And yet you acted confused by Cheryl44’s comment.
Cheryl44’ post is quite salient and the significance of it seems to have been overlooked. (Forgive me if I don’t take time to reread everything.)
It is the power differential that makes a difference. Unfortunately, for purposes of law, people end up talking about abuse in terms of age.
Yes, just like we can infer that we’ve had nearly fifty female (major party) presidential candidates.
Powers &8^]
only 200 years ago, it was perfectly normal for 13-15 year old girls to be married. Heck, even nowadays it’s legal for girls 15 years old in Kansas to be married to senior citizens. There’s a a double standard here:
No 19 old year old pimply kid can touch my 15 year old daughter, but if a rich old guy comes along offering marriage … it’s A-OK! How that is not community and church sanctioned rape, I do not know.
no, of course not, and the number would be 1,76%
And the absolutely WORST mistake you’re making is that you’re assuming that pedophiles were even spread throughout the presidential population.
Not even taking the specialty of that profession into account, making statements about such a small number is ridiculous. Even with a completely random selected group of 44 persons it would be ludacris assertion. It’s just too small a group to make any valid statement about it.
Then there’s the factors that lessen or increase the chance of pedophilia
They’re all men, that increases the chance
they’re all men in a leadership position, that could increase it, since they have power, are used to wielding it, and getting what they want.
otoh, you could say, that they’re not frustrated so they wouldn’t take it out on kids, like some pedophiles do.
Then there’s factors like background, but those are so iffy, that it’s ridiculous to make statements like:
baptist, so more likely to be pedophile
white, so more likely to be pedophile
farmer, so more likely to be pedophile. actually it might be that incest occurs more frequent in rural small communities, given the lesser availability of people to have sex with. Idk.
perhaps a better question would be not
“would you schtup a kid if you could get away with it?” but “would you buy a 100 dollar child sex robot if it was reasonably life like?” since some might have reservations about hurting a real kid which they wouldn’t have if it was a robot?
Abuse it may be, but I would not call that paedophilia, not if the abuser him/herselfis prepubescent.
if mormons are 2 percent of the population, yes of course. So what?
they get outnumbered by most any group, including rapists, gunowner, MySpacers
a far more worrying statistic is that the number of guns outnumber the people.
yes, and criminalizing a 10 year old abusing an 7 year old is is even more dangerous, let alone criminalizing kids playing doctor
Criminalizing teen sex is also quite a bad thing.
but if a 12 year old rapes a 12 year old, its’ rape, and it should be dealt with like we would with a 12 year old kicking in the teeth of a 12 year old.
we don’t live in Victorian times any more, when everything about sex was immoral. Some would like it to be, but those were too socially awkward to be invited to play doctor as a kid, so …
Don’t let the sexually repressed run society.
the problem I have with this is that it’s unclear what constitutes a sex offence? As adults we are biased to think that any sort of sex offence is rape or worse.
emotionally we don’t really distinguish between sexual curiosity, which might be a little forced
and full blown sex between kids.
And because kids don’t entirely know what it all means, it might be that sex between nine year olds is less traumatic than a 13 year old getting raped by her boy friend.
I don’t think it’s automatically worse for younger kids to have sex amongst themselves.
also, what is abuse? is it “lower your pants or else”? Or is it really feeling them up etc.
And it’s obvious kids dont realize exactly what they are doing. just to lump that in with an adult who rapes kids, is wrong, i’d say
perhaps he’s covering his ass, since on the net, or anywhere in public, everyone always feels compelled to hastily state that anything regarding kids and sex is “bad” and ‘getting worse’, lest you be branded a pedophile.
But apparently it’s a-ok to gun down kids and have the entire NRA state that this has nothing to do with them, their dangerous ideology and culture, and every one seems to not really disagree.
weird world.
I’d really prefer catching my kid playing doctor with the kid next door than that I find her toying with guns.
Would you prefer catching your kid with Jerry Sandusky than toying with a paintball gun?
That’s not true. Nor was sexuality considered immoral in the Victorian era.