [@Meatros](#): > > No, not with those premises if they are possible - I just don’t think it’s realistic, which is why I don’t think it’s a reasonable position to hold, ultimately. I think the child would be damaged. So you feel that a perfectly rational, internally consistent position ought to be abandoned for an irrational, inconsistent one because you think that the position discusses an unlikely scenario? > [@Meatros](#): > > Impossible is probably too strong Nice to see that acknolwedged. > [@Meatros](#): > > - however I base the idea on the fact that most children have not even gone through puberty at that point, What has puberty to do with anything? > [@Meatros](#): > > are still gripped by the dogmatic worldview of authority figures, Which is relevent only when the individuals in question are authority figures… > [@Meatros](#): > > and all that. What is “all that”? Is there something more to your argument you’ve failed to list? > [@Meatros](#): > > I fail to see how they could not be relevant. Can you explain? Because what I’m proposing is a system that ignores both of our guesses about the probabilities and determines the reality of the situation, and thereafter treats everyone accordingly. > [@Meatros](#): > > I see them as relevant because most laws are meant to protect people. The pertinent laws in these sorts of cases are meant to protect children. Just because a law is well-meaning doesn’t mean it is actually good or useful. > [@Meatros](#): > > What exactly are you proposing? This: > [@](#): > > Proposed Relational Maturity and Sexual Competency (RMSC) testing schema: > > In order to be declared mentally competent to engage in consensual sexual activities (rather than having had a certain number of birthdays) under the proposed system, the test-taker proves his/her mental competence by passing a test. > > The testing requirements include: > 1.) Factual knowledge about sex, sexuality, reproduction and STDs. > 1.a.) Subject must understand the mechanics of sexual intercourse. Sexual anatomy, some common intercourse activities (at least the big three oral, anal and vaginal), masturbation, and outercourse activities (mutual masturbation in its various forms) should all be understood at a mechanical level. > 1.b.) Subject must understand the mechanics of human reproduction. Ejaculation, sperm fertilizing egg cells, warning signs of pregnancy including missed periods, a basic understanding of the nine month gestation period, childbirth, and the intrinsic physical risks of pregnancy. (Including factors that can increase those risks, ie low body mass and lack of physical development.) > 1.c.) Subject must understand his or her options in terms of preventing pregnancy. Subject must be aware of the existence and useage of barrier methods like condoms, hormone options like birth control pills, sterilization procedures like vasectomies, spermacide options, and demonstrate an understanding of the relative failure rates of these products. While it is not neccissary to be able to prattle off statistical failure rates, an understanding of which are most and least effective must be demonstrated, as well as the understanding that they can be more effective when used together. > 1.d.) Subject must be aware of abortion, what it is, the legal status of the procedure locally, and, if legal, the risks inherent in this procedure. > 1.e.) Subject must know about STDs. Subject must be aware that exchanging bodily fluids, particularly sexual fluids runs the risk of transmitting diseases. Subject must be aware that some such diseases are uncurable. HIV in particular should be understood in terms of its transmission methods, and its effects. > 1.f.) Subject must know where to go for testing and medical advice regarding STDs. > 1.g.) Subject must be aware of methods besides abstinence for preventing STDs, in particular the efficacy of barrier methods and the risks of multiple partners and anonymous sex. > 2.) the capacity to use critical thought to judge situations (consequence acknowledgment, goal setting, etc) > 2.a.) Subject must understand that actions have consequences. > 2.b.) Subject must be able to use prior experience and provided factual information to select the course of action leading to the best outcome in a hypothetical situation. > 2.c.) Subject must be able to recognize when there is not enough information provided in a question to provide a meaningful answer. > 3.) Ability to identify the fact that people lie to and use each other, and be able to judge (to a certain extent) when that’s occurring in certain examples. > 4.) Understanding of the concepts of rejection (both non-personal caused and personal caused rejection, as well as being able to reject people themselves). > 4.a.) Subject must understand that not everyone wants to have sex with them. > 4.b.) Subject must understand sexual orientation, and that some people just don’t want sex with certain categories of people. > 4.c.) Subject must recognise that some people do not want to have sex with them personally. > 4.d.) Subject must be able to reject others. > 5.) Understanding sexual ethics (like how rape is wrong, using sex to hurt people is wrong, etc. All because these hurt people for no justifiable reason.) > 5.a.) Subject must be able to diferentiate between rape and consentual sex in examples. > 5.b.) Subject must understand that rape is illegal. > 5.c.) Subject must be able to recognise sexual abuse other than rape in examples. > 5.d.) Subject must understand that sexual abuse is illegal. > 5.e.) Subject must recognise the problems with using sex as a comodity. > 5.f.) Subject must be aware of how to report the crimes they were required to be able to identify. > 5.g.) Subject must understand that they have the right to request any potential sexual partners be tested for STDs before consenting to sex. > > The proposed testing format is as follows: > Use a review board, and allow researchers to propose alternative testing methods, approved by the review board, and allow anyone applying to take the test to use whichever approved test they wish. (I should point out the need for an oral test, under the assumption that even iliterate adults or children could potentially have the neccessary skills and knowledge even if they lack the skills and knowledge of reading and writing. And, of course, the need for a version of the test to be avalible in multiple languages so as not to discriminate against non-native english speakers.) > > At the testing facilities, social workers will be present to evaluate and ensure that test takers are here by their own free will. Abuse intervention programs and counciling services will be avalible at testing centers. > > On site sex education classes will be availible in order to help prepare test takers for aquiring the factual knowledge required for requirement two. This should help aleviate the imballances in educational backgrounds of test takers. > > Upon having passed the test, a picture ID is issued indicating you are compotent to have sex. Having sex with an unlicensed idividual is treated as statutory rape. Test status will be hidden from third parties (First is Child, second is Government) unless the first party decides to tell someone (Ostensibly to prove sexual legality). > > If there is reason to suspect that an individual is trying to “play the system” (by deliberately remaining untested dispite being actually compotent in order to maintain access to partners unable to offer meaningful consent), the court could order that the parties involved be tested, and dealt with accordingly in terms of the results. If one party is found be capable and the other not, it should serve as compelling evidence that this was a case that should be treated as statutory rape, and the now compotent party would have to prove in some way that they only gained this compotence in the intervening time between the act and the sexual encounter. If neither party proves compotent, there’s nothing to be done, regardless of ages involved. If both parties prove compotent, they should both be held criminally responsible, but not to the same level as if they were the only one involved who was compotent. Likely a fine of some sort would be the best choice for such an infraction. > > A grandfather clause is included in this proposal, such that anyone who is over the local age of consent at the time this proposal goes into effect will not need to be tested so long as they wish to be sexually active only with other individuals who were also grandfathered out of the program. If they wish to be sexual with someone operating under the new system, they must submit for testing, and thereafter abide by the new system as though they had not been grandfathered out of it. > > Conclusion: > The primary difference is that actual compotency as determined by the test, rather than assumed compotency based on age is the primary determiner. > > Thoughts? Additional testing requirements you feel are important? > [@Meatros](#): > > Fair enough - however the parallels end with the idea behind the reasoning for guardianship; I don’t see how the reasons behind it do anything to diminish the paralells. > [@Meatros](#): > > ie, the inability for children to be properly responsible for their actions - due to a wide array of reasons, one of which being the inadequate knowledge. That is one reason why children are not tried as adults (usually) in murder cases. They do not possess the mental facilities to fully understand their actions. Adults who do not posess the mental facilities to fully understand their actions are found not guilty by reason of diminished capacity. If this were the presumption, there would be no juvinile punishment at all. Clearly this is not the case. > [@Meatros](#): > > It would seem that a logical follow up to your position would be to charge children as adults in murder trials - is this something you are also in support of? BTW - the definition of ‘children’ right now depends on your response to the prior question (what are you proposing) and I will keep that in mind. I see no reason for a crime to have a different punishment just because of who comitted the crime, or who the victim was. > [@Meatros](#): > > So you see children as mentally equal to adults? If not, then isn’t it necessary to treat them differently? Treat the people who are not mentally up to par differently from the people who are mentally up to par. You don’t need an age line for that. > [@Meatros](#): > > Would you support them voting? Yes, see the suffrage thread in Great Debates. > [@Meatros](#): > > Again, these questions depend on the definition of children… Unfortunately, the real definition (human beings 12 and under) does not tie in with the legal defintion of “minor”, neither of which have anything to do with intelectual capacity or understanding. > [@Meatros](#): > > Well, before I would provide proof, I’d need to know the differentiation you are making, since harm does occur. Differnetiate between intrinsic harm in a fully consensual sexual encounter, and social harm created after the fact by a sex-negative reaction to the sexual encounter. > [@Meatros](#): > > Unfortunately for a person of your unique position you should expect some disbelief. Is that right or fair? Perhaps not, but this is the real world. > > Remember the burden of proof is on you here, since you are clearly the outlier and you want something about society changed. No, the burdon of proof is on the person making the assertion, and I’ve seen a lot of people asserting that children can’t consent, and that they are always, intrinsically harmed by sexual encounters. > [@Meatros](#): > > It came to my mind. Also, please familiarize yourself with what constitutes an ad-hominim logical fallacy, since I most certainly did not commit one. > > An ad-hom fallacy is where one person attacks the person **in order to discredit the argument** ; ie, don’t believe Cesario _because he has_ committed incest. > > This is not what I did here, obviously, as I only asked what your views were. I have no objection to it. As the only reason to avoid reproducing with close family members is the risk of recessive genes expressing themselves as birth defects, opposing incest is no more defensible than opposing the right of people who are carriers of faulty genes from reproducing. And I have no interest in serving as a eugenicist. As to the implicit question about parent-child incest when the child is currently a dependent, I view it in the same light as a sexual relationship between anyone who is a dependent on another, and the standard for consent ought to be the same, regardless of age or blood relationship. > [@Meatros](#): > > And you think that all the damage they appeared to have was societal? No. I think the damage they appeared to have was a result of being raped. Rape is rape, regardless of the age it happens at, and it is a damaging experience. > [@Meatros](#): > > You are probably correct - what would you like (please don’t be graphic, I understand that you want a sexual relationship - that’s not what I’m asking about). One where both parties are able to fully consent, where neither of us would be subject to legal penalties as a result, and where neither of us would be subject to psychiatric [strike]torture[/strike] counciling as a result of it becoming known we had engaged in a sexual relationship. > [@Meatros](#): > > I’m still curious, have you ever seen the end results of the relationship that you hypothetically would like to have? No, because the relationship I would like to have is largely impossible in the current society. > [@Meatros](#): > > Because you seem to be attempting to get around a sorties paradox by saying there is no such thing as heaps. In short, while their are certainly elements of gray in regards to sexual development and knowledge, there do seem to be definite boundries. For example, I do not think you could convince anyone that a child between 0 and 4 has any awareness of sex, any knowledge about it, etc. I would argue that ages 5-10 would be only slightly more aware - but still well within the ‘heap’ of ignorance. You are aware that asserting something doesn’t make it so, and that your belief about how aware every individual in a certain age group doesn’t actually impact the actual facts one way or the other, correct? > [@Meatros](#): > > A title of a movie where a woman is basically raised outside of society and is ignorant of societal norms and what constitute adult behaviors. I’m not sure if she had sex in the movie or not, my point was to put forth the ‘adult’ who was not cognizant of sex and so on. And are you suggesting such an adult would be more capable of informed consent than a child? > [@Meatros](#): > > No. I’ve provided a copy of the RMSC in this post for your review. Please let me know what your thoughts are on it, after you’ve had a chance to read through it. > [@Meatros](#): > > Yes, I realize your attraction has nothing to do with their ability to give consent. I am asking you the specific question of whether you think that a child 0-10 can give consent or not. Do you think they can? > > Do you think that any children in that age range can give consent, or do you think there are definite age limits - do you think that it is possible for a 5 month old to give consent? “Any” is not “every”. While I believe there might well be some children in that age range capable of fully informed consent, I am not so deluded as to assume that every newborn infant is fully informed. Why anyone would assume I was is beyond me. Regardless, as I said, my beliefs on the matter are just as irrelevent as yours. The point of my proposal is to get rid of all that guesswork and operate off a meaningful standard. ---
**Author:** ![Cesario](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Cesario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cesario)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 8:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/677 "2009-10-12T08:15:59Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Puberty is more then ‘breasts and pubic hair’ there are also hormones involved. Seems to me those hormones make rational thought more difficult, not less so. > [@Meatros](#): > > In any event, I’m more referring to a lack of sexual education here. Puberty has nothing to do with sexual education. You can have that well before puberty, or not at all. > [@Meatros](#): > > You are making assumptions about what I ‘assume’. > > So how would you go about educating these children. Sex ed classes. Pretty basic stuff. There’s a backup sex-ed included in the proposal. > [@Meatros](#): > > Would you have all children 0-10 educated in whatever manner you are thinking of? It seems that early and well designed sex-ed is a good thing regardless of any changes in age of consent laws, considering the many advantages of it. Again, there’s no point attempting to explain these concepts to preverbal infants, but as soon as someone can understand the information, it should be provided. > [@Meatros](#): > > So do you think 5 year olds should be able to vote? Drive cars? Drink? Yep. Well, only drive cars if they can pass the drivers test, but either way, there ought to be no age limits on any of these things. > [@Meatros](#): > > Have you met any that can? I don’t know. I also don’t know if I’ve ever met any adult who can meaningfully consent. > [@Meatros](#): > > How would a two year old be able to give consent? The words “yes” and “no” seem to be fairly standard… > [@Meatros](#): > > I’m not clear on this since you want to end age lines. That seems to indicate that your age of attraction is relevant here. My age of attraction is relevent **here** because this thread is so people can say how much they dislike me. It isn’t relevent to the subject of who can and can’t consent, however, which is what we’d been discussing in this conversation thread. > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > You fucking idiot. I’m not the one looking to “get away” with anything; that’s you Chester. I said that if I had the chance to have sex with a person that I’m attracted to I would – as I know you would too, you pasty little shit. > > I think it’s telling that you jump from “have a chance to have sex with” to “rape if you can get away with it.” > > You need to take a big giant bath in a pool of go fuck yourself. Why don’t you do the board a favor … go turn on the Disney channel, rub one out, and let us normal people talk for a while. You’re defining “the chance” differently for you and me. I trust you are aware of this and just being a dishonest debator instead of actually failing to recognize the fact that you’re doing this. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > It’s still pretty fucked up, though. A lot of people use that same argument for “female circumcision”, or just general oppression of women. > > “Part of one’s culture” doesn’t make something right. Agreed. I’ve had to deal with some of the same sorts of distorted thinking on the male circumcision debate. > [@Lobot](#): > > The hurt comes when mistaking a non-consensual relationship for a consensual one. > > I mean, the hypothetical of a three-year-old being able to give informed, meaningful consent to sexual intercourse is so far into fantasy-land that we may as well start debating the merits of fucking super-intelligent space hamsters. > > The danger occurs when the deluded project their own wants and desires onto a child, mistaking these for objective facts. Non-messed up people recognise children as children; paedophiles seem to mistake children for adult midgets, and I would not trust anyone with such a skewed perception to be able to judge true consent from the “other” in the relationship. A birthday is not a valid means of determining the difference between a consensual relationship and a nonconsensual one. I’m proposing a more meaningful means of differentiation that takes some of the guesswork out of it. > [@fuzzypickles](#): > > Scarification, bloodletting, and other painful rituals are common the world 'round, but I don’t hear a lot of outcry against, say, the Amazon’s Satere Mawé tribe forcing their young men to [wear gloves filled with stinging ants](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGIZ-zUvotM) – frankly, drinking semen doesn’t sound so bad by comparison! :eek: > > That said, I fail to see how **Cesario’s** proposals create any cultural benefit; it’s clear that his sole motivation (aside from blatant trolling) is only so he can get his rocks off. You see no benefit to knowing that your sexual partners are fully aware of sex and fully capable of meaningfully consenting to it on a level beyond just being legally authorized to do so on account of their birthday? > [@Lobot](#): > > Because it’s never in the abstract in real life. And like I said, I don’t want to give someone the idea that it’s even a debatable proposition when it comes to children. It’s not. > > It’s not like they’ll never be on the right side of the line. > > All this “youth suffrage” bullshit misses the point that (in general) blacks don’t become white and women don’t become men. So slavery would’ve been just fine if we’d just let them niggers go after they turned sixty? > [@Lobot](#): > > Also, anyone who thinks these discussions with paedophiles about children’s rights, blah blah blah, are really about what they’re _ostensibly_ about is kidding themselves. They’re really about enabling a potential kiddie-fucker and bolstering the idea that this delusion is merely an equally valid POV that is sadly in the minority. By engaging in “reasonable debate” with a paedophile on this topic, even if you disagree, implies a certain level of respect for the position. > > It does not deserve respect. It deserves disdain. So, this is your excuse for your complete and utter failure to come up with a rational argument against my position? > [@Enderw24](#): > > No, I haven’t read that entirely different thread from three weeks ago so I apologize profusely for not being 100% up to date on everything that spews out of Cesario’s mouth and that we discuss on these boards as relates to pedophilia. > > But I’ve now read that OP and, yup. That seems to be exactly in line with what I outlined above and I find it as laughably ridiculous as my own hypothetical. Many fully functioning adults couldn’t pass that test he’s proposing and, while that’s its own problem right there, I think the implementation of a system where you force consenting adults to get licensed before having a sexual encounter to be…unworkable to say the least. Which of those requirements do you feel is unecessary and why? > [@Enderw24](#): > > I had a teacher that once told the class that if you got an 89.99999999% in the class you got a B+ and not an A-. Why? Because that’s just where it fell. You simply have to have a cut off somewhere and the line got drawn at 90. > You complain about that “arbitrary” line and you got a “tough shit” in response. Ah, so because you got fucked over by a teacher thirty years ago, you want to spread the pain around. How pathetic. > [@Enderw24](#): > > Are there 9 year olds who could possibly pass the test above? Um…sure. Maybe there’s one out there for every 10,000,000. I don’t know. But you know what? Society has said that it’s easier to and will save time, money, and hassle Some of us don’t think that it’s morally justifiable to oppress a minority because it’d be more convenient for the government if we did so. > [@Enderw24](#): > > to not employ a panel of people to implement a test, a cadre of social workers to go interview the child at home, and create a system where we make sure that every child who wants to have sex gets that opportunity. You know what? It’s easier to just have the bright line rule of “NO FUCKING THE NINE YEAR OLDS.” You are aware that your description has nothing to do with the actual proposal, right? > [@Enderw24](#): > > And if that’s abhorrent to that one kid in 10,000,000 who could pass the proposed test my response would be “tough shit. If you’re that emotionally mature you can suck it up and wait another 7 years.” We’re raising the age of consent to sixty. If you’re emotionally mature enough to have sex, you can suck it up and wait another fourty years. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > Cry me a river: pedophiles claiming victim status. I think I’ve seen it all now. > Clue phone: not everything in life is about sexual release. The child’s welfare far and away trumps anyone’s need to get off. I’ll go even further and say anyone’s (man, woman, child or beast) welfare trumps your(man, woman, child or beast) need to get off. > > When did having an orgasm become an entitlement? I realize that is a bizarre question, but I can’t phrase it any better. The pedophile’s “right” to pleasure ends in his sick fantasies. He (she?) has no right to indulge him/herself, period. A sexual relationship between an adult and a child is always unequal. As has been said, there is no consensual sex. There is no fair playing field (which we assume in the case of adults, but even that is fraught with difficulties). This is not hard to understand. > > I asked this before and I ask again: why is the pedophile’s pleasure paramount to the welfare of the child?\* If you acknowledge that “even [with adults sexual consent is] fraught with difficulties,” and you’ve stated that anyone’s welfare trumps anyone’s need to get off, it seems to me the only internally consistent position to take is to ban sex entirely. > [@eleanorigby](#): > > \*I just had the odd notion that folks like **Mr Dibble** (not a pedophile, but apparently an apologist for this horribly misunderstood and oppressed minority) and **Cesario** (self-proclaimed pedophile and proud of it! Loud and Proud!) actually may think that the kids may thank them later for introducing them to all the wonders of sex. Heck, they’re doing the kiddies a favor and should be looked on as heroes! How weary they must be of our stubborn unenlightened state, these prophets of pleasure for all. _sigh_ It is a bit wearying some days, but I’ll persevere regardless. 😛 > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I’m with \*\*eleanorigby \*\*on this one. > > A test for children to judge whether they are ready for sex? You people are living in some twisted fantasy world where six year olds scream, “Oh please fuck me harder with your giant 12 inch penis!”, aren’t you. Wow, again with the over-generous backhanded complements about my penis. :rolleyes: Anyway, the entire point of having an age of consent is to criminalize having sex with children who want to have sex. The ones who’re fucking kids who don’t want to have sex can be prosecuted under regular rape laws. > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > What parent would ever consent to even let their children take the test, I mean except for the ones who want to fuck their own children and not get arrested for it? Well, there are the ones who care more about whether their kids are ready than they care about irrationally attempting to prevent sex from occurring until some arbitrary age. > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I will go out on a limb and say I am against adult-child sex in any way shape or form, regardless of some bullshit test some pasty faced loser wants to invent to justify his perversions. > > I am not bigoted against pedophiles. Mostly I feel sorry for them. But the ones who rationalize this shit and try to convince me that it would be perfectly hunky-dory to fuck little kids, if only society would get on the right sheet of music? Yeah, I’m completely bigoted against them. I’m willing to take that hit. Music? > [@Attack\_from\_the\_3rd\_dimension](#): > > Can you get tested for both at the same time and save some of the fees? That seems reasonable to me. > [@Fenris](#): > > Why in the world would you? > > You could easily coach a precocious 5 year old with a good memory to pass that test. And with creatures like our sleazy pervert grooming little children, I can easily see a “Hey little girl: memorize the types of STDs and their methods of transmission and I’ll give you a nice, big lollipop to suck on…for practice.” situation. > > The few questions that show actual thinking/judgement are so impossibly vague as to be completely and absolutely meaningless (“2.a.) Subject must understand that actions have consequences.”. Great, by that standard 99% of all people who’ve ever been members of Congress or the Senate are now excluded. :rolleyes: How in the world could that possibly be tested?) > > What our child-raping pervert has done is created a test that _sounds_ reasonable but anyone with a couple of weeks, a decent memory and some flashcards could easily pass. Which would make it easy for him to rape toddlers with the blessing of the law. You are aware that each of these items has been tested in psychiatraic research, right? Consequence acknolwedgement is a fairly fundamental one that developmental psychologists test all the time. You can’t coach someone to pass developmental milestones they haven’t passed yet. > [@Guinastasia](#): > > If it’s truely, seriously our society that has made children feel traumatized by sex with adults, then one has to wonder why **Cesario** has not moved to nations where there ARE no ages of consent. Just curious. I’m not being insulting here. I’m genuinely asking. Got any particular nation in mind? Keep in mind that the world is a much smaller place than it once was. > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > A) I was being sarcastic. Of course I know that’s not a limb to climb out on. There’s nothing heroic about being anti-pedophilia – it’s simply thinking rationally. > > B) If you think I’m going to feel bad because some wannabe kiddy-diddler gets insulted, then you’re fucking deluded. There’s nothing rational about adhering to a knee-jerk reaction while proudly refusing to consider the subject matter. It’s the popular point of view, but it is completely irrational. > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Yes…simple life experiance is ONE HUGE reason why you could never have a fair sexual partnership between a child and an adult. Even teens have the danger of being taken advantage of (and research has indicated that teens are still maturing!) Care to define “life experience”? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > FAR FAR too many oppertunties for someone to take advantage of a child…hell you always hear about parents of special needs children being worried that someone’s going to take advantage of them. Children by their very nature are developmentally delayed. You see mentally affected adults “picking out” a “boyfriend” or a “girlfriend” just like in jr high…or being shocked when their boyfriend/girlfriend kisses them on the cheek or on the lips. > Kids think of “sex” and romance the exact way that developmentally delayed adults do! And yet, you seem to have a problem with a system like I’m proposing which would classify those developmentally delayed adults in the same category as children, thus affording them the protection of statutory rape legislation. Why? > [@AboutAsWeirdAsYouCanGet](#): > > Oh, and I know I said I wasn’t going to feed the troll…but I’ve been away from the net for a couple of days. Something also struck me, and it needs to be said. > > Yes, I was in love with an underaged girl a while ago. The difference is that I was attracted to her b/c she was an AMAZING person. Not b/c she was a teenager. > I loved her b/c I loved her as an amazing wonderful person! > Which brings me to my next point. Pedophiles are not in love with someone who happens to be a kid. They are 100% FIXTATED on the fact that their “crushes” are young. Their attraction isn’t based on a mutual loving realtionship with all the trimmings of an adult realtionship. The attraction is 100% superfical. Just like the attractions of all heterosexual males are 100% superficial because they are fixated on females and are thus incapable of actually caring about any female as a person? :rolleyes: > [@Guinastasia](#): > > Gee, ya think? > > Exactly. And even if, and it’s a huge IF, what **Cesario** ’s saying to us is right, wouldn’t the relationship inevitably end when said child starts puberty? Do your relationships end the instant your partner starts to get wrinkles, grey hair, and sagging breasts? > [@Mr\_Happy](#): > > Don’t we know that kids aren’t ready for sex by the fact that they aren’t having it? > If 5 year olds wanted sex, they’d find a way to have it with each other. No one ever had a playdate with a member of the opposite sex at that age? > > Who here has ever been hit on by a child? no one? Didn’t think so. Your ignorance does not constitute an argument. > [@MrDibble](#): > > FTR, I favour an AoC of 14-16 rather than the current common 16-18 range. I would also like there to be an opt-out option, similar to the kind of legal emancipation by court order that currently exists, where teenagers can elect to not have the AoC apply to them. This differs from **Cesario** ’s position in that it acts as a supplement to AoC laws, not a replacement, is something the recipient has to pro-actively request, and also doesn’t involve standardised testing, but rather court-supervised psych evaluation. While far from ideal, I would support this as a better system than we have now, and a baby step in the right direction. ---
**Author:** ![leander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bcef8e/32.png) [@leander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/leander)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/678 "2009-10-12T09:22:14Z")
Pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![Lobot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ce7236/32.png) [@Lobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobot)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/679 "2009-10-12T10:13:54Z")
You’ve been provided with plenty of rational arguments from many people. That you aren’t listening is because you really don’t want want to hear it. Also, TLDR. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Happy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/cab0a1/32.png) [@Mr\_Happy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Happy)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/680 "2009-10-12T10:32:33Z")
It’s a shame that you’re so deluded about what you do. It’d be nice to think that you couldn’t sleep at night. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2009, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973/681 "2009-10-12T10:51:20Z")
> [@Lobot](#): > > You’ve been provided with plenty of rational arguments from many people. Were you thinking of such wonderfully insightful rational arguments as these?: > [@leander](#): > > Pathetic. > [@Lobot](#): > > Also, TLDR. > [@Mr\_Happy](#): > > It’s a shame that you’re so deluded about what you do. It’d be nice to think that you couldn’t sleep at night. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cesario-youre-awfully-sanctimonious-for-a-pedophile/511973.md?page=35)