Guinastasia…right on!
We can debate this til the cows come home, but overall kids do not have the emoitional maturity to consent to sex acts with an adult.
The adult in every case is taking advantage of the child. There is a REASON why pedos are attracted to kids with poor self esteem/ loners and the fact that they are so innocent!
If they were attracted to the child, they’d be attracted to the mature ones…but I forgot…the mature ones wouldn’t be attracted to the pedos b/c they’d pick up the creepy vibe.
Zerial…that doesn’t surprise me. A lot of college men and women still don’t understand the complexities of interpersonal realtionships. A lot of people think that they can get an “emotional connection” through sex. They have social issues/want to feel close to someone or whatever. Heck someone can be emoitionally healthy but be highly sexed…
But what I mean by behavoir that is induced by sexual abuse/rape is extreme. For example my friend who was raped had a really fucked up attitude about sex.
She would have sex with anyone with a penis to try to “heal” Didn’t even like the person…she just tried to have sex to heal (and she also had a ton of emotional issues…no friends so she thought that having sex would bring her closer to her fuck buddy)
Another friend of mine said that he had a friend who was raped by her uncle, and she was always trying to get him into bed.
I know another girl who basicly had sex up the wazoo trying to “prove” to herslef that she could control who she had sex with (molested and raped )
I only know of one girl who was molested who DIDN’T act out sexually. (but on the downside she picked really bad guys as partners)
Pffl. Anecdotes aren’t evidence. I was raped, violently, twice, as a child, and I am neither sexually disfunctional nor promiscuous. I also don’t have a string of bad relationships.
Of the three people I know personally who were raped when children (two were 13 at the time and it was a gang rape in both instances, and one was a toddler (who was molested by a guy who got off on hurting people, and then going home and having sex with his wife), neither of them are promiscuous. They’re actually both significantly less promiscuous than average.
After this guy got out of prison he has been spending much of his time trying to overturn laws against having sex with kids. He even states in the video that there shouldn’t even be any age limits when it comes to messing around with little kids.
Zeriel and Mr. Dibble…true. Ancedote doesn’t equate to data.
I think actually in a lot of the cases the girls were emotionally stunted due to a developmental disabilty, or trying to “heal” from stuff like not having too many friends.
I think it depends on the person. Like if a person gets really good intense counseling as well as relationship skill counseling, I think they’d be OK.
I think the intent of those kinds of things (as well as “consecutive life sentences”) are to put a damper on the “early release for good behavior” stuff that happens automatically–even if you reduce a 3000 year sentence by 50% for model prisoner behavior, the perp is still in jail.
Hmmm…That’s merely your opinion. For instance, I always have been appaled by people who advocate for or otherwise support torture (which is generally illegal too), there have been plenty on this board, and they generally take less care of not “crossing the line”.
Now, if someone is banned for stating that laws forbiding sex with children ought to be changed, I want people stating that laws forbidding torture ought to be changed to be banned too. I certainly find that equally heinous and distressing to read.
I know that the revidecism of sex offenders is relatively low. On the other hand, is the revidisim for pedophiles high? I would imagine it is, since all pedophiles are mentally ill, and they prolly don’t get the best mental health counseling in prison.
I think maybe some pedophiles might be able to become disorentiated from their fixtation with proper counseling and treatment…Like someone said that they think that pedophiles may be confusing obsessive complusive fixtation on children with “love”/ “lust” Maybe if they were treated with a med that treats OCD issues, they might be able to become normal.
Besides, pedophiles are dangerous. They do not see anything wrong with their attraction towards those who cannot consent. They are dangerously mentally ill.
It’s almost exactly like…back when the story about the woman who was kept in a basement in Austria was coming out, they interviewed a sociopath who had kept a woman in an enclosed place to rape. When asked if he thought it was wrong to imprison someone like he did, he was all " Some people wear jewrely that keeps them prisonors"
Sounds like a pretty thin justification to me. Considering that we’re talking about what you’d resort to if denied consensual partners.
Nice to see you acknowledging this.
Define informed consent. Prove no child can ever be informed. Prove every adult is always informed. This isn’t that unreasonable a request considering the strength of the assertions you’re making here.
No. Even if I were to accept your premise, that would only put me in the position you would be in without access to consenting partners. And unlike you, my moral positions aren’t contingent on how convenient they are to stick to.
Still unclear on what my goal is, aren’t you?
And I care about your trust why?
It’s certainly true that the moral quality of something isn’t derived from the law. Though that does pretty well shoot down any of your side’s arguments that current illegality intrinsically demonstrates that it’s immoral too.
Don’t worry, I wasn’t expecting you to stick to that.
You have to convince me if you want me to shut up and agree with you. It seems a pretty simple proposition, all things considered.
Indeed. I have no interest in a futile attempt at converting people who’ve made up their minds and refuse to so much as read my arguments, let alone comprehend them. Such individuals only serve in the capacity of a sounding board, whereby I get a hook to bring up certain of my arguments (considering how touchy the moderators have demonstrated themselves, I really can’t start my own threads on the subject to cover the arguments proactively). Meanwhile, their demonstrably poor arguments lend support to the idea that my arguments have more rational merrit.
It happens.
Natural side-effect of not putting myself in positions where I’m likely to be propositioned, I’m afraid.
Considering that’s never been even remotely relevent to any of my arguments…
I admit no such thing. I agree that there is almost certainly some point below which no one would pass an RMSC or similar exam, but I’ve said repeatedly that your or my wild guesses about where that point might lie has zip-zero-zilch to do with anything relevent to this converstation. I’ve expressly refused to provide you with such a guess precisely because I was sure you’d end up twisting it into something like this.
I’m glad to hear it. Considering this is the primary point I’ve been arguing, I don’t really see what there is to argue against after acknowledging this.
The first thing you might want to familiarize yourself with is the fact that pedophilia reffers to a thought. If you want to start outlawing thoughts, let’s just skip straight to the inevidable violence right now.
As to the psychological disorder thing, you might want to familiarize yourself with the defintion of a psychological disorder in general, and paraphilias in particular. You’ll find that in cases where the paraphilia does not cause distress in and of itself, but rather all such distress derives from a conflict with society, it doesn’t qualify for the psychiatric diagnosis.
sigh I guess we’re destined to be enemies then.
That’s very big of you to admit that. I feel this has been a terrific breakthrough for you.
Hm, this is an interesting standard you’ve got here. Can you provide a definition of “a little to high” and “a little too low”? Maybe a clear definition for fondling which differentiates it from relatively standard practices like supporting small children with a hand under their butts when picking them up or helping them climb? Maybe one that doesn’t depend on the state of mind the adult was in when it happened?
That you’ll interpret any interaction I have with a child as molestation, so I might as well be required to starve rather than go to a grocery store where there might be kids present?
Just because you’re willfully ignorant doesn’t make you exempt from criticism. I don’t give a shit if you read it or not, the criticism is coming anyway if only for the benefit of the audience.
While I’ve got no particular interest in eating people, I do think that ought to be considered a valid cause someone could donate their corpses to. Just like we currently let people donate them for medical training, scientific research, and organ donation. No reason we shouldn’t also be allowed to donate our corpses to people who want to eat the meat.
I’ve gotten no complaints from my students, fellow staff members, or parents. Honestly, the only one who had anything to complain about was me, since I only got into that position as a result of a bait-and-switch. I thought I was going to be running a tech support gig, not teaching a computer class.
You want to find someone to blame for society being misandrist in regards to the educational system, look somewhere else. Maybe at the misandrist douches who are making these unfounded, unsupported insinuations against the whole of the male gender and using my kind as scapegoats. Just a thought.
Oh please. The only reason I ever engage on this topic is because some jackass somewhere makes an ignorant statement that needs to be corrected. Then it snowballs from there with more ignorant jackasses piling on making more ignorant statements that need correcting, and a few intelectually honest posters who actually want to learn asking reasonable questions that I would be remiss in not answering.
Clear up the ignorant jackasses and I have no need to correct them.
I’ve noticed a sad trend towards ignoring the basic rules of debate and logic in favor of emotional knee-jerk reactions. I’ve just never considered that sort of ignorant, reactionary behavior something to be proud of.
Why wouldn’t I give a straight answer? The job was part of a college work-study thing I was doing while I was working on my degree. When I graduated, I moved on from the position into a career in my field. The parting was amiable on all sides, and I got some very nice recommendations out of the deal.
I find it’s more psychologically stable than being a self-loathing, near-suacidal, emotional wreck. People who are more psychologically stable, and with fewer self-image issues tend to be less likely to have the impulse-control problems that lead to children being molested.
You might be surprised to learn how easy it is not to take advantage of other people.
Do you really need me to start waxing poetic about the physical features I find attractive before you’ll take my word for the fact that it’s about the lack of secondary sex characteristics? I really don’t think anyone wants to read that, honestly.
Where the hell did you get that idea from?
Considering it’s twice the amount in the study I cited, you’re right that it’s quite a bit. Now, when you are ready to actually discuss facts instead of your self-serving lies, please feel free to continue along this line of argumentation.
Yep, just less than there are dangerous non-pedos out there.
That seems likely.
I don’t know. I think with 20-33% of the adult male population all voting as a single block, we could make some rather significant progress on a number of youth-rights issues.
Also, please don’t use the term “children’s rights”. That is an entirely different political concept, and one which I’m quite opposed to. The principle difference between “children’s rights” and “youth rights” is that the former is about protectionist restrictions on behavior and treating children differently from adults, while the later is about oposing that sort of paternalism and allowing children to function as independent human beings to the greatest degree possible. Children’s rights implements age lines, youth rights tears them down. Ultimately, I find children’s rights to be a rather orwellian term.
Consideing it isn’t illegal, I think I’m doing fairly well on that one, at least.
Why yes. Yes, I am. I believe I’ve said as much before.
Just less of a threat than those of you who lack said perverse desires.
Safer, actually. You did read through the mathematical breakdown, right? Do you need it reposted?
No point in me speaking for other people’s opinions.
Ah, so this has nothing to do with my arguments or the quality thereof, it’s just you having a personal issue with me completely void of logic or reason. Got it. So, did you want me to make a sock puppet who makes the exact same arguments I’ve made but doesn’t admit to being interested in kids? Seems like a dishonest tactic and a complete waste of both of our time to me.
I’ve rejected your bullshit defintion and your made-up term. I’ve never suggested anywhere that pedophiles were all fucking saints, you moron.
Don’t meet the diagnosic criteria, I’m afraid. No marked (psychologically significant) distress or interpersonal difficulty, and haven’t acted on it. Without one of those, I don’t meet requirement 2 out of the three part definition of the mental disorder described in the DSM IV.
Look it up sometime.
And your anecdotes about rape victims are relevent in any way to anything how?
Also, love the ignorant assertions about the kinds of people I know…
Actually, it was you who read into my story that I thought the girl was hitting on me. I just thought she was enjoying my company and was jellous of the attention I was paying her brother. The point of that story had nothing to do with four year olds hitting on me. It had to do with them not being creeped out by me.
Oh please, I’m quite confident in my ability to beat up and rape an adult woman just fine too. Could probably even play a bunch of mind-games and string together the sorts of lies that some of the sick fucks around here consider acceptable behavior in “normal dating” too. This has nothing to do with ability or confidence.
Your lack of reading comprehension continues to be impressive.
Not that I’ve noticed. The only distress I get from it comes basically from ignorant bigots like yourself, and I’ve fortunately long since gotten over caring what they think.
Thus, mental disorder cured.
All of my existing age-appropriate relationships with my peers notwithstanding, I guess. :roll:
Actually, every single person privy to my attractions in real life has been nothing but supportive of me. And a good number of people online are likewise quite positive about it.
Ah, so this is where the hostility is coming from. You’ve somehow gotten the mistaken impression that I’m a child molester. Let’s clear that up right now, then. I’m not. Glad we got the chance to clear up this little misunderstanding, and hopefully this will allow us to move on to more productive lines of conversation.
You haven’t actually read the RMSC, have you?
And yet, you continue to support an age line which allows such individuals to be taken advantage of on a regular basis.
Is there some reason you’re under the mistaken impression that your anecdotes qualify as evidence of anything in this debate?
This is consistent with what I’ve seen in a friend of mine, who was molested at some point before she was forming conscious memories. (She only knows about it due to being told after the fact.)
You should see some of the child porn sentences they’ve handed out. The message with those is, “you’ll do less time if you actually rape a child”.
Well, there’s no reason to bring little trivialities like “facts” or “evidence” in here when we’ve got your omniscient gut to go on. :rolleyes:
Doesn’t work out so well for the gays, and that’s pretty much the same treatment.
(For the record, it really doesn’t work any better on pedophiles.)
Define love. Define lust. Then we’ll be able to continue on this conversation thread.
Tell you what, how about you put together a study and let us know how that goes.
Yep, just less so than you nonpedophiles.
Got something to do with the fact that no one needs someone else’s consent in order for them to appear in a fantasy.
Care to translate the crazy-talk for those of us who aren’t insane enough to intuitively follow the ramblings of a lunatic?
Terribly interesting that the only replies Cesario will post are labyrinthine multiquotes peppered with snark. There’s no serious discussion here, folks. Best to ignore him.
It’s not just a “straight up attraction to little kids bodies " MANY people can think " Oh little kids are cute” without it being a sexual attraction.
Cesario…no you ARE mentally ill. The crazy dude in " A TellTale Heart" thought he was sane. Borderline personality people think they’re sane, lots of crazy people think they’re sane when they’re actually nuts.
The fact of the matter is that pedophiles have an abnormal fixtation on children. It is NOT the same as a GLB orenitation. Their oreintation is a nautral outgrowth of nautral human realtionships (ie they realized they were gay when they fell in love with someone of the same sex)
Come on MrD! Throughout the years we’ve agreed much more than not on a myriad of topics, but I can’t believe you’re asking for “health qualifications” from some one that calls an adult with a sexual fixation on babies ‘mentally ill.’
And on page 18, this thread is still propelled forward by those that have been arguing that we should ban him so that he cannot discuss his proclivities on the Straight Dope.
“Mentally ill” is a very specific accusation, is why. I agree the guy isn’t normal, and his paraphilia is undesireable to me. But if he has it under control, I wouldn’t call him “mentally ill”. I’m not defending his paedophilia, here, but like I said upthread, there’s a lot of ways to argue against it without lying or invective.
