Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience? [Archive]

View Full Version : Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience?

Pages : [1] 2

James R

02-25-09, 08:35 AM

This thread is for discussion of the related debate between ancientregime and James R. Anybody may comment on or discuss the debate here.

Debate: Pedophilia is pseudoscience
Proposal: Is pedophilia pseudoscience

visceral_instinct

02-25-09, 06:00 PM

ancientregime

02-25-09, 06:25 PM

Question for Ancient Regime.

Where exactly is your evidence that children manipulated into participating in sex acts with an adult, only feel revulsion because they have been brainwashed into doing so??

I assume you think that every child that learn about sex from an adult must be being manipulated?

Not all are manipulatated. Humans have this thing that you may want to know about, because it seems you have a closed mind. It's called DISCOVERY. Guess what? There is nothing wrong with discoverring a way to pleasure yourself or others. You are obvious hung up on sexuality and believe thier is something fundametnally wrong with it.

When you learn how to call something exactly what it is (instead of what you have been brainwashed to feel) you look sex the way nature expresses it, not the way abject morality imposes it's idea upon it:

All the chemicals released produce euphoric and bonding feelings. This is represented as a psychological state. The body feels good. The mind represent that wonderful feeling. That's actually what they are learning about.

Do you have the ability to show, that they really should be feeling repulsed? No. You don't. Because all you have is a moral idea that you are imposing on a pleasurable act. Children would think of things naturally, which is the superior way to think, because they are filled with lies. But... danger, danger...

...someone like comes along and begins you emotional abuse doctrine. You tell the child they should ignore those natural feelings (somehow nature is wrong) and instead should feel what you were brainwashed to feel about it: repulsion.

Here is a great article for tampering minds that want to know. (http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/IssuesInScienceTechnology02%20vol%2018.pdf)

visceral_instinct

02-25-09, 06:35 PM

I assume you think that every child that learn about sex from an adult must be being manipulated?

Not all are manipulatated. Humans have this thing that you may want to know about, because it seems you have a closed mind. It's called DISCOVERY. Guess what? There is nothing wrong with discoverring a way to pleasure yourself or others. You are obvious hung up on sexuality and believe thier is something fundametnally wrong with it.

When you learn how to call something exactly what it is (instead of what you have been brainwashed to feel) you look sex the way nature expresses it, not the way abject morality imposes it's idea upon it:

All the chemicals released produce euphoric and bonding feelings. This is represented as a psychological state. The body feels good. The mind represent that wonderful feeling. That's actually what they are learning about.

Do you have the ability to show, that they really should be feeling repulsed? No. You don't. Because all you have is a moral idea that you are imposing on a pleasurable act. Children would think of things naturally, which is the superior way to think, because they are filled with lies. But... danger, danger...

...someone like comes along and begins you emotional abuse doctrine. You tell the child they should ignore those natural feelings (somehow nature is wrong) and instead should feel what you were brainwashed to feel about it: repulsion.

Here is a great article for tampering minds that want to know. (http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/IssuesInScienceTechnology02%20vol%2018.pdf)

I assume you think that every child that learn about sex from an adult must be being manipulated?

No, dude. I think that a child who HAS SEX WITH AN ADULT has obviously been manipulated, coerced, or otherwise induced to do something to which they are too young to consent.

Not all are manipulatated. Humans have this thing that you may want to know about, because it seems you have a closed mind. It's called DISCOVERY. Guess what? There is nothing wrong with discoverring a way to pleasure yourself or others.

I know that, thanks, I'm 18, I've been through early puberty like everyone else.

You are obvious hung up on sexuality and believe thier (sic) is something fundametnally (sic)wrong with it.

Oh hell no I'm not. I would love to have sex more often. With a male my own age, a sexually mature one, not a child.

When you learn how to call something exactly what it is (instead of what you have been brainwashed to feel) you look sex the way nature expresses it, not the way abject morality imposes it's idea upon it:

Nature, at least in normal individuals, tells us to seek a sexually mature mate, not a prepubescent child.

All the chemicals released produce euphoric and bonding feelings. This is represented as a psychological state. The body feels good. The mind represent that wonderful feeling. That's actually what they are learning about.

Go find me someone who was made or told to have sex with an adult as a child, and ask them if they found it pleasurable.

Do you have the ability to show, that they really should be feeling repulsed? No. You don't. Because all you have is a moral idea that you are imposing on a pleasurable act. Children would think of things naturally, which is the superior way to think, because they are filled with lies. But... danger, danger...

See above.

Show me one victim of a pedophile who found it natural and pleasurable.

Asguard

02-25-09, 08:38 PM

ancientregime i think you are confusing terms because the media confuses the terms all the time. As james stated pedophila is PRE pubesent, a 16 year old who is below the age of concent screwing someone who is over the age of concent is illegal (assuming 16 is below the age of concent which its not everywhere) but you could well argue that it shouldnt be and doesnt harm the person involved. However you are arguing PEDIOPHILA which is a compleatly different kettle of fish

to both yourself AND james, i take issue with both your comments assume that the only physical harm is direct. Yes penitrating a baby (this is pediophila you know ancientregime) WILL cause physical harm no matter how small the mans penis is but assume for instance that it causes no harm to an 8 year old. The risks of pregnancy and STD's still exist, does an 8 year old have the ability to access the risks of pregnancy and decide in an informed way that its acceptable? Ok yes by definition if they are able to fall pregant then they arnt prepubessant but STD's are still a risk. Can an 8 year old understand the risk of AIDS and take apropriate action? Can an 18 MONTH old?

i would contest that answer is a resounding NO

james one further point specificially to you, your ages are wrong. Pubity onset is from 8-11 so to be PRE pubessant (which is what pediophila is) you are talking about children younger than that age group.

ancientregime

02-25-09, 08:55 PM

I assume you think that every child that learn about sex from an adult must be being manipulated?

No, dude. I think that a child who HAS SEX WITH AN ADULT has obviously been manipulated, coerced, or otherwise induced to do something to which they are too young to consent.

Not all of them. Despite your morally narrow point of view, children do have sexual urges and do not need to be manipulated, coerced or induce to want to satisfy their own urges.

Children are old enough to consent to sex. They can feel good from it, they like it, and it does not harm them.

Not all are manipulated. Humans have this thing that you may want to know about, because it seems you have a closed mind. It's called DISCOVERY. Guess what? There is nothing wrong with discoverring a way to pleasure yourself or others.

I know that, thanks, I'm 18, I've been through early puberty like everyone else.

So you call yourself a child at 18? Isn't that what we were talking about?

You are obvious hung up on sexuality and believe there is something fundamentally something wrong with it.

Oh hell no I'm not. I would love to have sex more often. With a male my own age, a sexually mature one, not a child.

Again, we were talking about children, confusing yourself again with a child.

When you learn how to call something exactly what it is (instead of what you have been brainwashed to feel) you look sex the way nature expresses it, not the way abject morality imposes it's idea upon it:

Nature, at least in normal individuals, tells us to seek a sexually mature mate, not a prepubescent child.

You are wrong. Naturally, there is nothing wrong with any humans who consensually have sex. Your talking from a moral pulpit. Hallelujah! Praise ye be Jesus. Are you going to shake, quake, leap , jump, roll and bark next?

All the chemicals released produce euphoric and bonding feelings. This is represented as a psychological state. The body feels good. The mind represent that wonderful feeling. That's actually what they are learning about.

Go find me someone who was made or told to have sex with an adult as a child, and ask them if they found it pleasurable.

I'm in my late 30's, so I've been around the block a few times and traveled many times, so I haven't been stuck in a small little world where the outside doesn't exist. Ever met someone who's read a book you haven't? That's like me an you, You know nothing about the books I've read. I've had
lot of girlfriends that had it happen. Lost of friends that had it happen. The only abuse they felt was the fact it was taboo by their family or society. I had one friend who was raped repeatedly, and it was somepmr who people in the community would never expect it was. And btw, this rapist was the same age as the person they raped.

Do you have the ability to show, that they really should be feeling repulsed? No. You don't. Because all you have is a moral idea that you are imposing on a pleasurable act. Children would think of things naturally, which is the superior way to think, because they are filled with lies. But... danger, danger...

Show me one victim of a pedophile who found it natural and pleasurable.

That's impossible, because victims only are raped. You leave out the children who love sex. You wouldn't understand, they don't hang out with people like you. You only want to imprison their friends and family. They can see people like you from a mile away. Your ideas are nightmares to their lives.

ancientregime

02-25-09, 09:20 PM

The risks of pregnancy ... does an 8 year old have the ability to access the risks of pregnancy and decide in an informed way that its acceptable?

Most 8 year olds aren't having their periods. This is irrelevant.

Can an 8 year old understand the risk of AIDS and take apropriate action?

Disease is a danger of course. An 8 year could understand it as a danger. They may not be able to take appropriate actions.

But the threat of contracting AIDS is not evidence that proves that sex itself is harmful, especially sex that does pass disease.

Most people don't have HIV or AIDS. Only sex with someone who has AIDS is harmful. Most of the people involved in underage sex are family or friends. If friends or family did have a disease, they wouldn't give a child the disease. In rare cases, I'm sure it occurs.

Asguard

02-25-09, 09:25 PM

thats plainly false, AIDS may be rare but ALL STD's including AIDS and Hep ARNT rare, they are VERY common

ancientregime

02-25-09, 09:34 PM

thats plainly false, AIDS may be rare but ALL STD's including AIDS and Hep ARNT rare, they are VERY common

HIV/AID less that 1% of US population.

Hep C is less that 2%.

Still quite rare.

Asguard

02-25-09, 09:59 PM

oviously you dont know what your talking about

Chlamydia trachomatis infections are the most commonly reported notifiable disease in the United States. They are among the most prevalent of all STDs and, since 1994, have comprised the largest proportion of all STDs reported to CDC (Table 1). Recent studies also demonstrate the high prevalence of chlamydial infections in the general U.S. population. Among young adults (18-26 years of age) participating in the nationally-representative National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health from 2001 to 2002, chlamydia prevalence was 4.2%.1

In women, chlamydial infections, which are usually asymptomatic, may result in pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), which is a major cause of infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain. Data from a randomized controlled trial of chlamydia screening in a managed care setting suggested that screening programs can lead to a reduction in the incidence of PID by as much as 60%.2 As with other inflammatory STDs, chlamydial infection can facilitate the transmission of HIV infection.3 In addition, pregnant women infected with chlamydia can pass the infection to their infants during delivery, potentially resulting in neonatal ophthalmia and pneumonia. Due to the large burden of disease and risks associated with infection, CDC recommends screening all sexually active women younger than 26 years of age for chlamydia annually.4

The increase in reported chlamydial infections during the last 10 years reflects the expansion of chlamydia screening activities, use of increasingly sensitive diagnostic tests, an increased emphasis on case reporting from providers and laboratories, improvements in the information systems for reporting, and, possibly, true increases in disease. However, many women who are at risk are still not being tested, reflecting, in part, lack of awareness among some health care providers and limited resources available to support screening. Chlamydia screening and reporting are likely to continue to expand further in response to the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) annual measure assessing chlamydia screening coverage of sexually active women 16 through 25 years of age who receive medical care through commercial or Medicaid managed care organizations.5 In 2007, 36.4% of women aged 16-20 years were screened in commercial care settings; in Medicaid populations, 48.8% of women aged 16-20 years were screened.6

To better monitor trends in disease burden in defined populations during the expansion of chlamydia screening activities, data on chlamydia positivity and prevalence among persons screened in a variety of settings are used. In most instances, test positivity serves as a reasonable approximation of prevalence.7

Chlamydia – United States
In 2000, for the first time, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had regulations requiring the reporting of chlamydia cases.

In 2007, 1,108,374 chlamydial infections were reported to CDC from 50 states and the District of Columbia (Table 1). This case count corresponds to a rate of 370.2 cases per 100,000 population, an increase of 7.5% compared with the rate of 344.3 in 2006. The reported number of chlamydial infections was over three times the number of reported cases of gonorrhea (355,991 gonorrhea cases were reported in 2007) (Table 1).

From 1988 through 2007, the rate of reported chlamydial infection increased from 87.1 to 370.2 cases per 100,000 population (Figure 1, Table 1).

Chlamydia by Region
For the years 1998 to 2007, overall rates were similar in the Midwest, West, and South (Figure 2). Rates have consistently remained lowest in the Northeast. In 2007, reported cases continued to increase in all regions (Table 3).

Chlamydia by State
In 2007, chlamydia rates per 100,000 population by state ranged from 156.3 cases in New Hampshire to 745.1 cases in Mississippi (Figure 3, Table 2). Fifteen states, the District of Columbia, and Guam had chlamydia case rates higher than 400 cases per 100,000 population.

Chlamydia by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
In 2007, the chlamydia case rate per 100,000 population in the 50 most populous MSAs increased overall, among both women and men (Table 6). Among women, the 2007 case rate of 568.7 was a 7.7% increase over the 2006 case rate of 528.1 (Table 7). The 2007 case rate among men (211.8 per 100,000 population) increased 11.9% from the 2006 case rate (189.2) (Table 8). In 2007, 57.3% of chlamydia cases were reported by these MSAs.

Chlamydia by County
Counties in the United States with the highest chlamydia case rates per 100,000 population were located primarily in the Southeast and West, including Alaska (Figure 4). In 2007, 597 (19.0%) of 3,140 counties had rates greater than 400.0 cases per 100,000 population. Rates per 100,000 population were 300.0 or less in 2,228 counties (71.0%) and between 300.1 and 400.0 in 315 counties (10.0%). Fifty-three counties and independent cities reported 40% of all chlamydia cases in 2007 (Table 9). Case rates ranged from 247.9 (Miami-Dade County, Florida) to 1,265.0 (St. Louis (City), Missouri) per 100,000 population.

Chlamydia by Sex
In 2007, the overall rate of reported chlamydial infection among women in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (543.6 cases per 100,000 females) was almost three times higher than the rate among men (190.0 cases per 100,000 males), likely reflecting a greater number of women screened for this infection (Figure 1, Tables 4 and 5). The lower rates among men also suggest that many of the sex partners of women with chlamydia are not being diagnosed or reported as having chlamydia. However, with the advent of highly sensitive nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) that can be performed on urine, symptomatic and asymptomatic men are increasingly being diagnosed with chlamydial infection. From 2003 through 2007, the chlamydial infection rate in men increased by 42.9% (from 133.0 to 190.0 cases per 100,000 males) compared with a 17.3% increase in women during the same period (from 463.6 to 543.6 cases per 100,000 females).

Chlamydia by Age
Among women, the highest age-specific rates of reported chlamydia in 2007 were among those 15 to 19 years of age (3,004.7 cases per 100,000 females) and 20 to 24 years of age (2,948.8 cases per 100,000 females) (Figure 5, Table 10). When compared to 2003, case rates per 100,000 women have increased in these two age groups by 12.4% and 17.3%, respectively. These increased rates in women may, in part, reflect increased screening in this group. Age-specific rates among men, while substantially lower than the rates among women, were highest in the 20- to 24-year-old age group (932.9 cases per 100,000 males) (Figure 5, Table 10). Chlamydia case rates among men have increased in most age groups since 2003.

Chlamydia by Race/Ethnicity
In 2007, chlamydia rates increased for all racial and ethnic groups except American Indian/Alaska Natives. (Figure 6, Table 11B). The rate of chlamydia among blacks was over eight times higher than that of whites (1,398.7 and 162.3 cases per 100,000, respectively). The rates among American Indian/Alaska Natives (732.9) and Hispanics (473.2) were also higher than that of whites (4.5 and 2.9 times higher, respectively). In 2007, the chlamydia case rate per 100,000 population among Asian/Pacific Islanders was 139.5.

Chlamydia by Reporting Source
The majority of chlamydia cases reported in 2007 were from venues outside of STD clinics (Table A2). Over time, the proportion of cases reported from non-STD clinic sites has continued to increase (Figure 7). In 2007, among women, only 11.9% of chlamydia cases were reported through an STD clinic (98,382 of 825,660 total cases). In contrast, among men, 33.1% of chlamydia cases were reported through an STD clinic in 2007 (92,906 of 280,337 total cases).

Chlamydia Prevalence in the Population
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is a nationally-representative survey of the U.S. civilian, non-institutionalized 14- to 39-year old population and provides an important measure of chlamydia disease burden. From 1999 to 2002, the overall prevalence of chlamydia infection was 2.2% and was similar between males and females (2.0% and 2.5%, respectively).8 Prevalence was higher among non-Hispanic blacks than non-Hispanic whites in all age groups (Figure 8).

Chlamydia Prevalence Monitoring Project
Chlamydia screening and prevalence monitoring activities were initiated in Health and Human Services (HHS) Region X (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington) in 1988 as a CDC-supported demonstration project. In 1993, chlamydia screening services for women were expanded to three additional HHS regions (III, VII, and VIII) and, in 1995, to the remaining HHS regions (I, II, IV, V, VI, and IX). In some regions, federally-funded chlamydia screening supplements local-and state-funded screening programs. Screening criteria and practices vary by region and state.

Family Planning Clinics
In 2007, the median state-specific chlamydia test positivity among 15- to 24-year-old women who were screened during visits to selected family planning clinics in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands was 6.9% (range: 2.9% to 16.8%) (Figures 9 and 10). Since 1997, the median chlamydia positivity rate has slightly increased over time. This increase is likely due primarily to increasing usage of more sensitive test technology. See Appendix (Chlamydia, Gonorrhea, and Syphilis Prevalence Monitoring) for details.

Chlamydia test positivity among 15-24-year-old women screened in family planning clinics fluctuated in all 10 HHS regions between 2003 and 2007 (Figure 11). Positivity has remained fairly stable in four regions (I, III, V, X). From 2003 to 2006, slight decreases in positivity occurred in one region (II), followed by a small increase in 2007. In the remaining five regions (IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX), positivity rates increased slightly over the five-year time frame from 2003 to 2007. The positivity rates presented in Figure 11 are not adjusted for changes in laboratory test methods and associated increases in test sensitivity. Utilization of more sensitive tests has been shown to impact positivity rates.9 Usage of NAAT technology in family planning clinics to screen women aged 15-24 years for chlamydia is widespread (Figure 12). In four regions, NAATs were used nearly exclusively from 2003 to 2007 (I, V, VII, VIII). By 2007, five additional regions used NAATs over 50% of the time (II, III, IV, IX, X). Only one region (VI) reported a low NAAT-usage rate in 2007; however, usage increased from 2003 to 2007.

Chlamydia Among Special Populations
Additional information on chlamydia screening programs for women of reproductive age and chlamydia among adolescents, minority populations, and in corrections facilities can be found in the Special Focus Profiles.

Chlamydia Summary
Both prevalence and reported cases of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infections remain high across age groups, racial/ethnic groups, geographic locales, and both sexes. The burden of chlamydia appears higher among women, especially those of younger age (15 to 19 and 20 to 24 years of age), but this may be a reflection of persons recommended for screening. Racial differences also persist; case rates among blacks continue to be substantially higher than rates among other racial/ethnic groups.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/chlamydia.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures/1.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures/5.htm

Background
Gonorrhea is the second most commonly-reported notifiable disease in the United States. Infections due to Neisseria gonorrhoeae, like those resulting from Chlamydia trachomatis, are a major cause of PID in the United States. PID can lead to serious outcomes in women such as tubal infertility, ectopic pregnancy, and chronic pelvic pain. In addition, epidemiologic and biologic studies provide strong evidence that gonococcal infections facilitate the transmission of HIV infection.1

From 1975 through 1997, the national gonorrhea rate declined 74% following implementation of the national gonorrhea control program in the mid-1970s (Figure 13). For the past ten years, however, gonorrhea rates appear to have reached a plateau, unfortunately still far from the Healthy People 2010 target of 19 cases per 100,000 population (Figure 14 and Table 1).

Increases in gonorrhea rates in eight western states from 2000 to 2005 have been described among a wide variety of populations in the affected states.2 Increases in quinolone-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae (QRNG) in 2006 led to changes in national guidelines that now limit the recommended treatment of gonorrhea to a single class of drug, the cephalosporins.3 The combination of increases in gonorrhea morbidity in some populations with increases in resistance and decreased treatment options have reinforced the need for better understanding of the epidemiology of gonorrhea.

Although gonorrhea case reporting is useful for monitoring trends in gonorrhea, true increases or decreases in disease burden may be masked by changes in screening practices (affected by concomitant testing for chlamydia and broader use of urine-based testing), use of diagnostic tests with differing test performance, and changes in reporting practices.4

For most areas, the number of gonorrhea cases reported to CDC is affected by many factors, in addition to the occurrence of the infection within the population. As with reporting of other STDs, reporting of gonorrhea cases to CDC is incomplete.5 For these reasons, supplemental data on gonorrhea prevalence in persons screened in a variety of different settings are useful in assessing disease burden in selected populations.

Gonorrhea – United States
In 2007, 355,991 cases of gonorrhea were reported in the United States. The rate of reported gonorrhea in the United States was 118.9 cases per 100,000 population in 2007 (Figure 13 and Table 1), a decrease of 0.7% since 2006. Gonorrhea rates have remained relatively stable for over 10 years.

Gonorrhea by Region
As in previous years, in 2007 the South had the highest gonorrhea rate among the four regions of the country (156.0 cases per 100,000 population). Rates in the South and Midwest have remained substantially higher than rates in the Northeast and West. Rates in all regions over the last year have shown little change (Figure 15 and Table 13).

An evaluation of increases in gonorrhea in eight western states from 2000 to 2005 suggested that increases were likely due to a variety of factors such as changes in testing practices (increased volume and use of more sensitive tests) as well as real increases in disease.2

Gonorrhea by State
In 2007, only seven states and Puerto Rico had gonorrhea rates below the HP2010 national target of 19 cases per 100,000 population (Figure 16 and Tables 12 and 13).6 This is an increase from 2006 of three states (Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming) that now meet the HP2010 target.

Gonorrhea by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
The overall gonorrhea rate in the 50 most populous MSAs was 129.4 cases per 100,000 population in 2007. This is essentially unchanged from 2006. All of these MSAs had rates higher than the HP2010 target of 19 cases per 100,000 population. In 2007, 58.6% of gonorrhea cases were reported by these MSAs (Table 16). Similar to previous years, in 2007 the total gonorrhea rate among females in these MSAs (128.4) remained similar to that among males (129.9) (Tables 17 and 18).

Gonorrhea by County
In 2007, 1,305 (41.6%) of 3,140 counties in the United States had gonorrhea rates at or below the HP2010 national target of 19 cases per 100,000 population. Rates per 100,000 population were between 19 and 100 in 1,099 counties (35.0%), and greater than 100 in 736 counties (23.4%). The majority of counties with greater than 100 cases per 100,000 population were located in the South (Figure 17).

In 2007, 50% of reported gonorrhea cases occurred in just 69 counties or independent cities (Table 19).

Gonorrhea by Sex
Prior to 1996, rates of gonorrhea among men were higher than rates among women. For the seventh consecutive year, however, gonorrhea rates among women and men were similar with rates among women being slightly higher (Figure 14). In 2007, the gonorrhea rate among women was 123.5 and the rate among men was 113.7 cases per 100,000 population (Tables 14 and 15).

Gonorrhea by Age
In 2007, gonorrhea rates continued to be highest among adolescents and young adults. Among females in 2007, 15- to 19 and 20- to 24-year-old women had the highest rates of gonorrhea (647.9 and 614.5, respectively). Among males, the rate was highest in those 20 to 24 years of age (450.1) (Figure 18 and Table 20).

From 2003 to 2007, slight increases were seen among the age groups under 35 years (4.8% among those 15 to 19 years of age, 2.6% among those 20 to 24 years of age, 5.8% among those 25 to 29 years of age, and 4.3% among those 30 to 34 years of age) (Table 20). Slight decreases were seen among those 35 to 39 years of age (4.6%), and those 40 to 44 years of age (2.0%).

Among females between 15 and 44 years of age (from 2003 to 2007) increases were greatest in those 25 to 29 years of age (10.9%) and those 30 to 34 years of age (11.4%). Among males between 15 and 44 years of age, increases over that time period were seen among those 15 to 19 years of age (9.5%) and those 25 to 29 years of age (1.5%) (Figures 19 and 20, and Table 20).

Gonorrhea by Race/Ethnicity
In 2007, gonorrhea rates remained highest among blacks (662.9 cases per 100,000 population, Table 21B and Figure 21). Similar to recent years, the rate among blacks was 19.1 times greater than the rate among whites (34.7 cases per 100,000 population). Gonorrhea rates were 3.1 times greater among American Indian/Alaska Natives (107.1 cases per 100,000 population), and 2.0 times greater among Hispanics (69.2 cases per 100,000 population) than among whites in 2007. Rates among whites were 1.8 times higher than those among Asian Pacific Islanders (18.8 cases per 100,000 population in 2007 (Figure 21).

Between 2003 and 2007, gonorrhea rates showed no marked changes for any racial or ethnic group, except for a 14.9% decline among Asian Pacific Islanders. There was a 21.8% decline among American Indian/Alaska Natives from 2006 to 2007 (Figure 21 and Table 21B). Additional information on gonorrhea among minority populations can be found in the Special Focus Profiles.

Gonorrhea by Region and Sex
Between 2003 and 2007, gonorrhea rates among women increased 19.1% in the West, 8.7% in the South, and 5.5% in the Midwest. Gonorrhea rates among women decreased 19.7% in the Northeast during the same time period.

Between 2003 and 2007, gonorrhea rates among men increased 15.1% in the West and 1.7% in the South, and decreased 9.4% in the Northeast and 0.5% in the Midwest (Tables 14 and 15).

Gonorrhea by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
From 2003 to 2007, overall rates among white, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaska Native, and black men increased (2.7%, 2.6%, 1.0%, and 0.4% respectively). Gonorrhea rates decreased only among Asian/Pacific Islander males (5.3%) (Table 21B).

Between 2003 and 2007 the overall rate among white, American Indian/Alaska Native, and black women increased (9.0%, 6.1%, and 3.8% respectively). However, decreases were seen among Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic women (21.8% and 3.4% respectively) (Table 21B).

Currently, 15- to 19-year-old black women still have the highest gonorrhea rate of any group (2,955.7 per 100,000 population), closely followed by 20- to 24-year-old black women (2,789.2), and 20- to 24-year-old black men (2,451.3).

Gonorrhea by Reporting Source
In 2007, 26.7% of gonorrhea cases were reported by STD clinics (Table A2). This is a slight change from 2003, when 29.9% of gonorrhea cases were reported by STD clinics. In 2007, a higher proportion of male gonorrhea cases were reported from STD clinics than female cases (37.2% and 17.3% respectively) (Figure 22 and Table A2).

Gonorrhea Prevalence Monitoring Project
Gonorrhea test positivity data are available from a variety of settings. Screening criteria and practices may vary by state and over time.

Family Planning Clinics
In 2007, the median state-specific gonorrhea test positivity among 15- to 24-year-old women screened in selected family planning clinics in 43 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands was 0.9% (range: 0.1% to 4.9%) (Figure 23). Median gonorrhea positivity in family planning clinics has shown minimal change in recent years (range: 0.8% to 1.1% between 2003 and 2007).

Prenatal Clinics
For women attending selected prenatal clinics in 19 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the median positivity was 0.8% (range: 0.0% to 3.9%) (Figure D). Median gonorrhea positivity in prenatal clinics has shown minimal change in recent years (range: 0.8% to1.0% between 2003 and 2007).

National Job Training Program
Among 16- to 24-year-old women entering the National Job Training Program in 36 states and Puerto Rico in 2007, the median state-specific gonorrhea prevalence was 3.0% (range: 0.0% to 7.2%) (Figure M). Among men entering the program from 32 states and Puerto Rico in 2007, the median state-specific gonorrhea positivity was 1.1% (range: 0.0% to 4.4%) (Figure N).

Juvenile Corrections
In 2007, the median positivity for gonorrhea by facility in women entering 52 juvenile corrections facilities was 5.3% (range: 0.0% to 13.9%). In men entering 90 juvenile corrections facilities in 2007, the median was 1.0% (range: 0.0% to 4.5%) (Table C).

Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP)
Antimicrobial resistance remains an important consideration in the treatment of gonorrhea.3,7-14 In 1986, the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project (GISP), a national sentinel surveillance system, was established to monitor trends in antimicrobial susceptibilities of strains of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in the United States among selected STD clinics in approximately 25-30 GISP sentinel sites14 (Figure 24).

Overall in 2007, 27% of isolates collected from 29 of 30 GISP sites were resistant to penicillin, tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, or some combination of those antibiotics (Figure 25).

Quinolone-resistant N. Gonorrhoeae (QRNG)
Resistance to ciprofloxacin (a fluoroquinolone in the quinolone family of antimicrobials) was first identified in GISP sites in 1991. From 1991 through 1998, fewer than nine quinolone-resistant N. gonorrhoeae (QRNG) isolates were identified each year, and such isolates were identified in only a few GISP clinics. However since 1999 QRNG prevalence has steadily increased, first in Hawaii and the Pacific Islands, then in the Western states, and then among MSM.7,9,10 In 2007, 891 (14.8%) of 6,009 GISP isolates collected were identified as QRNG, an increase from 2006, when 843/6,089 (13.8%) isolates were identified as QRNG (Figure 26). QRNG isolates were identified from all 29 GISP sites that submitted isolates in 2007. GISP did not receive any isolates from Tripler in 2007.

QRNG by Region
In 2007, QRNG increased most markedly in those regions where prevalence had been relatively low.

In 2007, 20 (28.6%) of 70 isolates submitted from Honolulu demonstrated ciprofloxacin-resistance, a decrease from 34 (35.8%) of 95 isolates in 2006.

From 2006 to 2007, several western sites demonstrated an increase in the number of isolates resistant to ciprofloxacin. In Albuquerque, the prevalence of QRNG more than doubled to 16.7% of isolates collected in 2007 from 7.3% in 2006; in Denver, 17% were resistant to fluoroquinolones in 2007 compared with 15.7% in 2006; in Las Vegas, the prevalence also doubled to 18.7% in 2007 from 8.7% in 2006; in Long Beach, 30.4% were resistant in 2007 compared to 28.4% in 2006; in Orange County, 41% were resistant in 2007 compared with 34.6% in 2006; in Portland, 28.6% were resistant in 2007 compared with 27.2% in 2006; and in San Diego, 36.3% were resistant in 2007 compared with 35.1% in 2006. The prevalence in Los Angeles was relatively the same at 22.4% in 2007. In other western sites such as Phoenix, San Francisco, and Seattle, the prevalence of QRNG decreased slightly during the same time period. In Phoenix, 8.7% of isolates were QRNG when compared with 11.9% in 2006; in San Francisco, the prevalence of QRNG decreased to 31.3% in 2007 from 44.5% in 2006; and in Seattle to 29.3% in 2007 from 31.8% in 2006.

In the South from 2006 to 2007, most of the sites continued to observe increases in the prevalence of QRNG. In Baltimore, QRNG resistance increased to 2% in 2007 from 1.4% in 2006; in Birmingham, the prevalence increased about eight fold to 9.4% in 2007 from 1.1% in 2006; in Dallas, the prevalence increased to 7.5% from 6.1%; in Greensboro, it tripled to 5.3% from 1.7%; in New Orleans it increased to 18.1% from 10.2%; and in Oklahoma City, it increased to 6% from 4.3%. However, in Atlanta, where isolates were submitted from January-April 2007 only, the prevalence of QRNG decreased to 2.6% in 2007 from 5.7% in 2006. In Miami, the prevalence of QRNG remained about the same in 2007 at 19.6%.

In the Midwest and Northeast there were dramatic increases in prevalence of QRNG from 2006 to 2007 among several sites. In Chicago, the prevalence of isolates that were resistant to ciprofloxacin doubled to 8.6% in 2007 from 4.1% in 2006; in Cincinnati, the prevalence almost doubled to 1.2% in 2007 from 0.7% in 2006; in Detroit, it increased by five fold to 1.7% in 2007 from 0.3% in 2006; in Minneapolis, it doubled to 10.7% in 2007 from 5.7% in 2006; and in New York City, it also almost doubled to 14.9% in 2007 from 7.6% in 2006. There was a decrease in QRNG prevalence in Cleveland to 0.7% in 2007 from 3.1% in 2006 and in Philadelphia to 29.1% from 30.3%, respectively.

New sites in GISP that identified ciprofloxacin-resistant isolates included Kansas City and Richmond. Kansas City rejoined GISP in September 2007 and observed a QRNG prevalence of 16.4% in 2007. Richmond started collection in November 2007 and QRNG was identified in 17.9% of isolates.

QRNG by Sexual Behavior
The prevalence of QRNG in isolates from MSM slightly decreased from 39% in 2006 to 36% in 2007. During the same time period, the prevalence of QRNG in isolates from heterosexuals increased from 7% to 9% (Figure 27).

As a result of high and continued widespread prevalence of QRNG among MSM and then more recently, among heterosexuals, CDC revised the 2006 CDC STD Treatment Guidelines in April 2007.3 Therefore, CDC states that fluoroquinolones are no longer recommended for use in the United States for the treatment of gonococcal infections and associated conditions such as pelvic inflammatory disease.3

Other Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing
The proportion of GISP isolates demonstrating decreased susceptibility to ceftriaxone or cefixime has remained very low over time. Overall in GISP, from 1987 to 2007, there have been a total of four isolates with decreased susceptibility to ceftriaxone (all four had minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 0.5 μg/ml) and 48 isolates with decreased susceptibility to cefixime (MIC range from 0.5-2.0 μg/ml) in GISP. In 2007, there were no isolates identified with decreased susceptibility to ceftriaxone. (Note: Cefixime was discontinued in 2007 from the GISP antibiotic susceptibility panel.)

The proportion of GISP isolates demonstrating elevated MICs to azithromycin has been increasing since GISP began monitoring azithromycin susceptibility in 1992. In 2005, there was a change in the media used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing which resulted in an observational shift of the MIC curve for azithromycin. Thus, the azithromycin MIC for decreased susceptibility was changed from ≥1.0 μg/ml to ≥ 2.0 μg/ml in 2005 and thereafter. In 2007, 0.5% (27/6,009) isolates had azithromycin MIC ≥ 2.0 μg/ml compared to 0.2% (14/6,089) in 2006.

Additional information on antimicrobial susceptibility data and on GISP may be found in the 2007 GISP report8 or the GISP website: http://www.cdc.gov/std/GISP

Gonorrhea Among Special Populations
Additional information about gonorrhea in racial and ethnic minority populations, adolescents, MSM, and other at risk populations can be found in the Special Focus Profiles.

Gonorrhea Summary
In summary, the national gonorrhea rate has remained relatively unchanged for approximately ten years. Unfortunately the 2007 rate of 118.9 cases per 100,000 population is still greater than the Healthy People 2010 goal of 19 cases per 100,000 population. Of particular concern are the persistent high rates in some geographic areas, adolescents and young adults, and some racial/ethnic groups.

Although fluoroquinolones are no longer recommended for treatment of gonococcal infections in the U.S., GISP data continues to show widespread increases in QRNG prevalence throughout the country. With only one class of antibiotics recommended for treating gonorrhea, continued monitoring for the emergence of decreased susceptibility and resistance to cephalosporins is critical.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/gonorrhea.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures/13.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures/18.htm

Background
Syphilis, a genital ulcerative disease, causes significant complications if untreated and facilitates the transmission of HIV. Untreated early syphilis in pregnant women results in perinatal death in up to 40% of cases and, if acquired during the four years preceding pregnancy, may lead to infection of the fetus in 80% of cases.1

The rate of primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis reported in the United States decreased during the 1990s; in 2000, the rate was the lowest since reporting began in 1941 (Figure 28). The low rate of infectious syphilis and the concentration of the majority of syphilis cases in a small number of geographic areas in the United States led to the development of the CDCs National Plan to Eliminate Syphilis, which was announced by Surgeon General David Satcher in October 1999 and revised in May 2006.2

Although the rate of P&S syphilis in the United States declined 89.7% between 1990 and 2000, the rate of P&S syphilis increased annually between 2001 and 2007. Overall increases in rates between 2001 and 2007 were observed primarily among men (from 3.0 cases per 100,000 population to 6.6 cases per 100,000 population). After persistent declines from 1992 to 2003, the rate of P&S syphilis among women increased from 0.8 cases per 100,000 population in 2004 to 0.9 cases per 100,000 population in 2005 to 1.0 case per 100,000 population in 2006, to 1.1 case per 100,000 population in 2007.

Syphilis remains an important problem in the South and in urban areas in other regions of the country. Increases in cases among MSM have occurred and have been characterized by high rates of HIV co-infection and high-risk sexual behavior.3-7 The estimated proportion of P&S syphilis cases attributable to MSM increased from 4% in 2000 to 62% in 2004. In 2005, CDC requested that all state health departments report sex of sex partners for persons with syphilis. In 2007, 65% of those P&S syphilis cases in 44 states and Washington D.C. with available information were among MSM. Of reported male cases with P&S syphilis, sex of partner information in 2007 was available for 79%.

Syphilis — All Stages (P&S, Early Latent, Late, Late Latent, Congenital)
Between 2006 and 2007, the number of cases of early latent syphilis reported to CDC increased 17.2% (from 9,186 to 10,768), while the number of cases of late and late latent syphilis increased 3.5% (from 17,644 to 18,256) (Table 1). The total number of cases of syphilis (all stages: P&S, early latent, late, late latent, and congenital syphilis) reported to CDC increased 10.7% (from 36,968 to 40,920) between 2006 and 2007 (Table 1).

P&S Syphilis — United States
In 2007, P&S syphilis cases reported to CDC increased to 11,466 from 9,756 in 2006, an increase of 17.5%. The rate of P&S syphilis in the United States in 2007 (3.8 cases per 100,000 population) was 15.2% higher than the rate in 2006 (3.3 cases per 100,000 population), and it is greater than the HP 2010 target of 0.2 case per 100,000 population (Figure 29, Table 1).10

P&S Syphilis by Region
The South accounted for 48.8% of the P&S syphilis cases in 2007 and 47.1% in 2006. Between 2006 and 2007, rates increased 21.4% in the South (from 4.2 to 5.1 cases per 100,000 population), 30.8% in the Northeast (from 2.6 to 3.4), 8.1% in the West (from 3.7 to 4.0) and 5.6% in the Midwest (from 1.8 to 1.9). The 2007 rates in all regions were greater than the HP 2010 target of 0.2 cases per 100,000 population (Figure 30, Table 25).

P&S Syphilis by State
In 2007, P&S syphilis rates in three states were less than or equal to the HP 2010 target of 0.2 case per 100,000 population (Figure 31, Table 24). Four states and one outlying area reported five or fewer cases of P&S syphilis in 2007 (Table 24).

P&S Syphilis by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
The rate of P&S syphilis in 2007 for the 50 most populous MSAs (5.7) exceeded the HP 2010 target of 0.2 cases per 100,000 population (Table 28).

P&S Syphilis by County
In 2007, 2,275 of 3,140 counties (72.4%) in the United States reported no cases of P&S syphilis compared with 2,360 (75.2%) in 2006. Of 865 counties reporting at least one case of P&S syphilis in 2007, five (0.6%) had rates at or below the HP2010 target of 0.2 cases per 100,000 population. Rates of P&S syphilis were above the HP2010 target for 860 counties in 2007 (Figure 32). These 860 counties (27.4% of the total number of counties in the United States) accounted for 99.9% of the total P&S syphilis cases reported in 2007. In 2007, half of the total number of P&S syphilis cases were reported from 23 counties and two cities (Table 31).

P&S Syphilis by Sex
The rate of P&S syphilis increased 17.9% among men (from 5.6 cases to 6.6 cases per 100,000 men) between 2006 and 2007 (Figure 29, Table 27). During this time, the rate increased 10.0% among women from 1.0 to 1.1 cases per 100,000 women (Figure 29, Table 26).

P&S Syphilis by Age
In 2007, the rate of P&S syphilis was highest in persons in the 25- to 29-year-old age group (8.9 cases per 100,000 population) (Figure 33 and Table 32).

Between 2006 and 2007, P&S syphilis rates in most age groups among men and women increased (Table 32 and Figures 34 and 35).

P&S Syphilis by Race/Ethnicity
From 2006 to 2007, the rate of P&S syphilis increased in all racial and ethnic groups except Asian/Pacific Islanders (Figure 36). The rate increased 5.3% among non-Hispanic whites (from 1.9 to 2.0), 25% among blacks (from 11.2 to 14.0), 22.9% among Hispanics (from 3.5 to 4.3), and 6.3% among American Indian/Alaska Natives (from 3.2 to 3.4). The rate remained the same at 1.2 cases per 100,000 population among Asian/Pacific Islanders (Table 33B).

P&S Syphilis by Sex and Sex Behavior
The male to female rate ratio for P&S syphilis has risen steadily since 1996 when it was 1.2, suggesting an increase among MSM. In 2007, the rate of P&S syphilis in males was 6.0 times that in females, an increase from 5.7 in 2006.

In 2005, CDC began collecting information on the sexual orientation of patients with P&S syphilis. In 2007, this information was available for 79% of male cases.

In 2007, the stage of disease was reported as follows: among heterosexual men with P&S syphilis, 43.0% had primary syphilis and 57% had secondary syphilis. Among female patients, 17.9% had primary syphilis and 82.1% had secondary syphilis. Among men who had sex with men with P&S syphilis, 24.3% had primary syphilis and 75.7% had secondary syphilis (Figure 37).

Of females with P&S syphilis, 21.9% were white, 63.5% were black, 9.6% were Hispanic, and 5.0% were of other races/ethnicities. Of heterosexual men, 19.3% were white, 59.8% were black, 16.1% were Hispanic, and 4.8% were of other race/ethnicities. Of men who had sex with men, 40.8% were white, 33.2% were black, 19.3% were Hispanic, and 6.7% were of other races/ethnicities (Figure 38).

P&S Syphilis by Race/Ethnicity and Sex
From 2006 to 2007, the P&S syphilis rate among non-Hispanic white males increased 5.7% (from 3.5 to 3.7), and increased among non-Hispanic white females as well (from 0.3 to 0.4). The rate increased 28.2% among black males (from 18.1 to 23.2) and 14.3% among black females (from 4.9 to 5.6). The rate increased 25.0% among Hispanic males (from 6.0 to 7.5), but remained unchanged among Hispanic females (0.8). The rate remained unchanged for both Asian/Pacific Island males (2.4), and Asian/Pacific Island females (0.1). The rate increased 36.8% among American Indian/Alaska Native females (from 1.9 to 2.6), but decreased 8.5% among American Indian/Alaska Native males (from 4.7 to 4.3) (Table 33B).

P&S Syphilis by Race/Ethnicity, Age, and Sex
In 2007, the rate of P&S syphilis among blacks was highest among women aged 20 to 24 years (16.0) and among men aged 20 to 24 years (57.5) and 25 to 29 years (57.4). For non-Hispanic whites, the rate was highest among women aged 20 to 24 years (1.1) and among men aged 40 to 44 years (10.4). For Hispanics, the rate was highest among women aged 20 to 24 years (2.3) and among men aged 40 to 44 years (15.5). For Asian/Pacific Islanders, the rate was highest among women aged 20 to 24 years and 30 to 34 years (both 0.4) and among men aged 25 to 29 years (5.8). For American Indian/Alaska Natives, the rate was highest among women aged 25 to 29 years (7.8) and among men aged 30 to 34 years (18.2) (Table 33B).

P&S Syphilis by Reporting Source
In 1990, 25.6% of P&S syphilis cases were reported from sources other than STD clinics; this figure increased to 39.2% in 1998. Between 1998 and 2007, the proportion of P&S syphilis cases reported from sources other than STD clinics increased from 39.2% to 68.7% (Figure 39 and Table A2). Between 2001 and 2007, the number of cases among males reported from non-STD clinic sources increased sharply while the number from STD clinics increased slightly (Figure 39).

During 2007, patients with P&S syphilis primarily sought care with private physicians or STD clinics. Men who have sex with men were more frequently reported from private physicians (36.7%) than STD clinics (27.1%) (Figure 40). More cases among women and heterosexual men were reported from STD clinics than private physicians.

Congenital Syphilis — United States
After 14 years of decline in the United States, the rate of congenital syphilis increased 12.9% between 2006 and 2007 (from 9.3 to 10.5 cases per 100,000 live births) (Table 39). In 2007, 430 cases were reported, an increase from 382 in 2006. This increase in the rate of congenital syphilis may relate to the increase in the rate of P&S syphilis among women that has occurred in recent years (Figure 41).

Congenital Syphilis by State
In 2007, 29 states, the District of Columbia, and two outlying area had rates of congenital syphilis that exceeded the HP 2010 target of one case per 100,000 live births (Tables 38 and 39).

Syphilis Among Special Populations
Additional information about syphilis and congenital syphilis in racial and ethnic minority populations, adolescents, MSM, and other at-risk populations can be found in the Special Focus Profiles.

Syphilis Summary
In recent years, MSM have accounted for an increasing number of estimated syphilis cases in the United States9 and now account for 65% of syphilis cases in the United States based on information from 44 states and Washington, D.C. Despite the majority of U.S. syphilis cases occurring among MSM, syphilis cases among heterosexuals is an emerging problem given the recent increases among women and infants.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/syphilis.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures/28.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/figures/33.htm

Chancroid
Since 1987, reported cases of chancroid declined steadily until 2001. Since then, the number of cases reported has fluctuated (Figure 42, Table 1). In 2007, 23 cases of chancroid were reported in the United States. Only eight states reported one or more cases of chancroid in 2007 (Table 41). Although the overall decline in reported chancroid cases most likely reflects a decline in the incidence of this disease, these data should be interpreted with caution since Haemophilus ducreyi, the causative organism of chancroid, is difficult to culture and, as a result, this condition may be substantially under-diagnosed.1,2

Human Papillomavirus
Persistent infection with high risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) can lead to development of anogenital cancers (i.e., cervical cancer). In June 2006, a quadrivalent HPV vaccine was licensed for use in the United States. The vaccine provides protection against types 6, 11, 16, and 18. Types 6 and 11 are associated with genital warts while types 16 and 18 are oncogenic types associated with anogenital cancers.

Sentinel surveillance for cervical infection with high-risk human papillomavirus types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, or 68 was conducted in 26 STD, family planning and primary care clinics in six locations (Boston, Baltimore, New Orleans, Denver, Seattle and Los Angeles) as part of an effort to estimate national burden of disease and inform prevention programs such as vaccine programs in the U.S. Testing was performed using a commercially available test for HR-HPV DNA (Hybrid Capture 2, Qiagen, Gaithersburg, MD). Results from 2003-2005 document an overall HR-HPV prevalence of 23%. Prevalence in STD clinics was 27%, 26% in family planning clinics, and 15% in primary care clinics. Prevalence by age group was: 14 to 19 years 35%; 20 to 29 years 29%; 30 to 39 years 13%; 40 to 49 years 11%; and 50 to 65 years 6%.3

Preliminary results from the sentinel surveillance project from 2003-2004 also report PCR-based HPV type-specific prevalence estimates for types 16 and 18. Overall prevalence of infection with HPV types 16 or 18 was 8%. Prevalence of HPV 16 or 18 by age group was: 16% in 14 to 19 year olds; 10% in 20 to 29 year olds; 3% in 30 to 39 year olds; 2% in 40 to 49 year olds and 1% in 50 to 65 year olds.4

National population-based data were also obtained from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) identifying prevalence of both HR-HPV and low-risk HPV (LR-HPV, which is associated with development of anogenital warts) in the civilian, non-institutionalized female population of the U.S., 2003-2004 (Figure 43). The overall HPV prevalence including high- and low-risk types, was 26.8% (95% confidence interval (CI): 23.3-30.9) among U.S. females aged 14 to 59 years. HPV vaccine preventable types 6 or 11 (low-risk types) or 16 or 18 (high-risk types) were detected in 3.4% of female participants; HPV-6 was detected in 1.3% (95% CI: 0.8-2.3), HPV-11 in 0.1% (95% CI: 0.03-0.3), HPV-16 in 1.5% (95% CI: 0.9-2.6), and HPV-18 in 0.8% (95% CI: 0.4-1.5) of female participants.5

Data from the National Disease and Therapeutic Index (NDTI) suggest that genital warts (Figure 44) as measured by initial visits to physicians offices, may be increasing. The NHANES 1999-2004 survey years demonstrated that 5.6% (95% CI: 4.9-6.4) of sexually active 18-59 year olds self-reported a history of a genital wart diagnosis.6

Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
For data on Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID), see the Special Focus Profile on Women and Infants.

Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV)
Case reporting data for genital herpes simplex virus are not available. Trend data are based on estimates of the initial office visits in physicians' office practices for these conditions from the National Disease and Therapeutic Index (NDTI) (Figure 45 and Table 42).

National trend data on the seroprevalence of HSV-2 among those aged 14 to 49 years from the NHANES survey years 1999-2004 were compared with survey years 1988-1994. Seroprevelance decreased from 21% (95% CI: 19.1-23.1) in 1988-1994 to 17.0% (95% CI: 15.8-18.3) in 1999-2004. When including data on blacks and whites from NHANES survey years 1976-1980, blacks had higher seroprevalence than whites for each survey period and age group7 (Figure 46). In 1999-2004, the overall percentage of survey participants who reported having been diagnosed with genital herpes was 3.8%.7

While HSV-2 seroprevalence is decreasing, most persons with HSV-2 have not been diagnosed. Increasing visits for genital herpes, as suggested by NDTI data, may indicate increased recognition of infection.

Trichomoniasis
Case reporting data are not available for trichomoniasis and trend data for this infection is limited to estimates of initial physician office visits from NDTI (Figure 47 and Table 42). NHANES data from 2001-2004 demonstrated an overall prevalence of 3.1% (95% CI: 2.3-4.3), with highest prevalence observed among blacks 13.3% (95% CI: 10.0-17.7).8

http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/other.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/other-figs.htm

Personally i think these stats are wrong, HPV and Herpies are rated as the most prevelant in Australia as far as i know and i belive this would the case in the US. However these virus's are NOT reportable and poorly diognosed so acurate statistics are hard to come by.

Would you like to re-evaluate your comments?

Bells

02-26-09, 07:34 AM

S.A.M.

02-26-09, 07:42 AM

I think comparing alcohol consumption to sex is a spurious analogy. Alcohol consumption is not a biological urge.

phlogistician

02-26-09, 10:21 AM

This whole debate is a blight on Sciforums. There is no discussion to be had here. Ancient Regime is a sick fuck and the thread should be deleted. We should not entertain such a warped perspective.

Enmos

02-26-09, 11:13 AM

I think comparing alcohol consumption to sex is a spurious analogy. Alcohol consumption is not a biological urge.

Neither is sex for kids.

Enmos

02-26-09, 11:15 AM

Ancientregime, how would you feel if it turns out that your 50 year old neighbor has been having sex with 8 year olds ?
Do you have kids ?

S.A.M.

02-26-09, 11:26 AM

Neither is sex for kids.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZsQ_RG_K-B0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=childhood+sexuality

I think the role of social conditioning seems very important:

e.g.

Many people cannot imagine that everyone—babies, children, teens, adults, and the elderly—are sexual beings. Some believe that sexual activity is reserved for early and middle adulthood. Teens often feel that adults are too old for sexual intercourse. Sexuality, though, is much more than sexual intercourse and humans are sexual beings throughout life.

Sexuality in infants and toddlers—Children are sexual even before birth. Males can have erections while still in the uterus, and some boys are born with an erection. Infants touch and rub their genitals because it provides pleasure. Little boys and girls can experience orgasm from masturbation although boys will not ejaculate until puberty. By about age two, children know their own gender. They are aware of differences in the genitals of males and females and in how males and females urinate.

Sexuality in children ages three to seven—Preschool children are interested in everything about their world, including sexuality. They may practice urinating in different positions. They are highly affectionate and enjoy hugging other children and adults. They begin to be more social and may imitate adult social and sexual behaviors, such as holding hands and kissing. Many young children play "doctor" during this stage, looking at other children's genitals and showing theirs. This is normal curiosity. By age five or six, most children become more modest and private about dressing and bathing.

Children of this age are aware of marriage and understand living together, based on their family experience. They may role-play about being married or having a partner while they "play house." Most young children talk about marrying and/or living with a person they love when they get older. School-age children may play sexual games with friends of their same sex, touching each other's genitals and/or masturbating together. Most sex play at this age happens because of curiosity.

Sexuality in preadolescent youth ages eight to 12—Puberty, the time when the body matures, begins between the ages of nine and 12 for most children. Girls begin to grow breast buds and public hair as early as nine or 10. Boys' development of penis and testicles usually begins between 10 and 11. Children become more self-conscious about their bodies at this age and often feel uncomfortable undressing in front of others, even a same-sex parent.

Masturbation increases during these years. Preadolescent boys and girls do not usually have much sexual experience, but they often have many questions. They usually have heard about sexual intercourse, petting, oral sex, and anal sex, homosexuality, rape and incest, and they want to know more about all these things. The idea of actually having sexual intercourse, however, is unpleasant to most preadolescent boys and girls.

Same-gender sexual behavior is common at this age. Boys and girls tend to play with friends of the same gender and are likely to explore sexuality with them. Masturbating with one's same-gender friends and looking at or caressing each other's genitals is common among preadolescent boys and girls. Such same-gender sexual behavior is unrelated to a child's sexual orientation.

Some group dating occurs at this age. Preadolescents may attend parties that have guests of both genders, and they may dance and play kissing games. By age 12 or 13, some young adolescents may pair off and begin dating and/or "making out."

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/lessonplans/sexdevelop.htm

It would be interesting to see what happens in societies where shame and inhibition are not imposed on children.

Enmos

02-26-09, 12:16 PM

visceral_instinct

02-26-09, 07:06 PM

Not all of them. Despite your morally narrow point of view, children do have sexual urges and do not need to be manipulated, coerced or induce to want to satisfy their own urges.

Children are old enough to consent to sex. They can feel good from it, they like it, and it does not harm them.

So you call yourself a child at 18? Isn't that what we were talking about?

Again, we were talking about children, confusing yourself again with a child.

You are wrong. Naturally, there is nothing wrong with any humans who consensually have sex. Your talking from a moral pulpit. Hallelujah! Praise ye be Jesus. Are you going to shake, quake, leap , jump, roll and bark next?

I'm in my late 30's, so I've been around the block a few times and traveled many times, so I haven't been stuck in a small little world where the outside doesn't exist. Ever met someone who's read a book you haven't? That's like me an you, You know nothing about the books I've read. I've had
lot of girlfriends that had it happen. Lost of friends that had it happen. The only abuse they felt was the fact it was taboo by their family or society. I had one friend who was raped repeatedly, and it was somepmr who people in the community would never expect it was. And btw, this rapist was the same age as the person they raped.

That's impossible, because victims only are raped. You leave out the children who love sex. You wouldn't understand, they don't hang out with people like you. You only want to imprison their friends and family. They can see people like you from a mile away. Your ideas are nightmares to their lives.

Not all of them. Despite your morally narrow point of view, children do have sexual urges and do not need to be manipulated, coerced or induce to want to satisfy their own urges.

Children are old enough to consent to sex. They can feel good from it, they like it, and it does not harm them.

They don't have sexual urges like adults do. They are merely curious about their body. They touch their genitals for the same reason they explore the rest of their body. They are curious, and too young to be aware that their undeveloped penis or vagina is any more a private part than the nose or ears.

So you call yourself a child at 18? Isn't that what we were talking about?

Learn some fucking reading comprehension. I did not describe myself as a child.

I'm in my late 30's, so I've been around the block a few times and traveled many times, so I haven't been stuck in a small little world where the outside doesn't exist. Ever met someone who's read a book you haven't? That's like me an you, You know nothing about the books I've read. I've had
lot of girlfriends that had it happen. Lost of friends that had it happen. The only abuse they felt was the fact it was taboo by their family or society. I had one friend who was raped repeatedly, and it was somepmr who people in the community would never expect it was. And btw, this rapist was the same age as the person they raped.

You sure about that? You sure you're not just superimposing your own views on them?

You are wrong. Naturally, there is nothing wrong with any humans who consensually have sex. Your talking from a moral pulpit. Hallelujah! Praise ye be Jesus. Are you going to shake, quake, leap , jump, roll and bark next?

IT IS NOT CONSENSUAL. THEY ARE TOO YOUNG TO CONSENT.

You leave out the children who love sex.

THEY DON'T EXIST.

Children do not love sex. Like I said - they play with their genitals out of exploration and curiosity, not because they're old enough to be horny.

Bells

02-26-09, 08:51 PM

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZsQ_RG_K-B0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=childhood+sexuality

I think the role of social conditioning seems very important:

e.g.

It would be interesting to see what happens in societies where shame and inhibition are not imposed on children.

That's seen as being normal behaviour.. children will explore their own bodies.. They do it even as babies. Hell, even in the womb. I remember an ultrasound at 36 weeks with my eldest and he was holding onto his willy.

What ancient regime is saying goes well beyond what is seen as normal behaviour and self discovery in children.

Stryder

02-27-09, 06:13 AM

If a "Child" consents to any act, it means nothing for they aren't an "Adult" and when they reach "Adulthood" they can pretty much change their entire reasoning behind anything they did as a "Child".

If they are coerced into some "Sexual" act as a Child, it could effect them in their Adult years, it could haunt them, torment them and degrade them as a person. In fact if they can prove that they were coerced as a minor and they can direct the law to the person responsible, it can still be seen as "Statutory Rape" even years later.

This is the reason that Children should be protected from such actions made towards them. Someone's sick sexual urge is no justification to force such cruel, demeaning, in human torture on them at that time or in that persons future. Anyone that believes otherwise really should seek mental help from Psychiatrists (That itself is not Debatable).

phlogistician

02-27-09, 06:36 AM

theobserver

02-27-09, 11:35 AM

Now, go tell this to James, and get that sick debate closed. We should not be debating this issue, it's accepted that we don't allow people in civilised society to fuck children.

Whatever happens in nature is part of this nature; even if it doesn't make any sense to humans. Humans idea of being civilized is more about creating an alternate reality and then hallucinating themselves into believing all those are true. Its more like taking laws of nature into our own hands. Look into the animal world. They all hump their young ones. When we raised the age of consent and kept a whole series of generation of people from having sex from the natural age when they have to be enjoying sex, probably none of these so called civilized humans thought about such consequences. Nature has its way of balancing itself and all these are part of it. If we try to bring in humans narrow minded selfish agenda and declare things as good or bad, that wouldn't serve any purpose. Its a part of evolution and a consequence for humans ignorance. We have to face it.

ancientregime

02-27-09, 06:34 PM

I am requesting a two day extension to post the third argument.

James R

02-28-09, 04:04 AM

I agree to the 2-day extension.

Fraggle Rocker

02-28-09, 09:51 PM

Ancient Regime is a sick fuck and. . . . We should not entertain such a warped perspective.Phlog, that is a personal insult and personal insults are a violation of the rules of this website. If you can't make your point convincingly without resorting to such tactics, then perhaps your point is not as obvious and secure as you would like us to believe. And if you don't immediately desist from personally insulting other members you'll end up on the ban list. I don't like pedophilia any more than you do but we all agree to follow the rules when we log on here. So far the only participant in this discussion who's breaking any rules is YOU. Everyone else is, astoundingly, behaving like good scientists.Ancientregime, how would you feel if it turns out that your 50 year old neighbor has been having sex with 8 year olds? Do you have kids ?Enmos, this is a place of science and how anyone "feels" about something is not germane to any discussion. Feelings are not worth shit in the laboratory. I have the same thing to say to you that I said to Phlog: If this is the best you can do, then please sit down.

I feel very, very sick, angry, and disgusted that my 30-year-old neighbor on one side is a Christian and the one on the other side is a Muslim. These are two pathologies that have done far more damage to human civilization than pedophilia, starting specifically with the obliteration of three of those civilizations. Yet the laws of my country require me to tolerate them. Apparently our natural ability or inability to feel good about something our neighbors do simply doesn't count. So you're going to have to come up with something better than "It makes my skin crawl" if you want to be taken seriously.Now, go tell this to James, and get that sick debate closed. We should not be debating this issue, it's accepted that we don't allow people in civilised society to fuck children.It is also "accepted" that we don't allow gay people in a civilized society to live normal married lives with children. It is "accepted" that violence is a reasonable way to solve a dispute, so long as the parties to the dispute are entire "civilized societies" rather than individuals. It is "accepted" that one religion's symbols, slogans and rituals can shape the discourse and calendar of our country. Within my lifetime it was "accepted" that people of one skin color could not be allowed to mingle with those of another color, that women were not generally suited for jobs of great responsibility, that the best way to discipline children was by paddling, and that when they got a few years older they could be forced to serve in the military.

To argue that your point is valid because it is "accepted" is a fallacy.

So far A.R. is doing a fine job of practicing the scientific method. I'm not saying James isn't as well, but IMHO neither one has convincingly won the debate. Both offer many pages of well-researched material. But unfortunately all either have to rely on is psychology, one of the softest of the "soft sciences." When one is reduced to padding one's findings with statements from government employees--the same people who told us Saddam had WMD's and who still tell us that marijuana is worse for us than alcohol and tobacco--it's kind of embarrassing. I call this a standoff unless someone we all respect as neutral (yeah right) wants to go track down every paper that both of them have cited, read them all, check the credentials of all the authors, and report back to us.

Suppose the first ship from Tau Ceti lands here and it turns out that the denizens of that part of the galaxy reproduce asexually. They're amused at the odd things we do with each other's bodies, but then they're outraged when they see an adult and a child doing one of those things and they see us punish the adult, since punishment is rare on Tau Ceti.

How would we explain to them that pedophilia is wrong? Because it makes those of us who aren't even participants--and who most often don't even know when it's happening--feel bad? That pedophiles are icky? That they're "sick fucks"???

Sure. Farewell to our chance to apply for membership in the Galactic Federation. I sure hope the Romulans aren't landing next week.

Tnerb

03-01-09, 01:20 AM

omg.
this plea of this pedo dude is absolutely absurd. it is surely

Enmos

03-01-09, 04:36 AM

Enmos, this is a place of science and how anyone "feels" about something is not germane to any discussion. Feelings are not worth shit in the laboratory. I have the same thing to say to you that I said to Phlog: If this is the best you can do, then please sit down.

I feel very, very sick, angry, and disgusted that my 30-year-old neighbor on one side is a Christian and the one on the other side is a Muslim. These are two pathologies that have done far more damage to human civilization than pedophilia, starting specifically with the obliteration of three of those civilizations. Yet the laws of my country require me to tolerate them. Apparently our natural ability or inability to feel good about something our neighbors do simply doesn't count. So you're going to have to come up with something better than "It makes my skin crawl" if you want to be taken seriously.

I was just trying to find out if he was a hypocrite.

phlogistician

03-01-09, 10:05 AM

Phlog, that is a personal insult and personal insults are a violation of the rules of this website. If you can't make your point convincingly without resorting to such tactics, then perhaps your point is not as obvious and secure as you would like us to believe. .

Are you defending paedophilia? Sounds like it to me.

You mods are blinded by ideals and are lost on the real implications of what this guy is saying.

phlogistician

03-01-09, 10:11 AM

.Enmos, this is a place of science and how anyone "feels" about something is not germane to any discussion..

That is total bullshit. Laws are based on the concensus of how people feel about crimes, and victims feelings are taken into account in sentening, and we are talking about the law here.

Sorry, but you are taking far too an abstract view of this matter. Maybe if some paedophile had abused your kids you'd think differently. Maybe you'd stop defending the guy

theobserver

03-01-09, 11:15 AM

That is total bullshit. Laws are based on the concensus of how people feel about crimes, and victims feelings are taken into account in sentening, and we are talking about the law here.

Sorry, but you are taking far too an abstract view of this matter. Maybe if some paedophile had abused your kids you'd think differently. Maybe you'd stop defending the guy

Isn't this a case of emotions overriding logic?? I might be afraid of dogs. That doesn't mean dog is a dangerous animal. :rolleyes:

scott3x

03-01-09, 03:41 PM

Phlog, that is a personal insult and personal insults are a violation of the rules of this website.

And yet people do it all the time in sciforums. I think that in this one forum, atleast, we should have some ground rules as to what personal insults are off limits. I think 'sick fuck' could definitely qualify.

Perhaps other words I had proscribed in my 9/11 discussion thread could be applied to all threads in the Formal Debates forum:
The f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, pea brain, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.). As people come up with more overly insulting terms, we could add to the list...

Asguard

03-01-09, 11:05 PM

i actually read the inital post which sparked all this and i would like to put a point of view forward in regard to Ancient Regime's aleged friend.

Rape (as in use of force or cohersesion to obtain sexual favors) trumps statitory rape. There is no age taken into acount in this crime except for the ages of criminal culpability. There for acording to the courts your friend is a lier because if he had convinced the jury that she had cohersed him into having sex he would have been found not guilty. As to what would have happened to HER that would depend on the degree of culpability that an 11 year old has to comit a crime where ever it happened.

So i put forward that your friend (or you yourself if you made up the story for your own argument here) is a lier and that this is a straight case of an older man cohersing a minor into having sex with him

Fraggle Rocker

03-01-09, 11:09 PM

Are you defending paedophilia? Sounds like it to me.No I'm not defending pedophilia. AR is. I am defending the right of people in a free society to hold debates. You, on the other hand, are arguing disingenously because you know bloody well that I'm not defending pedophilia. We have had a couple of PM exchanges on this topic.You mods are blinded by ideals and are lost on the real implications of what this guy is saying."Blinded by ideals." What an interesting accusation. Is there anyone here who would be consider it an insult? My country was founded on ideals.

I doubt that any of us has lost the implication of what AR is saying. Nonetheless he has the right to say it. He has raised some extremely interesting points regarding attitudes about pedophilia in other cultures. He has also pointed out the weaknesses in the discipline of psychology. We Americans are very skeptical of psychology and are loth to make a judgment if the only arguments in its favor come from psychologists.

Regardless of how anyone feels about pedophilia, this discussion is an excellent exercise in scientific debate. It shows how difficult it is to practice science when culture and the emotions upon which it is based are involved.That is total bullshit. Laws are based on the concensus of how people feel about crimes, and victims feelings are taken into account in sentening, and we are talking about the law here.Indeed, but we're talking specifically about how laws are made and the reality that lawmaking frequently violates the scientific method. Just take the War on Drugs as a stark example, then dig back to Jim Crow, and by the time you get to the breaches of the treaties with the Native Americans you feel like pissing on the entire legal canon of the United States. The topic under debate is (if you'll allow the Head Linguist to restate it in proper syntax so it finally makes sense): Is the criminalization of sex between adults and prepubescent children based upon pseudoscience?

The irrationality of many of our most intrusive laws is a perfectly valid topic for discussion. What better way to open the discussion than with a law we all automatically assume is rational, because, as you say, "it's accepted."

Religion is "accepted" and it's one hundred percent bullshit.Sorry, but you are taking far too an abstract view of this matter. Maybe if some paedophile had abused your kids you'd think differently. Maybe you'd stop defending the guyOne of the points that is never stressed enough in public debate is: We must never allow bereaved people to make policy. Bereaved people are irrational, narrowly focused and often downright selfish. If I had children and they had been abused I should automatically be excluded from this discussion. Bereaved people perform absolutely shitty risk analysis and risk management. The essence of a free society is that you have to tolerate occasional harm by miscreants in order to avoid draconian restrictions of the freedom of everyone else.

Look at the stupid crap that's gone down after 9/11. They've made it virtually impossible to make a weekend getaway by plane, because 3,000 Americans were killed by terrorists in the last eight years. During those same eight years 120,000 Americans were killed by drunk drivers. They could be easily thwarted by building breathalyzer ignition interlocks into all cars, for a fraction of the cost of the War on Terrorism and without abridging anyone else's rights. Yet we don't do it and instead we have turned the world upside down and made our country a pariah, because we are bereaved and bereaved people are irrational.And yet people do it all the time in sciforums. I think that in this one forum, atleast, we should have some ground rules as to what personal insults are off limits. I think 'sick fuck' could definitely qualify. Perhaps other words I had proscribed in my 9/11 discussion thread could be applied to all threads in the Formal Debates forum: The f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, pea brain, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.). As people come up with more overly insulting terms, we could add to the list...In some discussions insults are accepted by the participants and they are exchanged. There is no exchange of insults here; it is unidirectional. One member is too inarticulate to make his point (not to mention apparently unfamiliar with any data that might support his thesis) so in frustration he expresses himself in insults. Everyone else is comporting themselves admirably so he really stands out.

He seems to believe that expressions of emotion are a debating tactic. He also seems to think that because governments are woefully guilty of passing laws based on emotions, that we should succumb to the same temptation and allow scientific hypotheses to be peer-reviewed by emotion instead of reason.

phlogistician

03-02-09, 04:48 AM

OK Fraggle, so that's a lot of words and ultimately, you are defending paedophilia by defending a paedophile. And yes, we've had PMs on this, and I just thought you were spouting rhetoric. You seem to not understand the actual topic, but merely see this as metadiscussion. If you are so proud to be supporting a paedophile, why not link some images of child abuse, so we all know what it is we are talking about, eh? No? Worried about the jail time you'll get for just looking? Is that idea driving the point home?

Oh, btw on;

One member is too inarticulate to make his point

I have corrected _you_, the moderator of the linguistics forum before so this statement of yours is pretty low. Swearing does not make me inarticulate. Far from it, it means my vocabulary has at least half a dozen more words in it than yours.

People are defending ancient on the grounds of 'freedom of speech', but James just went and banned Gluon for posting pseudoscience, when we have a section for that topic. Moderation needs to be consistent, or you guys start to look incompetent. Also, your thrust that this is a science forum, and saying I was arguing from an emotional point of view fell flat, because we also have a section 'Ethics and Morality' and these subjects are clearly heavily influenced by the subjective.

On the foundation of your country on ideals, well, Voltaire has the quote;

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

attributed to him, but you know what? In France, the home of this pioneer of free speech, I think you'll find that hate speech, and holocaust denial are not topics people are free to voice. Clearly, free speech has limits. Clearly, you not supporting my right to call Ancient a 'sick fuck' shows you have some limits. Even when it's rather more a description of an act, than a mere ad hom. For someone who professes to understand linguistics, that double entendre seems to have been wasted on you.

phlogistician

03-02-09, 06:10 AM

So i put forward that your friend (or you yourself if you made up the story for your own argument here)

Here's the thing, is anyone seriously buying into the story that it was a 3rd party involved in Ancient's story? What are the odds of a paedophile happening to have a sympathetic paedophile friend?

So, people, if a friend of yours admitted such an act, how would you react? Understand his point of view, or be revulsed? Fraggle, James, I really want you to reply here.

phlogistician

03-02-09, 06:15 AM

It is also "accepted" that we don't allow gay people in a civilized society to live normal married lives with children

Maybe in the backwater where you live, but in the UK, gay couples may adopt children. Seems we are more forward thinking, something you might want to consider on this issue?

That however is a separate issue, and each issue should be dealt with on it's individual merits, and also., as a moderator, you should know the value of staying on topic.

phlogistician

03-02-09, 06:26 AM

I haven't seen him say that this is what he meant.

He hasn't specified what he deems an appropriate age of consent, nor what acts are appropriate, so you cannot rule out that he finds the scenario I mentioned acceptable.

Let's get this straight, he is not discussing age of consent, that might be a topic that has some merit in it's discussion, as it varies, and social and environmental factors could be examined. No, he's talking about fucking children. Got that?

phlogistician

03-02-09, 06:29 AM

Isn't this a case of emotions overriding logic?? I might be afraid of dogs. That doesn't mean dog is a dangerous animal. :rolleyes:

Present a logical defense of a paedophile and we'll see.

James R

03-02-09, 06:35 AM

OK Fraggle, so that's a lot of words and ultimately, you are defending paedophilia by defending a paedophile.

Fraggle is defending free speech, not a pedophile. It appears you don't understand the difference.

People are defending ancient on the grounds of 'freedom of speech', but James just went and banned Gluon for posting pseudoscience, when we have a section for that topic.

No. Gluon was banned for repeatedly wasting the time of real scientists and moderators - as it says on the Ban List.

Clearly, free speech has limits. Clearly, you not supporting my right to call Ancient a 'sick fuck' shows you have some limits.

We have a rule on sciforums that members ought not to attack and insult each other personally. Play the ball, not the man. sciforums, as you may have noticed, is not a nation, but an internet forum. This is but one niche on the internet. We are not obliged to provide a platform for every type of speech here. In fact, we have a policy of encouraging certain types of publication while discouraging others. There are, however, plenty of other sites on which the views we do not publish can be freely expressed. sciforums has no duty to be all things to all people, and we never set out to do that anyway.

Since we bill ourselves as an "intelligent community", we think that intelligent people should be able to debate issues without resorting to crude personal insults and character assassination. Those who don't like that policy are free to practice their free speech elsewhere. We won't stop them.

Here's the thing, is anyone seriously buying into the story that it was a 3rd party involved in Ancient's story? What are the odds of a paedophile happening to have a sympathetic paedophile friend?

Your accusation that ancientregime is a pedophile is potentially libellous. I'd be careful if I were you.

So, people, if a friend of yours admitted such an act, how would you react? Understand his point of view, or be revulsed? Fraggle, James, I really want you to reply here.

I'd like to think that no friend of mine would ever do such a thing. If they did, I would certainly be re-evaluating the friendship rather radically.

phlogistician

03-02-09, 07:11 AM

Fraggle is defending free speech, not a pedophile. It appears you don't understand the difference.

So you are calling Ancient a paedophile too. I'd be careful if I were a moderator making weak excuses.

You are both defending a paedophile, ergo you are defending paedophilia.

Your argument that discussing the matter may enlighten fence sitters hasn't been proven, quite the opposite, as Scott3x has demonstrated support for Ancient.

We are not obliged to provide a platform for every type of speech here. In fact, we have a policy of encouraging certain types of publication while discouraging others.

Yet you give a voice to someone advocating paedohilia. Your choices seem skewed.

Your accusation that ancientregime is a pedophile is potentially libellous. I'd be careful if I were you.

Oh please. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paedophile

It's a fair accusation based on the things he's said. His 'friend' that he talks about, you don't think that's a facsimile to avoid admitting having perpetrated those acts himself?

I'd like to think that no friend of mine would ever do such a thing. If they did, I would certainly be re-evaluating the friendship rather radically.

That's a dodge James. How about a real answer?

phlogistician

03-02-09, 07:15 AM

No. Gluon was banned for repeatedly wasting the time of real scientists and moderators - as it says on the Ban List.

Real scientists can choose whether to humour him or not. It's their choice.

James R

03-02-09, 07:57 AM

So you are calling Ancient a paedophile too.

Er... no.

You are both defending a paedophile, ergo you are defending paedophilia.

You're not really a clear thinker, are you? Either that or just closed-minded, so that differing points of view just make no impact on you. It's as if you haven't read anything I've written.

Your argument that discussing the matter may enlighten fence sitters hasn't been proven, quite the opposite, as Scott3x has demonstrated support for Ancient.

Oh, come now, phlogistician. To show that you'd have to prove:

1. scott3x was a fence sitter.
2. scott3x supports pedophilia.
3. scott3x was swayed by ancientregime's argument.
4. Nobody apart from scott3x has been swayed by argument (or at least not by my side of the argument).

It's a fair accusation based on the things he's said. His 'friend' that he talks about, you don't think that's a facsimile to avoid admitting having perpetrated those acts himself?

That's your assumption - totally unsupported by any evidence.

Real scientists can choose whether to humour [gluon] or not. It's their choice.

Not anymore it isn't (at least, not here). :)

phlogistician

03-02-09, 08:13 AM

You're not really a clear thinker, are you? Either that or just closed-minded, so that differing points of view just make no impact on you. It's as if you haven't read anything I've written.

OK James, if you are open minded, are you open to the idea that sex with children is OK?

Oh, come now, phlogistician. To show that you'd have to prove:

1. scott3x was a fence sitter.
2. scott3x supports pedophilia.
3. scott3x was swayed by ancientregime's argument.
4. Nobody apart from scott3x has been swayed by argument (or at least not by my side of the argument).

I didn't say Scott3x was a fence sitter, just that the Scott3x supported Ancient. I merely stated that so far there is no evidence that you have swayed fence sitters, and that Scott3x supporting Ancient indicated the opposite of your goal was occurring. Fence sitters being what they are, have not come forward to verify your case, and if you recall, I doubted there were any from the outset.

That's your assumption - totally unsupported by any evidence.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Do non-paedophiles advocate having sex with children?

scott3x

03-02-09, 08:26 AM

And yet people do it all the time in sciforums. I think that in this one forum, atleast, we should have some ground rules as to what personal insults are off limits. I think 'sick fuck' could definitely qualify. Perhaps other words I had proscribed in my 9/11 discussion thread could be applied to all threads in the Formal Debates forum: The f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, pea brain, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.). As people come up with more overly insulting terms, we could add to the list...

In some discussions insults are accepted by the participants and they are exchanged.

It's accepted by most of the participants because they have no choice in the matter. In pseudoscience, the basic rule of thumb is that you can insult just about everyone, -except- for Stryder, who's a mod and can make it clear if someone's crossing the line with him. This doesn't mean he hasn't been insulted, only that he's the only person who can actually -do- something about it if he so chooses. The only time I remember someone getting a reprimand for insulting a non mod was when John apparently linked to a song that apparently had verses that could be considered threatening; I hadn't even noticed that part, I'd simply reported his insults.

This is why I wanted to talk about even the WTC collapses here; here I felt a more formal discussion could be had. However, the main discussion was started over in pseudoscience and I simply couldn't get it to go very far over here. It's apparently been the same with the 9/11 thread I started here.

There is no exchange of insults here; it is unidirectional. One member is too inarticulate to make his point (not to mention apparently unfamiliar with any data that might support his thesis) so in frustration he expresses himself in insults. Everyone else is comporting themselves admirably so he really stands out.

He seems to believe that expressions of emotion are a debating tactic. He also seems to think that because governments are woefully guilty of passing laws based on emotions, that we should succumb to the same temptation and allow scientific hypotheses to be peer-reviewed by emotion instead of reason.

I agree. Well, atleast he hasn't called anyone a 'sick fuck' again. Maybe there should be a '3 strikes and you're out' policy or something. It would be nice if it could be limited to particular forums that don't allow that type of language. The only thing I think would be good is to have a clear list of words that are off limits; that way, while people might be able to argue as to the fairness of the words chosen, it would atleast be somewhat resistant to allegations of favouritism (they could still accuse the moderators of choosing only the words that -they- personally abhor, but I definitely think that's a rather minor charge; there are so many words, I don't think disallowing a few overly insulting ones will make it so that people aren't able to convey what they wish to).

scott3x

03-02-09, 08:34 AM

Oh, come now, phlogistician. To show that you'd have to prove:

1. scott3x was a fence sitter.
2. scott3x supports pedophilia.
3. scott3x was swayed by ancientregime's argument.
4. Nobody apart from scott3x has been swayed by argument (or at least not by my side of the argument).

I'll help clarify this a bit.

1. I was definitely -not- a fence sitter in regards to some of the issues that ancientregime brought up well before he brought them up.

2. Pedophilia is a term that is far too broadly defined for me to answer with a blanket affirmative or negative. I do -not- support engaging in illegal sexual acts. I -do- support challenging the laws that have made some sexual acts illegal, however.

3. I have found some of ancientregime's posts to be informative but I don't think that my position has changed at all. Not only that, but there are some arguments of ancientregime where it seems clear that we actually disagree; I opened up a thread in the Ethics forum precisely to discuss this disagreement; it's still going but ancientregime himself hasn't commented in it in a bit now:
Sexual abuse allegations- how best to protect when the truth is unknown (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90790)

4. A very good point; apparently, a lot of people simply read and don't comment at all.

phlogistician

03-02-09, 08:42 AM

scott3x

03-02-09, 08:44 AM

I didn't say Scott3x was a fence sitter, just that the Scott3x supported Ancient.

I support -some- of ancient's ideas, not all of them.

I merely stated that so far there is no evidence that you have swayed fence sitters, and that Scott3x supporting Ancient indicated the opposite of your goal was occurring.

While -I- may support a fair amount of what ancientregime has to say, many more have come out on the other side. Seriously phlog, I think you should be happier; don't you want people who are -against- ancientregime instead of the hypothetical fence sitters who may well believe it's best to read more before deciding what side they support more on this issue? There's also another issue here; while James may think that he can't change ancientregime's views on things and perhaps he thinks he can't change my views either, I for one think that something very good is happening, which is that we're seriously dealing with a lot of important issues here; we're becoming aware, for instance, that the term 'pedophilia' has become such a catch all term that by some definitions it literally means someone who -has- broken the law, instead of its classical definition of simply someone who is attracted to minors. We are also discussing many issues concerning not just attraction to minors but minors who are attracted to adults and other minors, as well as the importance of sex ed, what should be taught in sex ed and even if permission to engage in sexual intercourse should be something that should be licensed instead of simply being a function of how old you are. I think that all of these issues which deserve far more time then they actually get in the mainstream media.

scott3x

03-02-09, 08:53 AM

I'll help clarify this a bit.

2. Pedophilia is a term that is far too broadly defined for me to answer with a blanket affirmative or negative. I do -not- support engaging in illegal sexual acts. I -do- support challenging the laws that have made some sexual acts illegal, however.

Discussing the variation in the age of consent is one thing. Ancient is not doing that, he's advocating sex with children.

Summarizing his argument in a single phrase is, I believe, doing him an injustice. As I have stated to a different poster, I think that we must first define both sex and children before we can advocate anything concerning the matter.

Why? For starters, and regardless of what the societal context is, the size of a minor's anus is only so big and pain is generally something that few people want. Thus, anal sex is probably not something many minors would want if only for this reason.

In terms of the other side, boys don't have much of a problem; the size of a hole won't cause a minor male any problems for his piece. It's a completely different story with girls and this has to be taken into account.

Tiassa brought up the issue of cervical cancer as well and that a study was done in which minor females 15 or younger who engaged in sexual activities were 3 times as likely to get cervical cancer. He stated that perhaps the information was out of date but I certainly believe that such studies should be seriously looked into.

Then there is another issue which ancientregime brought up inadvertantly; sexual intercourse is -not- the only sexual activity in town; cunnilingus passes right over these problems with sexual intercourse and yet it is frequently still referred to as sex.

I don't know how ancientregime stands on the issue of informed consent; we may disagree on this. I -do- believe that informed consent is important in situations where one of the parties may take advantage of the other's lack of knowledge or where both parties are both uninformed and thus make mistakes (unwanted pregnancies and stds, for instance).

phlogistician

03-02-09, 09:35 AM

Scott3x, I really don't want delve into the minutiae of child abuse as you seem to. I think the matter is very clear cut, and what Ancient proposes is wrong.

scott3x

03-02-09, 09:57 AM

Scott3x, I really don't want delve into the minutiae of child abuse as you seem to. I think the matter is very clear cut, and what Ancient proposes is wrong.

phlog, the point is that defining what -is- child abuse, heck, how we define children, is more then a mere detail. People's lovers are jailed for this type of thing, as has been made clear in the case of Vili Fualaau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vili_Fualaau)'s lover and now wife, Mary Kay Letourneau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Letourneau). Society owes them an apology for stereotyping their roles as 'victim' and 'predator' and Mary shouldn't have to be labelled as a sex offender just because she was sexual with her now husband; ultimately, whether someone finds their relationship offensive or not, I believe it should be up to -them- to decide whether the relationship should be considered legally offensive.

phlogistician

03-02-09, 10:01 AM

Scott3x, I really don't want delve into the minutiae of child abuse as you seem to. I think the matter is very clear cut, and what Ancient proposes is wrong.

scott3x

03-02-09, 10:06 AM

Scott3x, I really don't want delve into the minutiae of child abuse as you seem to. I think the matter is very clear cut, and what Ancient proposes is wrong.

I see you have ignored most of what I said; perhaps it's a waste of time to even respond to you, but I will try once more to get my point across: people's lives are not 'minutiae'. You may think that the 'matter' (which is rather vaguely defined because pedophilia is an extremely broad term) is clear cut, but many people don't. I would argue that this is why the discussion has been so lively.

Enmos

03-02-09, 10:17 AM

theobserver

03-02-09, 10:17 AM

Present a logical defense of a paedophile and we'll see.

Why not we try a simple experiment and try to go a step ahead of AR?

If you can avoid getting sexually aroused finding yourself naked and locked in a room with a naked 12 yr old girl for 8 hours without any availability of clothes, I will give it to you that your claim is valid.

In fact i suggested a slightly different version of this experiment on a religious forum on techniques to recruit catholic priests.

:rolleyes:

John99

03-02-09, 11:17 AM

phlogistician

03-02-09, 11:19 AM

You may think that the 'matter' ...is clear cut, but many people don't.

It is clear cut Scott. If you aren't sure, don't do it, if it's not legal, don't do it, it's that simple.

theobserver

03-02-09, 05:03 PM

Seems like you are contradicting yourself here. Statistically pedophilia is as prevalent in any demographic. You even insinuate this with your first comment but the majority of people are not attracted to children and can be around naked children because this has been done for thousands of years in many families.

Its more than that if you have really experimented outside the social and legal barriers. I am not talking about incest here. I agree not everyone is attracted but under supportive circumstances, I have noticed that a lot more can be discovered. Most people who get all emotionally worked out over such bizarre factors of nature doesn't quite realize that under specific circumstances their body will behave differently than their belief they are trying to defend. It can be established with repeated tests. So if phlogistician thinks its sick, he will be shocked to find out that he himself is found physically attracted to a young one under supportive circumstances but have been socially conditioned to believe otherwise.

Reg priests: if they get scientific and experimental in the recruiting process, it will clash with their belief that they can avoid getting sexually aroused and can handle themselves. Hence it raises self doubts.

scott3x

03-02-09, 08:00 PM

I see you have ignored most of what I said; perhaps it's a waste of time to even respond to you, but I will try once more to get my point across: people's lives are not 'minutiae'. You may think that the 'matter' (which is rather vaguely defined because pedophilia is an extremely broad term) is clear cut, but many people don't. I would argue that this is why the discussion has been so lively.

I don't think pedophilia is a very broad term. How so ?

It's defined as both an attraction -and- as a criminal act. Wikipedia makes this abundantly clear in its opening paragraphs:
The term pedophilia or paedophilia has a range of definitions as found in psychology, law enforcement, and the popular vernacular. As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children.[1][2][3] According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is specified as 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.[4] The disorder is frequently a feature of persons who commit child sexual abuse;[5][6][7] however, some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia.[8] In strictly behavioral contexts, the word "pedophilia" has been used to refer to child sexual abuse itself, also called "pedophilic behavior".[9][10][6][11][12]

In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent).[13] An example of this use can be seen in various forensic trainings manuals. Some researchers have described this usage as improper and suggested it can confound two separate types of offenders.[13]

Some people who are attracted to minors do -not- break the law, but the terms pedophilia and pedophile are now so loaded that some people may automatically assume that if you say you have pedophilia and are therefore a pedophile, you are therefore by its very definition a criminal. Because of all of this, many minor attracted adults have opted for that term; that is MAA, or Minor Attracted Adult.

Adult Attracted Minors has also been mentioned, and I'll make up 2, Minor attracted Minors and Adult attracted Minors and ofcourse there are combinations of of these: Minor/Adult attracted Adult and Adult/minor attracted minor.

scott3x

03-02-09, 08:04 PM

You may think that the 'matter' ...is clear cut, but many people don't.

It is clear cut Scott. If you aren't sure, don't do it, if it's not legal, don't do it, it's that simple.

phlog, while I do agree with you that as a general rule, following the straight and narrow path is a good approach, you seem to be completely ignoring the other issue that I've been trying to get across: that is, are the laws as they stand in regard to sexuality fair? Because if they're not, surely you would agree that they should be changed, no?

phlogistician

03-03-09, 04:37 AM

are the laws as they stand in regard to sexuality fair? Because if they're not, surely you would agree that they should be changed, no?

That's a different discussion, and not the one Ancient is having. If you wanted to discuss some aspect of the law in particular, contrast where it varies from state to state or country to country, consider historical, environmental and cultural factors, yeah, that would be a valid discussion.

I cannot tolerate Ancient's line of reasoning in the current debate however.

phlogistician

03-03-09, 08:23 AM

ancientregime

03-03-09, 08:55 AM

Laws are based on the concensus of how people feel about crimes, and victims feelings are taken into account in sentening, and we are talking about the law here.

No, you are not talking about the law. You are talking about opinion. Laws have an empirical basis, not a subjective one only.

The law was used to kill 20,000 innocent individuals called witches, based upon subjective opinion. The consensus of subjective opinion was a primary influence in the Witch Trials. Consensus is important only in the sense of corroboration of empirical evidence, not subjective opinion. When dealing with issues of crime and punishment, a consensus of subjective opinion used as evidence is a miscarriage of justice.

In relationship to the subject matter of this thread, I make the argument that no sexual acts between an adult and a child cause harm, but instead environmental factors cause the harm.

Those here that can only think that this sex must be obtained through manipulation, threats or physical force are tagging themselves with dangerous, narrow minded rapist point of view. If they ever crossed the line, we know exactly how they would cross the line due to their dangerously dogmatic view. It indicates that all interactions between adults and children must pushy and authoritarian. This close minded way may very well be the role they choose when interacting with children, but not all adults share this authoritarian view, this attitude incapable of relating to a child at their level. The inability to see the difference between rape and sex on their part is indicative of inarticulate and undistinguished mental characteristics.

phlogistician

03-03-09, 09:04 AM

Ancient, there's little point addressing a post to me, because you aren't going to sway me to your sick viewpoint.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 09:09 AM

Ancient, there's little point addressing a post to me, because you aren't going to sway me to your sick viewpoint.

I wouldn't want to sway you, you ought to let nature to that. You are locked up in circular reasoning based upon the society that cultured your emotions in association with certain human acts. Scientists do not look at things like this. They let nature determine their perception, not a moral agenda. An honest and unadulterated perception of the evidence, phlogistician is all that is important to them.

Bells

03-03-09, 09:10 AM

In relationship to the subject matter of this thread, I make the argument that no sexual acts between an adult and a child cause harm, but instead environmental factors cause the harm.

You are sure that no sexual acts between an adult and a child causes harm? Righteo. I have seen physical harm that would probably make your eyes weep blood, from sexual acts that adults imposed on children. Maybe you might think that does not constitute harm or it could be something else, who knows. Are you saying that it is "environmental factors" that caused the actual physical and mental harm to the children? So much so that some of them can't even urinate without pain, some that required extensive reconstruction surgery.. not harm? How about the parents who find their small children, paranoid about their bodies at bath time, becoming distressed that their parents looked at their naked self when the week before, the parents were giving them their baths without issue.. how about the parents who find their small children physically abusing themselves and their sexual organs after being 'loved in that special way' by a trusted relative or friend? No harm there? Right.. I guess that was caused by environmental factors as well? Yes? No?

Your argument fails because there is a plethora of evidence of just how much harm such sexual acts actually cause a child by adults.

theobserver

03-03-09, 09:17 AM

That's your 'logical defense'? You spent time dreaming up an answer, and it involves a naked 12 year old? I think that says something about you.

There was more than enough logic all throughout this thread and the debate. AR did a beautiful job. And its so obvious that you couldn't grasp any of them. So why waste more time to explain it further? We should get practical experiments to prove simple things to you. There are lot of such situations in life where people think they would act in a certain manner but end up acting differently. Beliefs got nothing to do with reality or nature. And making judgments based on such beliefs are next dumb thing to do. That's why there is science trying its best to explain situations involving a series of belief's and opinions. Unfortunately in many cases the law enforcement doesn't consider science. They subscribe to a series of beliefs to make the emotionally unstable public feel secure and served with their idea of justice.

phlogistician

03-03-09, 09:19 AM

I wouldn't want to sway you, you ought to let nature to that. You are locked up in circular reasoning based upon the society that cultured your emotions in association with certain human acts. Scientists do not look at things like this. They let nature determine their perception, not a moral agenda. An honest and unadulterated perception of the evidence, phlogistician is all that is important to them.

No. I'm just a decent human being. You cannot intellectualise and justify your perversion. Live with the fact that you are sick and twisted. Stop trying to self justify, and seek help.

phlogistician

03-03-09, 09:21 AM

There was more than enough logic all throughout this thread and the debate. AR did a beautiful job.

I read the posts of a sick individual desperately trying to justify a perversion.

AR has not done a 'beautiful job'. AR is self justifying. And outing some weirdos.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 09:24 AM

Here's the thing, is anyone seriously buying into the story that it was a 3rd party involved in Ancient's story? What are the odds of a paedophile happening to have a sympathetic paedophile friend?

phlogistician fails to see the difference between and argument and a person's actual identity. He calls me a pedophile because I play devils advocate. Using his logic, a lawyer who defends a murderer then very well must be an accomplice to the murder.

Bells

03-03-09, 09:30 AM

We should get practical experiments to prove simple things to you.

And what, pray tell, would those "practical experiments" entail or be?

There are lot of such situations in life where people think they would act in a certain manner but end up acting differently.
In having sex with a child?

Beliefs got nothing to do with reality or nature.
So it's natural for a father, as one example, to want or need to have sex with their toddler after being exposed to the child's genitals during nappy changes and bath times? So our belief that his actions would be wrong has nothing to do with reality or nature? Yes or no? Is it normal for a grown man or woman to be turned on at the sight of a child's pre-pubescent genitals?

Bells

03-03-09, 09:33 AM

phlogistician fails to see the difference between and argument and a person's actual identity. He calls me a pedophile because I play devils advocate. Using his logic, a lawyer who defends a murderer then very well must be an accomplice to the murder.

A lawyer who defends a murderer does not do so by saying that no harm was caused by the murderer or that killing causes no harm. When it is plainly obvious that harm has occurred, much like harm is caused by an adult having sex with a child. To say that no harm was caused to the child is, well, ridiculous in the extreme.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 09:34 AM

You are sure that no sexual acts between an adult and a child causes harm? Righteo. I have seen physical harm that would probably make your eyes weep blood, from sexual acts that adults imposed on children. Maybe you might think that does not constitute harm or it could be something else, who knows. Are you saying that it is "environmental factors" that caused the actual physical and mental harm to the children? So much so that some of them can't even urinate without pain, some that required extensive reconstruction surgery.. not harm? How about the parents who find their small children, paranoid about their bodies at bath time, becoming distressed that their parents looked at their naked self when the week before, the parents were giving them their baths without issue.. how about the parents who find their small children physically abusing themselves and their sexual organs after being 'loved in that special way' by a trusted relative or friend? No harm there? Right.. I guess that was caused by environmental factors as well? Yes? No?

Your argument fails because there is a plethora of evidence of just how much harm such sexual acts actually cause a child by adults.

I am using Bells argument, but I do not direct my argument at her as a person.

People who use these arguments have a dangerous point of view, because there are individuals who have crossed the line and will cross the line in the future. Propagating a universal point of view that there is only one way to cross the line through manipulation, threat, and violence is dangerous. One should be cautious making claims that abusive methods are the only way possible that it can occur.

theobserver

03-03-09, 09:35 AM

Is it normal for a grown man or woman to be turned on at the sight of a child's pre-pubescent genitals?

How do you propose to seek a scientific proof for such a situation? I mentioned earlier that I am not talking about incest. Its a whole different case study.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 09:46 AM

A lawyer who defends a murderer does not do so by saying that no harm was caused by the murderer or that killing causes no harm. When it is plainly obvious that harm has occurred, much like harm is caused by an adult having sex with a child. To say that no harm was caused to the child is, well, ridiculous in the extreme.

If the prosecution trumps things, a lawyer will argue for an accurate valence of the crime. All murder is not equal in magnitude.

I am not arguing that when harm occurs no crime exists. You are trying to again oversimplify the phenomena of life. I am adamantly against harming children.

Your argument is an example of Cognitive Distortion, this All-Or-Nothing thinking.

Randwolf

03-03-09, 09:50 AM

...no harm was caused to the child...

Disclaimer: No children were harmed in the production of this thread. :p

Bells

03-03-09, 09:57 AM

How do you propose to seek a scientific proof for such a situation? I mentioned earlier that I am not talking about incest. Its a whole different case study.

I am not talking about incest either.

Is it normal and natural for a grown man or woman, say at the beach, to become aroused at the sight of a small naked child (who he/she doesn't know) frolicking in the water?

Yes or no?

You said yourself earlier, and I quote:

Beliefs got nothing to do with reality or nature.

Well? Take out the incest part of it. Ancient has commented (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2178847&postcount=7) in the past about that as well... But is it our 'beliefs' that make the thought or knowledge that an adult becoming aroused at the sight of a pre-pubescent child, is wrong? Is it natural for an adult to become aroused at the sight of the genitals of a pre-pubescent child? Is it natural? Lets say a 7 year old..

phlogistician

03-03-09, 10:20 AM

phlogistician fails to see the difference between and argument and a person's actual identity. He calls me a pedophile because I play devils advocate.

I don't believe non-paedohiles have any interest in justifying paedophilia, so your attempt to distance yourself from the view you espouse fails.

Using his logic, a lawyer who defends a murderer then very well must be an accomplice to the murder.

That's an interesting, if one sided point of view, as it rather implies guilt. I wonder what that says about your state of mind? Oh, that you are guilty?

Stryder

03-03-09, 10:21 AM

Why not we try a simple experiment and try to go a step ahead of AR?

If you can avoid getting sexually aroused finding yourself naked and locked in a room with a naked 12 yr old girl for 8 hours without any availability of clothes, I will give it to you that your claim is valid.

In fact i suggested a slightly different version of this experiment on a religious forum on techniques to recruit catholic priests.

:rolleyes:

This is hardly a decent experiment, any normal man would likely take off their own top and cloth the child, rather than harbour the discussion notions that you would otherwise support.

Luckily it's not something I'm ever going to have to deal with but I know the suggests that yourself and AR make in this subject would have me feeling nauseated.
....

The Fact however remains, Paedophiles are "Predators", however they are too weak to prey on anyone other than children. When an adult has an understanding of their own rights, they've gained experience in regards to law and realise they alone are culpable for their own actions.

A child learns and plays, but for the most part they look to people older than themselves for wisdom. For this they leave themselves open because they don't necessarily understand how they can be turned into being a particular way ("Groomed").

(Some predator's can be assumed to have a higher than average IQ. They usually tend to overlook their "crimes" as being crimes, as their IQ makes them "Subjective" and they rationalise their own basis of subjectivity. This sort or predatorial mind suffers an Acute form of Schizophrenia [please note that Schizophrenia is a generic term] due to their inability to understand that their own actions effects others, but is subjective enough to understand how they can manipulate the law or an audience to their own whim. It's known that some paedophiles that "take" children don't just befriend the children, but the adults/parents too and in most cases they are related family members that gain trust through the family circle.)

When people try to define that paedophilia is not a mental illness, I'll put it quite simply to you. The reason it's termed a mental illness is because when these sick twisted individuals are brought before a court on charges, there grounds of defence is they "were not mentally competent to stand trial as a normal adult" (e.g. mentally deficient).

They do this to get a weaker sentence because they know full well that if they were placed into a standard prison for their crimes, they wouldn't last a week.

There are certain crimes against humanity that even the hardest of convicted felons stand against and one of them just happens to be "paedophilia". Since long serving criminals can try to adopt ways of gaining respect through prisoners (and potentially prison guards), paedophiles are targeted for abuse if not physical violence.

While some might claim that paedophiles should have rights and be defended against such abuse in prisons (amongst other places), just remember that these "Lambs" are merely "Wolves in Sheep's clothing".

The only real debate about paedophilia to be had is:

"What should we do with them?"

Obviously there is no letting them off and I would personally prefer if they didn't use Mental illness as a scapegoat (A lot of people out there suffer mental illnesses without grotesquely abusing children.)

Some suggested methods:

Surgically removing their testicles to remove testosterone and therefore their ability to be aroused physically. (Although it's not actually the testicles that cause arousal but a part of the brain)
Make them Physically take drugs that either destroys the reward centres that generate pleasant reactions in regards to children and therefore stop arousal, or the usage of neural linguistic programming therapy to make them feel sick should they be within 20 metres of a child. (Obviously the latter does undermine their ability to function as a normal person in society, since they would likely hide themselves from the world)
Lock them up (This really doesn't work, and causes more problems then good because obviously they will more than likely be killed by normal prisoners)

ancientregime

03-03-09, 10:34 AM

I don't believe non-paedohiles have any interest in justifying paedophilia, so your attempt to distance yourself from the view you espouse fails.

The difference here is you confuse the two, and I distinguish them. You make the claim that I am a pedophile, but you have no evidence supporting that claim. There have been lawyers that have argued to remove the death penalty, but this does not mean they are homicidal maniacs.

That's an interesting, if one sided point of view, as it rather implies guilt. I wonder what that says about your state of mind? Oh, that you are guilty?

If one sided means accurately representing things by not confusing them with other things, then so be it, I'm one sided.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 10:44 AM

This is hardly a decent experiment, any normal man would likely take off their own top and cloth the child.

Normal from your culturally narrow point of view that her body emanates something shameful, nasty. It is normal in a universalist sense to look upon the flesh and enjoy it's beauty. It's a fellow human being, and there is nothing nasty about it's expression or appreciation of that expression. Stryder has been cultured to feel 12 year old nudity is perverse, and must stop this wonderful natural expression by covering the naked filthiness.

Luckily it's not something I'm ever going to have to deal with but I know the suggests that yourself and AR make in this subject would have me feeling nauseated.

Here we have clear case of emotional tampering--the sight of a beautiful 12 year old female human nauseates him. His quality of esteem for humans is nauseating. Hmmm...

Bells

03-03-09, 10:49 AM

ancientregime

03-03-09, 10:53 AM

You're not getting it. Or you are deliberately twisting it to suit your own ideals and ideology.

The human form is beautiful. A 12 year old girl's no less so. What is perverse is an adult looking at this 12 year old form and thinking to themselves 'I got to get me some of that' and proceeding to get turned on at the 12 year old girl and doing what they can to have sex with said 12 year old girl.. that is perverse.

If she was masturbating, do you think it would be perverse for the scientifically proven natural mechanism of empathy to kick in and become aroused?

Bells, your morals are not natural laws.

Randwolf

03-03-09, 11:05 AM

Bells, your morals are not natural laws.

How did these morals arise, if not through natural processes?

ancientregime

03-03-09, 11:07 AM

You're not getting it. Or you are deliberately twisting it to suit your own ideals and ideology.

As far as twisting, I've noticed you employ this quite often. Instead of directly dealing with a post, you dodge it and whip up a rhetorical version that is much easier for you to argue. You pose questions that skew the ideas you are addressing. Some of your twisting of the direct line of thought is not so bad, because it offers the benefit of a wider context. Although, I find it cowardly to only respond in a twisting way without confronting head on the argument that you are responding to. Ditch and run if you must, it is a technique.

phlogistician

03-03-09, 11:08 AM

The difference here is you confuse the two, and I distinguish them. You make the claim that I am a pedophile, but you have no evidence supporting that claim.

Yes I do, the evidence that people soundly against paedophilia do not attempt to justify it. It's a slippery slope you are on, and you aren't convincing anyone that this is merely of academic interest.

Here's an idea, would you happily espouse these view of yours to friends who have children? To the Police?

ancientregime

03-03-09, 11:08 AM

How did these morals arise, if not through natural processes?

Emotion planting. See argument 3 in the debate. The subject here is where or the stimuli of a naked female 12 year old should cause the viewer to feel nastiness or a sense of beauty. Obviously, felling nastiness is caused by moral emotional tampering. Naturally, one would just flow with aesthetic feelings, and appreciate the beauty of a fellow human being. It is a mental disorder for one to look away from these light waves in a shameful spirit. There is nothing shameful about our beauty.

Bells

03-03-09, 11:10 AM

As far as twisting, I've noticed you employ this quite often. Instead of directly dealing with a post, you dodge it and whip up a rhetorical version that is much easier for you to argue. You pose questions that skew the ideas you are addressing. Some of your twisting of the direct line of thought is not so bad, because it offers the benefit of a wider context. Although, I find it cowardly to only respond in a twisting way without confronting head on the argument that you are responding to. Ditch and run if you must, it is a technique.

Read your response to him and you might just get it. I say might because it is clear you only see what you want to see..

Stryder

03-03-09, 11:21 AM

Normal from your culturally narrow point of view that her body emanates something shameful, nasty. It is normal in a universalist sense to look upon the flesh and enjoy it's beauty. It's a fellow human being, and there is nothing nasty about it's expression or appreciation of that expression. Stryder has been cultured to feel 12 year old nudity is perverse, and must stop this wonderful natural expression by covering the naked filthiness.

Hardly narrow, this is a viewpoint held by the majority and protected by the minority that serves law.

I guess your statement of "Universalist" pretty much identifies your stance, So I ask these questions to you since it tends to go well with the stereotype:

Which cult do you belong to?
Would it be the same religious group that a member to this forum once queried how they could get their Brother away from?
Did you sell your house and posession's to give to your "Community" (I hope you paid your taxes)?
Does your group marry under the state age because of your religion, or swap child wives?
Are you plotting a mass suicide should the authorities "interlope" on your grand scheme of things?

Obviously I'll expect very little in regards to answers from yourself or those people that post here with you from the same group. In fact I will expect side stepping around the questions asked and no valid answers to be said. I guess it's really down to what you perceive right and wrong, after all if you are participating in any of those things and you know that people out there disagree with it, you'll likely keep tight lipped to protect yourself and those around you for fear of prosecution or just opinion.

Here we have clear case of emotional tampering--the sight of a beautiful 12 year old female human nauseates him. His quality of esteem for humans is nauseating. Hmmm...

I'd suggest you concentrate on either answering or avoiding the questions I've posted rather than concerning yourself with my moral ground.

theobserver

03-03-09, 11:22 AM

I am not talking about incest either.

Is it normal and natural for a grown man or woman, say at the beach, to become aroused at the sight of a small naked child (who he/she doesn't know) frolicking in the water?

What is normality here? with respect to human society or with respect to nature? Most species can be found humping young ones. Humans at some point in history have done it as well. So its the social factors which keep changing with time that decides what's normal what's not. Its all normal for nature.

This is hardly a decent experiment, any normal man would likely take off their own top and cloth the child, rather than harbour the discussion notions that you would otherwise support.

What do you mean by decent in this context? How can anyone determine if a scientific experiment can be decent or not? Does decency has something to do with nature and it laws? or just a human perception? And in the experiment, the adult is also naked and there is no way he can find any clothes in that room. Question is: Does adults gets turned on by the presence of a naked prepubescent child. If statistics can establish that they get aroused, then its nature. Just like homosexuality. Violence is a whole different section and should not be mixed with this.

Don't you think that your opinion that its an indecent experiment happened because of the social conditioning you were subjected to ever since your childhood?

Its up to each one of you to believe whatever you wish to believe based on the ideas of ethics and morality. But none of those belief's, ethics nor morality can change the way nature is.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 11:28 AM

Yes I do, the evidence that people soundly against paedophilia do not attempt to justify it. It's a slippery slope you are on, and you aren't convincing anyone that this is merely of academic interest.

Here's an idea, would you happily espouse these view of yours to friends who have children? To the Police?

You are the one that is using the slippery slope argument. You argue that all you need for evidence to prove that someone is a pedophile is: the fact they argue pedophilia is pseudo-science. Once they argue this, they fall way way down the Slippery Slope (SS) into the category pedophile. Not only are you the one arguing SS, but your so-called evidence hasn't even met the pseudo-scientific criteria for pedophilia.

My argument is not for pedophilia. I don't support pedophilia. It's pseudo-science. It's not a empirically based idea. Reread the topic's name.

Randwolf

03-03-09, 11:32 AM

Emotion planting.

Why do humans engage in "emotion planting"? Is this not a "natural" process?

There is nothing shameful about our beauty.

I absolutely agree with you here. I even agree that it is possible for your "average" person to become aroused by post-pubescent youngsters in certain situations.

What I will not concede is that this is an advisable or desirable course of action on the part of the adult involved. If there is contention here, why not err on the side of prudence, and refrain from fucking the child?

ancientregime

03-03-09, 11:36 AM

As far as twisting, I've noticed you employ this quite often. Instead of directly dealing with a post, you dodge it and whip up a rhetorical version that is much easier for you to argue. You pose questions that skew the ideas you are addressing. Some of your twisting of the direct line of thought is not so bad, because it offers the benefit of a wider context. Although, I find it cowardly to only respond in a twisting way without confronting head on the argument that you are responding to. Ditch and run if you must, it is a technique.
Read your response to him and you might just get it. I say might because it is clear you only see what you want to see..

You have have proven my point with your response. You didn't directly address my response and you are redirecting me to a response somewhere else. I will directly respond to you post: what are referring to? What response?

phlogistician

03-03-09, 11:39 AM

My argument is not for pedophilia. I don't support pedophilia. It's pseudo-science. It's not a empirically based idea. Reread the topic's name.

You seem to be confused over what the term 'paedophilia' is. It is not actively abusing children, but being attracted to them. When you say;

The subject here is where or the stimuli of a naked female 12 year old should cause the viewer to feel nastiness or a sense of beauty. Obviously, felling nastiness is caused by moral emotional tampering. Naturally, one would just flow with aesthetic feelings, and appreciate the beauty of a fellow human being. It is a mental disorder for one to look away from these light waves in a shameful spirit. There is nothing shameful about our beauty.

That says you find naked 12 year females 'stimulating'. Maybe you aren't actively abusing kids, but you are displaying sympathies for, and tendencies towards paedophilia.

The other baggage you have added onto the term is a straw man, but you are still wrong.

phlogistician

03-03-09, 11:40 AM

You didn't directly address my response and you are redirecting me to a response somewhere else.

You didn't answer my question if you would espouse these views to a friend who had children, or to the Police, either.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 11:44 AM

Hardly narrow, this is a viewpoint held by the majority and protected by the minority that serves law.

I guess your statement of "Universalist" pretty much identifies your stance, So I ask these questions to you since it tends to go well with the stereotype:

Which cult do you belong to?
Would it be the same religious group that a member to this forum once queried how they could get their Brother away from?
Did you sell your house and posession's to give to your "Community" (I hope you paid your taxes)?
Does your group marry under the state age because of your religion, or swap child wives?
Are you plotting a mass suicide should the authorities "interlope" on your grand scheme of things?

Obviously I'll expect very little in regards to answers from yourself or those people that post here with you from the same group. In fact I will expect side stepping around the questions asked and no valid answers to be said. I guess it's really down to what you perceive right and wrong, after all if you are participating in any of those things and you know that people out there disagree with it, you'll likely keep tight lipped to protect yourself and those around you for fear of prosecution or just opinion.

I'd suggest you concentrate on either answering or avoiding the questions I've posted rather than concerning yourself with my moral ground.

You have done the can of worms response. Instead of directly taking on the issue, you dodged it, then opened up a can of worms as a distraction. Never mind the man behind the curtain, eh?

Okay, so instead of avoiding the issue with all these statements, why are you running from the comments about feeling nausea about the naked 12 year old. I think this needs to be addressed. Why do you feel everyone should share your nauseating feeling toward a naked 12 year old. How is it logical for us to tame our so-called evil natural emotion of appreciation and indoctrinate us instead with civilized emotion of nausea?

ancientregime

03-03-09, 11:55 AM

Why do humans engage in "emotion planting"? Is this not a "natural" process?

I absolutely agree with you here. I even agree that it is possible for your "average" person to become aroused by post-pubescent youngsters in certain situations.

What I will not concede is that this is an advisable or desirable course of action on the part of the adult involved. If there is contention here, why not err on the side of prudence, and refrain from fucking the child?

I am not promoting a course of action to fuck a child. Thanks for emotionalizing the point. Remember, when you do that, it's appears as an act of desperation, because your reasoning itself may not be strong enough.

Anyway, the argument I'm sure you are referring to is the one where I claim sex can occur between an adult and a child where manipulation, threats and violence don't exist and therefore doesn't cause any harm. It is a argument, not a advisory or promotion of a course of action.

Bells

03-03-09, 11:56 AM

Again.. you're still not getting it.

It is not the naked 12 year old that is causing the revulsion. It is your, well, apparent lustful admiration that is stomach turning. Say you are locked in a room with a naked 12 year old. You'd sit there and bask in the glory of her nakedness? Or would you do the right thing and ask her if she wanted your shirt because she might feel uncomfortable with you drooling all over her or she might get cold?

That is what you are not getting. It is not the naked 12 year old girl.. what is perverse is the adult males (ie. those like you) who look at that 12 year old child and start salivating at the prospects.. It is people like you, who deem it natural for adults to salivate at the very notion of sex with a 12 year old or even a 5 year old, deeming it as being a pseudo-science because in your mind, no harm could ever come to a child having sex with an adult. That is what is nauseating.

Get it now?

Stryder

03-03-09, 11:59 AM

You have done the can of worms response. Instead of directly taking on the issue, you dodged it, then opened up a can of worms as a distraction. Never mind the man behind the curtain, eh?

Okay, so instead of avoiding the issue with all these statements, why are you running from the comments about feeling nausea about the naked 12 year old. I think this needs to be addressed. Why do you feel everyone should share your nauseating feeling toward a naked 12 year old. How is it logical for us to tame our so-called evil natural emotion of appreciation and indoctrinate us instead with civilized emotion of nausea?

No, no. This is your shining moment. So you are the one that should address the preset questions, after all I have nothing to address, nothing to substantiate, nothing to fear if I did a crime and was placed into General Populous.

Perhaps I should simplify it for you, since I already know that you've rounded up your wagon's into a circle from the impending danger you presume.

So simply:
Do you or do you not belong to a minority religious group?

RobDegraves

03-03-09, 12:24 PM

Well... I have been reading this with somewhat of a scholarly interest... but not for the reasons that you might think.

It's fascinating how sometimes the group you agree with has the worst arguments.

For example...

Phlogistician, Stryder, Bells.. etc.

Your arguments are bigoted and stupid. Seriously.

It tends to boil down to this kind of argument...

Q "Why is this wrong"
A "You are sick"
Q "Why?"
A "Cause it's wrong"
Q "Why is it wrong"
A "Cause you're sick"

Nice way to make his point for him folks.

Let's look at the question again in a logical sense shall we?

ancientregime

Your argument largely bases itself on a sliding scale, which makes for a poor quality argument. Let me give you an example.

Reductio Ad Absurdem

You state...

Now, if we take it a step further, imagine a person who walks upon a situation where they see an aesthetically attractive person by their point of view, and this person happens to be a pre-pubescent human masturbating, would it be abnormal not to be turned on?

What you have done however is to take a vague notion of age rather than be specific.

How about if the attractive young person was 5?
How about 1?
How about a fetus?

You can see that there is a point at which we can say.. that is no longer sexually appropriate.

One problem with this whole argument line is that there are people who will find a block of wood attractive. People have had sex with tables, animals, rubber ducks.. etc.

However.. that is still beside the point.

Harm

You fail to see where the harm comes in.

One of the reasons for the laws against child porn is to do with harm. Harm comes when a child is forced to do sexual acts against his or her will ... amongst other examples.

Now.. if a man has sexual desires towards something and never acts on it... no harm done.

However, that is not how things happen in the real world.

One man makes a drawing of a naked child. No harm done.

One man purchases said drawing. No harm done.

Another man sees a market for those drawings.

More are sold.

Other men see the potential for better profit if you get real children in there.

That is where the harm becomes real.

You can always say that it won't escalate to that. However, we all know it will.

That is one of the reasons why that sort of thing is illegal and should stay thus.

Do you need more?

Stryder

03-03-09, 01:21 PM

...Phlogistician, Stryder, Bells.. etc.

Your arguments are bigoted and stupid. ....

It depends on what you are arguing, I'm currently trying to ascertain the origination of the perception of Ancient Regime. While I've declared my personal views on the subject, I'm trying to understand AR's perspective, to which the understanding of the basis of their philosophies in regards to their Religion is the motive, not bigotry or stupidity.

Currently though I'm awaiting on a response, since defining the question as one pure question, than that of a quagmire (multiple confounding questions) that seems to reek discordia in those that avoid answering.

RobDegraves

03-03-09, 01:38 PM

I'm currently trying to ascertain the origination of the perception of Ancient Regime.

However, motivation is hardly an argument for or against a subject.

Specifically, it's an argumentum ad hominem. A common logical fallacy.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 01:43 PM

It is not the naked 12 year old that is causing the revulsion. It is your, well, apparent lustful admiration that is stomach turning.

Now I'm the one who is lusting after 12 year old?! Bells is Liar. Nowhere did I say that I lust after a 12 year old girl. How do you know I'm not gay? How do you know I may not be asexual and I can see past all this sexual orientation bullshit? Her argument is so weak, she has to make things up.

Sorry Bells, you are confusing the emotion nausea with lust. The fact someone would feel lust is very different from nausea. Nausea and lust have different neural systems. If the adult were feeling lust, to say it is nausea is a misrepresentation of what is occuring. You have been conditioned to feel nausea at someones romantic appreciation. You go even further to call the act nauseating, but the act is not nauseating, it's simply a feeling of lust occuring in a person who finds another human's physical beauty romantically appealing. You are projectile vomiting your nausea on the situation where there is nothing but a sweet appreciation. You are the only one with a disgusting point of view in this threesome.

To prove this wrong, you have to show where the nausea orginates from lust full emotions. You won't do this. But I am open see you make an empirical effort and cite a study. I'm not interested in you moral explanations. This is a science site.

It is people like you, who deem it natural for adults to salivate at the very notion of sex with a 12 year old or even a 5 year old, deeming it as being a pseudo-science because in your mind, no harm could ever come to a child having sex with an adult. That is what is nauseating.

I never called it natural. I claim there is no evidence of harm where it exists in a context abscent of manipulation, threat or violence. Your Cognitive Distortion, All-Or-Nothing argument states that all sex occuring between children and adult is not supported.

Bells argument is so weak, that she must falsify what I have stated, issue that lie as something I said, then knock her own nonsense down, to make herself look like she's a winnin.

Bells, when you can face me without lying about what I said, then you'll make some progress.

Stryder

03-03-09, 01:47 PM

However, motivation is hardly an argument for or against a subject.

Specifically, it's an argumentum ad hominem. A common logical fallacy.

In regards to the topic:
Paedophilia is neither Science nor Pseudoscience (There is no Science to be represented or misrepresented in form) Which pretty much undermines the entire notion of a discussion, leaving the discussion to diverge to new levels.

As for your perspective of my questioning... it is indeed but that, a perspective and not necessarily as rounded as you might think.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 01:48 PM

No, no. This is your shining moment. So you are the one that should address the preset questions, after all I have nothing to address, nothing to substantiate, nothing to fear if I did a crime and was placed into General Populous.

Perhaps I should simplify it for you, since I already know that you've rounded up your wagon's into a circle from the impending danger you presume.

So simply:
Do you or do you not belong to a minority religious group?

Oh, so everyone must directly address your argument, but you don't have to directly address theirs? Selfish. You are being obstinate and selfish. Very unprofessional.

Stryder

03-03-09, 01:56 PM

Oh, so everyone must directly address your argument, but you don't have to directly address theirs? Selfish. You are being obstinate and selfish. Very unprofessional.

Again with the circles... I know you think it confuses the Native Americans, rallying the wagons like that, but to be honest, they know you are going no where.... So what's it going to be, answer the question or make yourself nauseatingly dizzy with your misdirectional retorts.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 02:10 PM

ancientregime

Your argument largely bases itself on a sliding scale, which makes for a poor quality argument. Let me give you an example.

Reductio Ad Absurdem

You state...

imagine a person who walks upon a situation where they see an aesthetically attractive person by their point of view, and this person happens to be a pre-pubescent human masturbating, would it be abnormal not to be turned on?

It would be abnormal in an empathetic sense not to be. "The construct of empathy refers to the ability to identify with and vicariously share the feelings and thoughts of others. This naturally occurring subjective experience of similarity between the feelings of self and others is an important aspect of building interpersonal relationships." [1]

Empathy is empirically proven brain phenomena. [2] When we view things in the world, the emotions we see being expressed activate the brain areas where we feel those emotions. Those who don't feel what is being expressed by the other person either have a brain dysfunction or have been emotionally tampered with to feel other emotions that don't naturally arise from the phenomena. Mind you, this is all in light of a person who's attention is not fleeting.

Wrong. I have not used a premise to state something outrageous, then followed through with a conclusion. That is the absurd fallacy.

What you have done however is to take a vague notion of age rather than be specific.

How about if the attractive young person was 5?
How about 1?
How about a fetus?

Maybe you think it is outrageious because I kept the age range open. Your attempt to hit me with absudity is based upon your ability to split the pre-pubscent period into years. If I address a year, you could then bring your absurd claim again and say months old. Then, days, seconds, milliseconds. Your absurdity has no end. Nonsense.

Harm

You fail to see where the harm comes in.

One of the reasons for the laws against child porn is to do with harm. Harm comes when a child is forced to do sexual acts against his or her will ... amongst other examples.

I'm stopping you there. If you refuse to read the arguments based upon this discussion and then come to the discussion a blather'n, I'm not going to respond to you.

I already know forcing a child into pornography causes harm. I never claimed otherwise.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 02:23 PM

I'm trying to understand AR's perspective, to which the understanding of the basis of their philosophies in regards to their Religion is the motive, not bigotry or stupidity.

The motive is to accurately represent in a scientific way.

Now, you still haven't fully explained why you think an adult looking at a 12 year old naked female that feels emotion of apprection for her beauty. Why do think the aesthetic emotion should be tampered and replaced with an emotion of naseaua?:shrug:

RobDegraves

03-03-09, 02:27 PM

Hmmm... how about answering my points there Ancient Regime. Also.. I am going to address one of yours directly.

I never called it natural. I claim there is no evidence of harm where it exists in a context abscent of manipulation, threat or violence

So.. your contention is that there is no harm done to a child that has sex with an adult if there is no coercion right?

Again.. what age are you talking about?

10?
5?
1?

Be specific.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 02:27 PM

In regards to the topic:
Paedophilia is neither Science nor Pseudoscience (There is no Science to be represented or misrepresented in form) Which pretty much undermines the entire notion of a discussion, leaving the discussion to diverge to new levels.

As for your perspective of my questioning... it is indeed but that, a perspective and not necessarily as rounded as you might think.

So, you think you can just waltz in here at say, 'oh it's neither science nor psuedo-science discussion over'. We should pack up our arguments and leave now. Tssst.

Not only are you being unhelpful in decrying the debate pseudo-intellectually, you have no idea what science is apparently.

RobDegraves

03-03-09, 02:35 PM

Maybe you think it is outrageious because I kept the age range open. Your attempt to hit me with absudity is based upon your ability to split the pre-pubscent period into years. If I address a year, you could then bring your absurd claim again and say months old. Then, days, seconds, milliseconds. Your absurdity has no end. Nonsense.

It is hardly nonsense and you know it.

If you seek to apply a general principle, it has to apply in a general way. This is where your argument devolves into absurdity.

If you seek to apply a specific principle, you need to be specific as to what it applies to.

Obvious.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 02:36 PM

Hmmm... how about answering my points there Ancient Regime. Also.. I am going to address one of yours directly.

So.. your contention is that there is no harm done to a child that has sex with an adult if there is no coercion right?

It depends upon your defintion of coersion. In a manipulative sense, I agree coersion has the potetial for signficant harm.

Again.. what age are you talking about?

10?
5?
1?

Be specific.

I already was specific. Pre-pubscent means just what it means. What ever you are setting up, just get along with it.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 02:38 PM

It is hardly nonsense and you know it.

If you seek to apply a general principle, it has to apply in a general way. This is where your argument devolves into absurdity.

If you seek to apply a specific principle, you need to be specific as to what it applies to.

Obvious.

I already specificed pre-pubescent. Now, do you have an argument or not?

RobDegraves

03-03-09, 02:40 PM

I agree coersion has the potetial for signficant harm.

Excellent.

Now... at what age would you say that a child is able to consent?

Can a one year old consent?

Can a ten year old consent?

I already was specific. Pre-pubscent means just what it means. What ever you are setting up, just get along with it.

No.. you are not being specific. Prepubescent could mean a toddler or even a fetus. Is that what you mean?

Either be specific or abandon any hope of sounding logical or scientific.. because without those you have no science at all.

Stryder

03-03-09, 02:45 PM

The motive is to accurately represent in a scientific way.

Now, you still haven't fully explained why you think an adult looking at a 12 year old naked female that feels emotion of apprection for her beauty.

Why does a person have to be naked to have beauty? That would be a more appropriate question.

Why do think the aesthetic emotion should be tampered and replaced with an emotion of naseaua?:shrug:
There is no "Aesthetic emotion".

An artist when confronting an audience with artwork when asking "What feelings do you feel when you see this portrait?" would not be happy with "an Aesthetic Emotion" as an answer. They want to know the real feelings, the balance and mergence that makes up the sensation as a total.

The same is with everything else, there is no emotions in honesty, the revulsion is actually the implication of say a person suggesting sexual arousal. This is why it makes sense to cover a child, not so much for my own benefit but that of those that are presented with such a scene.

Now I've answered your question, answer mine please.

Do you belong to a Minority Religion?

I ask this because I'm trying to understand your subjectivity which currently shrouds the concept of any rational that myself and others have to you.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 02:46 PM

Surgically removing their testicles to remove testosterone and therefore their ability to be aroused physically. (Although it's not actually the testicles that cause arousal but a part of the brain)
Make them Physically take drugs that either destroys the reward centres that generate pleasant reactions in regards to children and therefore stop arousal, or the usage of neural linguistic programming therapy to make them feel sick should they be within 20 metres of a child. (Obviously the latter does undermine their ability to function as a normal person in society, since they would likely hide themselves from the world)
Lock them up (This really doesn't work, and causes more problems then good because obviously they will more than likely be killed by normal prisoners)

Are you advocating that people caught downloading child porn should have their genitals mutilated, their bodies poisoned, and locked up like animals?

Stryder

03-03-09, 02:48 PM

I advocate you should answer my question.

RobDegraves

03-03-09, 02:55 PM

ancientregime

03-03-09, 03:07 PM

Why does a person have to be naked to have beauty? That would be a more appropriate question.

No that is not a more appropriate question. Beauty can exist with or without clothes. Although, the flesh is raw beauty.

There is no "Aesthetic emotion".

Aesthic is theory as to what is beautiful. When we see something attractive, we get postive emotions. I indicate a category of postive emotions by aesthetic emotions. Forgive me, I have been informal.

The same is with everything else, there is no emotions in honesty, the revulsion is actually the implication of say a person suggesting sexual arousal. This is why it makes sense to cover a child (a 12 year old is the subject here)[my emphasis], not so much for my own benefit but that of those that are presented with such a scene.

I already addressed this with Bells...
Sorry Bells, you are confusing the emotion nausea with lust. The fact someone would feel lust is very different from nausea. Nausea and lust have different neural systems. If the adult were feeling lust, to say it is nausea is a misrepresentation of what is occuring. You have been conditioned to feel nausea at someones romantic appreciation. You go even further to call the act nauseating, but the act is not nauseating, it's simply a feeling of lust occuring in a person who finds another human's physical beauty romantically appealing. You are projectile vomiting your nausea on the situation where there is nothing but a sweet appreciation. You are the only one with a disgusting point of view in this threesome.

Now I've answered your question, answer mine please.

Do you belong to a Minority Religion?

Yes. It's what the others call, dare I say it...

...Shcience.

It' not really a religion, but many people view it that way.

....Oh, those faith-basers.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 03:16 PM

Ancientregime

By refusing to be specific... you admit that your statement is not in fact scientific.

I was specific. There is a category of ages before the turf begins to grow, I mean all of them. that is just as specific as mammal in the animal taxonomy. What don't you get about that? How many times do we have to go over this?

It's obvious you are trying to set something up. Don't make me play the Psychic Carny who guesses your age. What's your argument? Why are you so intereted in age? Come on with it.

leopold99

03-03-09, 03:36 PM

I already was specific. Pre-pubscent means just what it means. What ever you are setting up, just get along with it.
HEY, wait a minute.
you hold everyone else up to the scientific light now its YOUR turn.
answer the question ancient regime.

leopold99

03-03-09, 04:16 PM

It depends on what you are arguing, I'm currently trying to ascertain the origination of the perception of Ancient Regime.
he's apparently saying the AOC isn't young enough.
While I've declared my personal views on the subject, I'm trying to understand AR's perspective, to which the understanding of the basis of their philosophies in regards to their Religion is the motive, not bigotry or stupidity.
i suggest we put it to a poll to see if the AOC needs to be lower than what it is.

Stryder

03-03-09, 04:20 PM

Are you advocating that people caught downloading child porn should have their genitals mutilated, their bodies poisoned, and locked up like animals?

Actually there is a technique that I didn't mention which is the best yet. Simply put it's a form of radiological invasion of a persons mind, the equipment of course is trialled under different terms but the outcome is that a person can be 24/7 monitored, influences and feedback can be assessed and even to a certain degree their brain can be retrained to adjust if they suffer a problem that they have been diagnosed with.

Admittedly there is a small amount of poisoning, about the same as your wireless networks and mobile phones.

Of course it's currently a controlled experiment because the very nature of it brings into question about Eugenics, although it is by far the more human method but it does require the subject or patient to realise their faults need fixing.

RobDegraves

03-03-09, 05:10 PM

Hmmm...this is what you said...

I was specific. There is a category of ages before the turf begins to grow, I mean all of them. that is just as specific as mammal in the animal taxonomy. What don't you get about that? How many times do we have to go over this?

So... your contention is that having sex with a 6 month old toddler is both consensual and non damaging?

Randwolf

03-03-09, 05:19 PM

There is a category of ages before the turf begins to grow, I mean all of them.

That there is a category of ages before "the turf begins to grow" is not disputed by anyone. The question to you, dear neighbor, is this:

At what point do these "non turfed" youngsters have the ability to consent / enjoy sexual relations with a thirty something adult? Immediately upon exiting the womb? Or do you agree that intercourse with a newborn might cause damage?

I have a feeling that you will not answer this question, it requires too much specificity, right? :confused:

scott3x

03-03-09, 06:03 PM

are the laws as they stand in regard to sexuality fair? Because if they're not, surely you would agree that they should be changed, no?

That's a different discussion, and not the one Ancient is having.

I disagree, but if you believe there is evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it. Note that I haven't said that I always -agree- with ancient on how the laws should be changed, although I do in some cases.

If you wanted to discuss some aspect of the law in particular, contrast where it varies from state to state or country to country, consider historical, environmental and cultural factors, yeah, that would be a valid discussion.

I believe that's what ancientregime is doing.

I cannot tolerate Ancient's line of reasoning in the current debate however.

Then disagree with him or ignore him. As long as he's not advocating to -break- the law, I don't see why you have such a problem.

scott3x

03-03-09, 06:20 PM

Disclaimer: No children were harmed in the production of this thread. :p

Lol :-). I think that, no matter what side of the debate you're on, I think the truth is more likely the opposite; we only focus on the people who are writing here. But if you're writing here and arguing away on the pros and cons of the laws as they stand, I'm willing to bet that you have a relatively healthy respect for them. While James may feel that he won't persuade ancientregime to change his views and perhaps ancientregime may feel the same way in terms of persuading James, judging from the 305 views of the debate thread on this subject, I think it's safe to say that they're not the only people who have been reading the thread. And that's not even counting the more then 130 posts and 1000 views of this one. So, in essence: if you feel strongly about the issues brought up in this thread, does it make sense to simply trash it all? Or should we instead try to reach consensus on this issue and all go away happy campers? Ok, ok, perhaps that won't happen in this lifetime. But perhaps one day it will become a reality.

That day, someone may say, as Isaac Newton did,
"If I have been able to see farther than others, it was because I stood on the shoulders of giants."

Those giants, in my view, will be all of those who put in all the effort they did into resolving this very divisive issue.

Bells

03-03-09, 06:45 PM

Now I'm the one who is lusting after 12 year old?! Bells is Liar. Nowhere did I say that I lust after a 12 year old girl. How do you know I'm not gay? How do you know I may not be asexual and I can see past all this sexual orientation bullshit? Her argument is so weak, she has to make things up.

Your statements and arguments speak for themselves. If you do not wish to be viewed as such, conduct yourself differently.

Sorry Bells, you are confusing the emotion nausea with lust. The fact someone would feel lust is very different from nausea. Nausea and lust have different neural systems. If the adult were feeling lust, to say it is nausea is a misrepresentation of what is occuring. You have been conditioned to feel nausea at someones romantic appreciation. You go even further to call the act nauseating, but the act is not nauseating, it's simply a feeling of lust occuring in a person who finds another human's physical beauty romantically appealing. You are projectile vomiting your nausea on the situation where there is nothing but a sweet appreciation. You are the only one with a disgusting point of view in this threesome.

Still not getting it, eh? Or is comprehension an issue?

I never called it natural. I claim there is no evidence of harm where it exists in a context abscent of manipulation, threat or violence. Your Cognitive Distortion, All-Or-Nothing argument states that all sex occuring between children and adult is not supported.
Okay. But at what age does it become acceptable? Do you think a child of, say, 4 or 5, could enter into a sexual relationship without being coerced or manipulated into it by the adult? How about a 1 year old?

I notice you have been asked this question several times on this forum and you have failed to answer it ever single time.

Does the harm have to be physical for you to accept that it is harm? Or is mental and psychological harm also fall into the "harm" bracket? And in what situations would you view harm to the child as being possible?

Lets say the blanket rule/law was removed. Should the adults only be prosecuted if and when harm occurs? Would those particular adults be seen to be paedophiles since they caused harm while others who apparently do not cause harm be viewed as normal? Is it only abnormal and wrong when harm occurs?

Bells argument is so weak, that she must falsify what I have stated, issue that lie as something I said, then knock her own nonsense down, to make herself look like she's a winnin.

Who exactly are you saying this to?

You have, thus far, failed to answer any question directly, instead going on a round about trip, picking out certain words and then completely misrepresenting what has been asked of you.

Bells, when you can face me without lying about what I said, then you'll make some progress.
Read what you have posted and the context in which you posted it.

Oh, so everyone must directly address your argument, but you don't have to directly address theirs? Selfish. You are being obstinate and selfish. Very unprofessional.
Still can't answer the question?

Hmmm... how about answering my points there Ancient Regime.
Here is a broom and pail. It will help clean up the mess from smashing your head into sharp bricks. Lets just say he can drive you to that point.:)

Randwolf

03-03-09, 06:47 PM

So, in essence: if you feel strongly about the issues brought up in this thread, does it make sense to simply trash it all?

No, it does not. I think that as with most debates here on SF, much of the contention lies in the definitions. While I am still awaiting a reply from Ancient, I find it hard to believe that even he advocates the position that intercourse with a newborn is not harmful. If this is conceded, then where is the line? Not necessarily predicated upon some arbitrary age, whether that be one year, ten years or even eighteen, but none the less, I think any reasonable person would agree that there is some age below which an individual will be harmed by most sexual encounters, and this does not even address the psychological issues.

Again, to definitions. If someone wanted to argue that having a certain "age of consent" is capricious and arbitrary, we could discuss it. I believe you have brought this very point up in your arguments, Scott. However, I personally feel that there should be a differentiation between pre and post pubescent. Even if there was any merit to Ancients apparent position that sex with prepubescents is "ok", he has failed to show where there is any benefit associated with this behavior. Perhaps he would argue that the child "grows" somehow? I have no idea...

To the other, as his friend would probably attest, there is certainly no benefit to the adult in a situation like the one referenced in this thread. No benefit to a normal, well adjusted adult that "gets a little" here and there, at least.

So what is your take on this Scott? Do you find any difference between sex with a fifteen year old, precocious teen and sex with a newborn? If so, it becomes a matter of gradation, and where is the line? If you see no distinction, than I believe I will have to agree with Phlog and relegate you to the sicko file...

leopold99

03-03-09, 06:50 PM

Or should we instead try to reach consensus on this issue and all go away happy campers?
we can do exactly that by leaving the AOC where it is and leaving the special cases to the department of justice.
do you agree scott?

ancientregime

03-03-09, 08:25 PM

Actually there is a technique that I didn't mention which is the best yet. Simply put it's a form of radiological invasion of a persons mind, the equipment of course is trialled under different terms but the outcome is that a person can be 24/7 monitored, influences and feedback can be assessed and even to a certain degree their brain can be retrained to adjust if they suffer a problem that they have been diagnosed with.

Admittedly there is a small amount of poisoning, about the same as your wireless networks and mobile phones.

Of course it's currently a controlled experiment because the very nature of it brings into question about Eugenics, although it is by far the more human method but it does require the subject or patient to realise their faults need fixing.

What, religion is not good enough for you?

ancientregime

03-03-09, 08:27 PM

Hmmm...this is what you said...

So... your contention is that having sex with a 6 month old toddler is both consensual and non damaging?

What do you mean by sex?

ancientregime

03-03-09, 08:29 PM

That there is a category of ages before "the turf begins to grow" is not disputed by anyone. The question to you, dear neighbor, is this:

At what point do these "non turfed" youngsters have the ability to consent / enjoy sexual relations with a thirty something adult? Immediately upon exiting the womb? Or do you agree that intercourse with a newborn might cause damage?

I have a feeling that you will not answer this question, it requires too much specificity, right? :confused:

You have to be specific about what you mean by sex. What don't you paint us a picture of exactly what you mean. Then it can be tested for harm.

James R

03-03-09, 08:30 PM

If she was masturbating, do you think it would be perverse for the scientifically proven natural mechanism of empathy to kick in and become aroused?

Interesting that the first thing you imagine a 12 year old girl would do if locked in a room naked with you would be to masturbate.

You're so fixated on the physical, I don't think you are capable of viewing a child as a person at all.

Randwolf

03-03-09, 08:35 PM

You have to be specific about what you mean by sex. What don't you paint us a picture of exactly what you mean. Then it can be tested for harm.

I might ask you the same, Ancient. Exactly what picture do you conjure up of "sex" with a newborn? You licking her clitoris (or his penis), or perhaps penetration? You tell me?

Why don't you just answer the frikken question? Is there any child too young to consent?

Bells

03-03-09, 08:51 PM

You have to be specific about what you mean by sex. What don't you paint us a picture of exactly what you mean. Then it can be tested for harm.

How exactly would you "test" masturbating, oral sex or penetrative sex with a newborn or a toddler, or a child of any age? Would you view actually performing the acts as a form of "test"? Or would we just go by some random thoughts of what you think would happen?

Repo Man

03-03-09, 08:51 PM

I might ask you the same, Ancient. Exactly what picture do you conjure up of "sex" with a newborn? You licking her clitoris (or his penis), or perhaps penetration? You tell me?

Why don't you just answer the frikken question? Is there any child too young to consent?

I just imagined a scenario (not based on anyone in this thread) where a man who fancies eight year olds condemns a man who likes toddlers as a sicko.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 08:59 PM

Bells

03-03-09, 09:03 PM

Bells apparently cannot tell the difference between an argument and real person, even when it's pointed out to her.

Bells still flees wildly from arguments she can't win. She thinks a question means she has defeated the argument.

Since Bells refuses to address my arguments, I refuse to address her comments. When I see her avatar, I will skip to the next post. I refuse to read her posts or recognize her due to her unprofessional behavior.

Still can't answer the question?

I have addressed your arguments, only to have you completely misconstrue them and twist them around so that they are completely opposite to their original intent.

It is obvious now that you cannot bring yourself, in your role as "devil's advocate" to answer some very pertinent questions to this debate and discussion.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 09:05 PM

Interesting that the first thing you imagine a 12 year old girl would do if locked in a room naked with you would be to masturbate.

You're so fixated on the physical, I don't think you are capable of viewing a child as a person at all.

If you had compentenly quoted me, you may have an arguement. I never said:

"first thing you imagine a 12 year old girl would do if locked in a room naked with you would be to masturbate."

Arguments are darn easy aren't they when you lie about what someone said, then knock it down. It's a sign of desperation when you don't use the what actually was said. Try again, with a direct quote.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 09:08 PM

I might ask you the same, Ancient. Exactly what picture do you conjure up of "sex" with a newborn? You licking her clitoris (or his penis), or perhaps penetration? You tell me?

Why don't you just answer the frikken question? Is there any child too young to consent?

No, why don't you keep me out of you machinations. By doing so, you are wrapping up a personal attack by putting it in rhetorical language. Quit trolling the thread or you will be ignored.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 09:09 PM

How exactly would you "test" masturbating, oral sex or penetrative sex with a newborn or a toddler, or a child of any age? Would you view actually performing the acts as a form of "test"? Or would we just go by some random thoughts of what you think would happen?

Reminder: You are being ignored. ( didn't even that up there. I just wrote this.

John99

03-03-09, 09:11 PM

Is this some parallel universe i just stepped into.:confused:

Randwolf

03-03-09, 09:12 PM

Quit trolling the thread or you will be ignored.

Yeah, that's one way to win an argument, just ignore all those with opposing views... :rolleyes:

Bells

03-03-09, 09:29 PM

Yeah, that's one way to win an argument, just ignore all those with opposing views... :rolleyes:

Funny that, huh?

-----------------------------------------------------

Reminder: You are being ignored. ( didn't even that up there. I just wrote this.
Just a quick reminder.

I am a moderator of this forum. Therefore, you cannot "ignore" me. You can refuse to answer the questions I ask you, but you cannot actually ignore me if I ask you to behave in accordance to the rules of this forum if ever the need arises. Doing so will result in my having to moderate your posts.:)

ancientregime

03-03-09, 09:52 PM

Yeah, that's one way to win an argument, just ignore all those with opposing views... :rolleyes:

Do you have a scenario that doesn't concern a personal attack of me wrapped up in rhetoric language or not?

I'm willing to debate, but I will not tolerate personal attacks.

Randwolf

03-03-09, 10:00 PM

Do you have a scenario that doesn't concern a personal attack of me wrapped up in rhetoric language or not?

I'm willing to debate, but I will not tolerate personal attacks.

I am confused, Ancient. Of all the posts in this thread, how would you construe:

I might ask you the same, Ancient. Exactly what picture do you conjure up of "sex" with a newborn? You licking her clitoris (or his penis), or perhaps penetration? You tell me?

Why don't you just answer the frikken question? Is there any child too young to consent?

as a personal attack?

Was it my use of "frikken"? Rhetoric or not, why don't you just go on record by answering "Is there any child too young to consent?" Or is it that you really don't have an answer to this question?

leopold99

03-03-09, 10:18 PM

Do you have a scenario that doesn't concern a personal attack of me wrapped up in rhetoric language or not?

I'm willing to debate, but I will not tolerate personal attacks.
question:
how old does a person need to be before they can be deemed competent enough to consent to sex?

ancientregime

03-03-09, 10:44 PM

I am confused, Ancient. Of all the posts in this thread, how would you construe:

I might ask you the same, Ancient. Exactly what picture do you conjure up of "sex" with a newborn? You licking her clitoris (or his penis), or perhaps penetration? You tell me?

as a personal attack?

The pronoun "you" represents the identity ancientregime. The act you associate me with is a criminal behavior. The fact you put it rhetorically may make you seem that a personal attack may be tucked in as long as your statements are rhetorically construed, but it's nothing more than wrapped up name calling, "ancientregime is a ... action" I'm much more clever than you think. I find this very inappropriate. This is an argument. Getting personal is out of line and unprofessional.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 10:46 PM

question:
how old does a person need to be before they can be deemed competent enough to consent to sex?

I addressed Informed Consent in my final argument.

leopold99

03-03-09, 10:48 PM

I addressed Informed Consent in my final argument.
and where is that?
post the link to your answer.

ancientregime

03-03-09, 10:51 PM

This discussion is being held with the assumption that you have read those arguments. Please take the time to inform yourself, and I will then consent to further discussion with you.

leopold99

03-03-09, 10:52 PM

This discussion is being held with the assumption that you have read those arguments. Please take the time to inform yourself, and I will then consent to further discussion with you.
what is the intended use of informed consent?
you state:
"When I argue that there is no violence or threat in a situation of a child and adult engaging in sex, the general argument seems to be the Informed Consent argument. Using Informed Consent in this situation is a misapplication of it's intended use.[/QUOTE]
i want to know what you mean by "informed consent" and how it misapplies.

theobserver

03-04-09, 12:46 AM

Looking at the arguments its quite obvious that most people who argue still fail to see the subject as a subject alone with all its related dynamics associated to it and keep bringing in their emotional ideas and arguments into the debate.

People often fail to have a scientific perspective towards the idea of what is Normal and often confuse their own measurement and idea of normality with that of the subject being argued. Observing the same phenomena in a scientific forum questions my belief on the purpose of education.

There are few aspects which need to be considered at all times when trying to debate on any subject.
-What are your intentions on contributing to a thread? Is it because you felt uncomfortable reading what you read? or because you felt the arguments are not satisfying enough?
-If i resort to personal attacks on the author than the subject being discussed, does it mean I am being emotionally unstable and helplessly being obtuse, defensive or offensive to protect my own view points without being rational?
-If I find it hard to agree with the arguments, Why do I feel and think they way I feel and think about the arguments? Am i constrained in my set of thoughts and logic because of social conditioning?

I agree with you all that most of your perspective on this subject is true from various social perspectives. But that doesn't make it science or the ultimate truth. Its only a bunch of variable social perspectives from its members. It only carries a subjective value and nothing close to be called scientific. And that's exactly what AR was debating about - the laws which are based on such subjective values than on science.

When it comes to setting up a benchmark as to what is normal and what is not normal, I suggest you look into the animal world for recording your observations. Only that can give you an appropriate idea as to what is normal and what is not. Does animals hump their newborn babies? If they don't, then the laws must have to be same for humans as well. That can probably define what is perversion and what is not. What is natural and what is not. Any defense against conducting such observations before being judgmental would go straight into the emotionally unstable humans category. And such people should refrain themselves from being in scientific debates and take up religion as an alternative.

leopold99

03-04-09, 12:59 AM

scott3x

03-04-09, 01:32 AM

i offer the following into the record:
The original posters took it upon themselves to manufacture their own reasons as to why they think these laws were written, then call them false and challenge you to debate them. You can't win an argument like that.

It may surprise you to know that it is not necessary to prove that there is a scientific basis for our current sex laws, or why a specific age was selected for determining consensual sex, or when sex is harmful to someone below a certain age, before legislation is written governing those areas. Instead, under our system of government, those laws must merely reflect the collective will of the people and not contradict any rights granted in the constitution.

i move that all discussion on this subject should cease and a poll created to determined the collective will of the people.

leopold, ofcourse James R. could go for a Tyranny of the Majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority). I think the real question is, would it benefit sciforms to simply silence those who disagree with the majority? Personally, I don't think it'd make for good science in some areas where many people dislike disturbing the status quo; something that many very good scientists have struggled with throughout the ages...

John99

03-04-09, 01:34 AM

leopold99

03-04-09, 01:35 AM

moderators?

John99

03-04-09, 01:41 AM

moderators?

what do you mean?

John99

03-04-09, 01:42 AM

is that like asking 'is there a doctor in the house?"

John99

03-04-09, 01:44 AM

we're on our own.

John99

03-04-09, 01:44 AM

the moderators ran away

scott3x

03-04-09, 01:55 AM

scott3x

03-04-09, 01:59 AM

moderators?

Were you concerned about the bs term? Not sure if it would be classified as an overly insulting insult; even Tiassa has been known to use it, in its unnabreviated form, no less (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2183346&postcount=171) when he loses a bit of his cool.

John99

03-04-09, 02:09 AM

I don't believe that this subject falls into that category.

every subject that is provocative is not automatically progressive or interesting. most likely this debate would just turn people off. The topic line is ill conceived and stupid as well. It is like asking is is heterosexuality pseudoscience or is homosexuality pseudoscience.

the ideal being heterosexuality and homosexuality being between two adults (keyword ADULT) capable of consenting and having the capacity to understand what they are consenting to. what is so hard to understand?

theobserver

03-04-09, 03:41 AM

It may surprise you to know that it is not necessary to prove that there is a scientific basis for our current sex laws, or why a specific age was selected for determining consensual sex, or when sex is harmful to someone below a certain age, before legislation is written governing those areas. Instead, under our system of government, those laws must merely reflect the collective will of the people and not contradict any rights granted in the constitution.

Sexual penetration might be harmful to someone below a certain age depending on the other partners age and physical factors. The word sex does not always imply penetration and other forms can be quite harmless. But that's where emotions and social psychology take control of logic and declare all acts as crime.

Randwolf

03-04-09, 03:51 AM

The pronoun "you" represents the identity ancientregime. The act you associate me with is a criminal behavior. The fact you put it rhetorically may make you seem that a personal attack may be tucked in as long as your statements are rhetorically construed, but it's nothing more than wrapped up name calling, "ancientregime is a ... action" I'm much more clever than you think. I find this very inappropriate. This is an argument. Getting personal is out of line and unprofessional.

Sorry, AR, objection noted, chastisement accepted. Please allow me to rephrase...

Exactly what picture do you conjure up of "sex" with a newborn? Someone licking her clitoris (or his penis), or perhaps penetration? You tell me?

Now, without implying any offense to you personally, could you please, pretty please, answer the following question?

Is there any child too young to have sex with a "thirty something" adult?

phlogistician

03-04-09, 03:57 AM

phlogistician

03-04-09, 04:02 AM

Stryder

By demanding that someone focuses on a side question, you admit that you cannot answer the central premise.

It's not helping your side.

Currently 'our side' has the practice illegal, We don't have to prove anything therefore. We don't care if some people find the reasons for it's illegality uncompelling. We don't want to tolerate the practice in the society we live in, and don't have to justify that rationale to paedophiles, and paedophile sympathisers.

Ancientregime

By refusing to be specific... you admit that your statement is not in fact scientific.

The argument either way need not be scientific. I'm afraid AR's whole debate is based upon a false premise, that it can be proven scientifically. Simply, it's unethical to scientifically prove if there is harm or not. The debate is about ethics, and some science. It is not wholly science.

phlogistician

03-04-09, 04:06 AM

I disagree, but if you believe there is evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it. Note that I haven't said that I always -agree- with ancient on how the laws should be changed, although I do in some cases.

I don't believe he's quoted the AOC for any country once. He hasn't contrasted them once.

I believe that's what ancientregime is doing.

No, he's trying to justify sex with children of an non-specified age.

Then disagree with him or ignore him. As long as he's not advocating to -break- the law, I don't see why you have such a problem.

He is advocating it's OK to break the law. It's a fine line, or a slippery slope.

leopold99

03-04-09, 04:24 AM

Sexual penetration might be harmful to someone below a certain age depending on the other partners age and physical factors. The word sex does not always imply penetration and other forms can be quite harmless. But that's where emotions and social psychology take control of logic and declare all acts as crime.
you must put it to a vote to determine the collective will of the people as to AOC, that's all there is to say about the matter.

Randwolf

03-04-09, 04:31 AM

you must put it to a vote to determine the collective will of the people as to AOC, that's all there is to say about the matter.

Perhaps, but it seems that Ancient is contending that "age of consent" is not a valid concept no matter what it is set at, how it is defined nor what the standards are.

Enmos

03-04-09, 04:32 AM

Perhaps, but it seems that Ancient is contending that "age of consent" is not a valid concept no matter what it is set at, how it is defined nor what the standards are.

Maybe ancient thinks that if it is subjective it doesn't exist.

Randwolf

03-04-09, 04:34 AM

Maybe ancient thinks that if it is subjective it doesn't exist.

As in, I think, therefore I am not?

Enmos

03-04-09, 04:35 AM

As in, I think, therefore I am not?

Something like that :p

leopold99

03-04-09, 04:39 AM

Perhaps, but it seems that Ancient is contending that "age of consent" is not a valid concept no matter what it is set at, how it is defined nor what the standards are.
it all hinges on the collective will of the people.
the values have been set.
to my knowledge ancient regime nor scott has offered any evidence that the collective will of the people is in error in this area.

Randwolf

03-04-09, 04:51 AM

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2178829&postcount=6
Children are old enough to consent to sex.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2178829&postcount=6

Well, I guess that sums it up. In reviewing the OP and subsequent posts, I found that AR did, in fact, answer the AOC question. My bad.

Apparently, all children, without restriction, are "old enough to consent to sex". Ancient, why even bother with the concept of consent? Let's simplify this even further. Children exist, therefore they should have sex. Do you agree with this premise?

theobserver

03-04-09, 06:19 AM

you must put it to a vote to determine the collective will of the people as to AOC, that's all there is to say about the matter.

Majority of humans are stupid(i don't wish to think of a scientifically appropriate term since its informal). All they do is to conform blindly than rationalize on their own without being influenced.

lemme quote someone who once said something about this majority factor.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
-Giordano Bruno

leopold99

03-04-09, 06:25 AM

Majority of humans are stupid(i don't wish to think of a scientifically appropriate term since its informal). All they do is to conform blindly than rationalize on their own without being influenced.

lemme quote someone who once said something about this majority factor.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
-Giordano Bruno
unless you are saying you are above the law then you must demonstrate that the collective will of the people is in error in regards to AOC.

theobserver

03-04-09, 06:47 AM

unless you are saying you are above the law then you must demonstrate that the collective will of the people is in error in regards to AOC.

What was the scientific basis on which humans made the AOC laws? Answer to that explains the collective will of people.

leopold99

03-04-09, 06:50 AM

What was the scientific basis on which humans made the AOC laws? Answer to that explains the collective will of people.
a poll tells you the collective will of the people.

Randwolf

03-04-09, 06:51 AM

What was the scientific basis on which humans made the AOC laws?

Expediency. It is easier to make blanket statements than to cater to individualism. This still does not excuse AR's position that all children are capable of consent...

leopold99

03-04-09, 06:58 AM

this area of the law doesn't need any scientific explanation.
the only requirement is:
must represent the collective will of the people without violating the constitution.

phlogistician

03-04-09, 07:01 AM

What was the scientific basis on which humans made the AOC laws?

Why does the basis have to be scientific? To overturn the law you are going to need a solid reason, but to make it? Laws are not solely grounded in science, but ethics, morality, and cultural standards.

Simply, it's unethical to test if there is harm done or not. Also, the law is there, not to punish the precocious, but to protect the weak. Each case can be tried on it's individual merits if it comes to that.

Seems AR just doesn't have faith in the judicial system to vindicate his actions.

phlogistician

03-04-09, 07:13 AM

leopold, ofcourse James R. could go for a Tyranny of the Majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority).

It's also known as democracy. People who genuinely believe in democracy don't believe in doing things to people they don't want, too. That doesn't just include enfranchised adults.

Stryder

03-04-09, 07:45 AM

What, religion is not good enough for you?

Religion is a falsehood, always has been, always will be. Anyone trying to hide beneath it's skirt for protection just proves how false they are.

thinking

03-04-09, 07:49 AM

isn't really in the end about the children

this is my concern

tell me of any child that is not affected emotionaly , psychologically by having sex with an adult at a much , much to early age , 5>15,16 at the very minimum

to the child , the child him/her self is there an actual loving bond , with the adult not forced ?

no

these childern will never understand true love

thinking

03-04-09, 07:58 AM

STOP , I mean STOP MAKING ANY EXCUSSES FOR WHAT YOU WANT

THINK JUST THINK AND PUT YOUR SELF IN THE CHILDS PLACE

IF YOU HAVE BEEN ABUSED , DID YOU AT THE VERY FIRST ENCOUNTER WANT IT

shit have any of you thought about or cared about the consequences of the future well being of the child ?

if not why not ?

thinking

03-04-09, 08:15 AM

Pedophiles should have one of their balls removed , do it again the other ball is removed

thinking

03-04-09, 08:18 AM

pedophiles should have one of their balls removed , do it again the other ball is removed

am I mad ? Dam straight I am

Stryder

03-04-09, 08:31 AM

Stryder

By demanding that someone focuses on a side question, you admit that you cannot answer the central premise.

It's not helping your side.

Ancientregime

By refusing to be specific... you admit that your statement is not in fact scientific.

I'll put it simply for you Rob.

Some of my questions are "Discussion/Debate", while others are actually "Investigation". As a Moderator here on Sciforums it's one of our many tasks to ascertain the nature of the persons posting, especially on subjects like this.

In AncientRegime's case he's been very prudent to make sure that he doesn't admit anything from his perspective, generating argument should anyone state that suggests that "he" saw or did anything in examples.

If the argument becomes too personally attached to him he stalls, until the person trying to point out says something that he can use as ammo. I can understand the debate technique, however I can also understand it being predatorial, where they try to stay just outside of reach.

This is why the questions about his Religion (which in honesty he's purposely not stated, perhaps fearing that he would easily be rideculed.) Believe me, J.E. knows full well this because I've been quite forthcoming with my queries, I'm just wondering how much of a vandal he is.

scott3x

03-04-09, 08:37 AM

Personally, I don't think it'd make for good science in some areas where many people dislike disturbing the status quo; something that many very good scientists have struggled with throughout the ages...

unless the science is regressive, then it is just boring rehashed bs.

I don't believe that this subject falls into that category.

every subject that is provocative is not automatically progressive or interesting.

Perhaps. I still think that this one is, however.

most likely this debate would just turn people off.

Some people may be turned off by this debate, but a lot of people are responding; I would argue that some of the arguments on both side of the debate are some of the best.

The topic line is ill conceived and stupid as well.

I think it would have been better if it had simply said something like 'should we base sexual activity privileges on age?'. I would have argued in the negative, you may have argued in the affirmative.

It is like asking is is heterosexuality pseudoscience or is homosexuality pseudoscience.

the ideal being heterosexuality and homosexuality being between two adults (keyword ADULT) capable of consenting and having the capacity to understand what they are consenting to. what is so hard to understand?

Adults aren't the only people who are capable of consent. The nettlesome issue isn't consent but informed consent. But when you look at it objectively, you will come to realize that there is no currently no way to determine whether -anyone- is capable of informed consent. Saying that one is capable of informed consent depending on how many times the earth has revolved around the sun and frequently adding in how many times the earth has revolved around the sun for his or her partner isn't the worst way of trying to determine this, but I personally believe that attempting to test for the ability of one or both parties to make good decisions directly is a better approach.

scott3x

03-04-09, 08:42 AM

I'll put it simply for you Rob.

Some of my questions are "Discussion/Debate", while others are actually "Investigation". As a Moderator here on Sciforums it's one of our many tasks to ascertain the nature of the persons posting, especially on subjects like this.

In AncientRegime's case he's been very prudent to make sure that he doesn't admit anything from his perspective, generating argument should anyone state that suggests that "he" saw or did anything in examples.

If the argument becomes too personally attached to him he stalls, until the person trying to point out says something that he can use as ammo. I can understand the debate technique, however I can also understand it being predatorial, where they try to stay just outside of reach. This is why the questions about his Religion (which in honesty he's purposely not stated, perhaps fearing that he would easily be rideculed.) Believe me, J.E. knows full well this because I've been quite forthcoming with my queries, I'm just wondering how much of a vandal he is.

I completely disagree with the assertion that ancientregime's debating technique is in any way predatorial, or that he has demonstrated in any way that he is a vandal; I believe both statements to be personal attacks and libelous to boot.

Stryder

03-04-09, 08:50 AM

Adults aren't the only people who are capable of consent.

Actually that's the problem, the Law states who is capable of consenting. Adults consent, Minor's have decisions made by a Parent or Guardian. This means if a minor makes the wrong decision, if can actually fall on their Parent or Guardian as making the wrong decision and they could find themselves culpable.

What this means is if you wanted to do anything with a minor (Anything could mean being a school tutor and taking them on a school trip), you need the consent of the Parent or Guardian. However this doesn't mean that should something happen that the Parent or Guardian is the "sole" person at fault, it just means they a proportion of the decision making process in that child's life to make sure they don't make mistake or get taken advantage of.

James R

03-04-09, 08:51 AM

I have just posted my final post of the debate in the Debate thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2184570#post2184570).

Stryder

03-04-09, 08:52 AM

I completely disagree with the assertion that ancientregime's debating technique is in any way predatorial, or that he has demonstrated in any way that he is a vandal; I believe both statements to be personal attacks and libelous to boot.

It has nothing to do with Libelous Scott. If it's of any relevancy, I guess you could say the last line isn't stating he's a vandal here, but enquiring as to if his Christmas went well. (In honesty he might or might not know what I'm talking about)

thinking

03-04-09, 08:55 AM

sexual abuse

it is nothing but destructive to the child

the adult involved could careless

leopold99

03-04-09, 08:56 AM

I completely disagree with the assertion that ancientregime's debating technique is in any way predatorial, or that he has demonstrated in any way that he is a vandal; I believe both statements to be personal attacks and libelous to boot.
listen scott in this area of the law it doesn't matter what you personally agree or disagree with.
it's what the collective will agrees with that matters.
you simply cannot debate this issue one on one.

theobserver

03-04-09, 09:13 AM

Expediency. It is easier to make blanket statements than to cater to individualism. This still does not excuse AR's position that all children are capable of consent...

as to who's advantage? Kids? and adults decide whats best for a kid? :D

Few weeks ago, my 16 year old female friend was found quite depressed and was telling me that she is getting picked up by her classmates saying she is way too childish. She said she want to be mature and behave like a grown up. I told her "Look around you... everything you see which has gone wrong or messed up have been contributed by a so called mature grown up individual. Practically every single thing that adults have found out over centuries have been a complete mess and had to revise it way too many times to fit according to their changing needs and understanding of the world around them. You must consider remaining childish and immature in my opinion."

thinking

03-04-09, 09:21 AM

as to who's advantage? Kids? and adults decide whats best for a kid? :D

Few weeks ago, my 16 year old female friend was found quite depressed and was telling me that she is getting picked up by her classmates saying she is way too childish. She said she want to be mature and behave like a grown up. I told her "Look around you... everything you see which has gone wrong or messed up have been contributed by a so called mature grown up individual.

[QUOTE]Practically every single thing that adults have found out over centuries have been a complete mess and had to revise it way too many times to fit according to their changing needs and understanding of the world around them. You must consider remaining childish and immature in my opinion."

I agree

I mean how many adults are truely mature ?

very few

leopold99

03-04-09, 09:23 AM

She said she want to be mature and behave like a grown up. I told her "Look around you... everything you see which has gone wrong or messed up have been contributed by a so called mature grown up individual. Practically every single thing that adults have found out over centuries have been a complete mess and had to revise it way too many times to fit according to their changing needs and understanding of the world around them. You must consider remaining childish and immature in my opinion."
the sober second thought of the people is seldom wrong.
-thomas jefferson.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 10:16 AM

James has chose not to argue. This is why I shortened my response in the debate. When a person chooses to avoid the main point of your argument, they have chosen not to argue.

His technique is quite simple: It's called the Strawman. [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) Distort what I said, then knock it down. My main argument is misunderstood by him or he has no idea how to defeat it, so he stoops to Strawmaning it through the debate.

Another technique he has used is the Can of Worms technique. [2] Instead of directly responding to my argument, he opens up a can of arguments that are relevant to the issue, but irrelevant to the main point being argued. The irrational expectation is that I must address all of these side points that are not relevant to the main point or I loose the argument. He may convince those with a short attention span, but not those of a distinguished and articulate intellect who will not become confused as to what the main point is.

One of his most common falsifications of my position is his continual false assertion (he is not quoting me, he is making this up, it's the first step of Strawman Argument creation, falsify the opponents position). He falsely claims I stated this nonsense:

Once again, this merely repeats ancientregime's assertion that no harm can possibly result from sexual abuse of children.

I never said this. I said the opposite. I've continually said that harm can occur while sex occurs. I do not contend that sex causes harm, just as well as drinking Coke doesn't cause harm, but harm can occur while drinking a Coke if the Coke goes down the wrong pipe. This doesn't mean Coca~Cola causes harm. Choking does harm, because it is not necessary for Coke to be present for choking to harm, it could be a bottle of Jones Blue Bubble Gum soda. I pointed this principle out several times in his argument that fails to separate the fact that sex doesn't cause harm and but the actions of rape do.

His continual distortions provides strong evidence he can't take my argument head on. Strawman is an act of desperation. I suggest everyone read what a Strawman argument is, read my argument, then watch how James several times distorts my claims, instead of quoting me. You will find Strawman throughout all of his argument. You will find not one occurrence of Strawman in my argumentation. I have not a need for it.

James thinks winning the argument consists on focusing on cases where abuse does occur, but ignores my agreement that abuse does occur. He doesn't want you to focus on the fact I agree with that. He wants you to ignore that the onus is on him to show abuse occurs in all cases. In order for him to have won the debate, he would need to empirically prove harm occurs in all cases.

In order for him to prove this, he would have needed to show physiological, emotional, and psychological states occurring during the act of sex dynamically form what is called mental illness when when no manipulation, threat, violence, iatrogenic harm is present.

He needed to start from the physiological and emotional level. He needed to show us what the physical body was doing and the chemicals that were occurring (I provided this). He needed to show how the empirical states of emotion produced from sex then go onto create a mental illness. He did not provide this process and neither has the studies he has cited, which makes his argument only subjective. It fails to meet the empirical criteria for science. He has not won the debate on scientific grounds.

In summary his argument is not really an argument:
- He Strawmanned himself through the debate.
- He chose not to argue my actual content, only his Strawman distortions.
- Most of all, he failed to provide the process that proves abuse occurs in all cases.

I on the other hand have based all of my argument on empirical grounds. Surely, with more time, I could expand the number of citations that form this empirical basis. I have shown how emotions can be empirically planted. I have distinguished sexual activity and from harmful activity with empirical evidence at the fundamental physiological, emotional, and psychological level. There is no reason to believe any kind of sex in an of itself causes harm based upon this evidence.

James has not proven sex can cause harm. James instead adds abuse along with sex, then claims sex causes harm. Two different birds altogether.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 10:32 AM

Religion is a falsehood, always has been, always will be. Anyone trying to hide beneath it's skirt for protection just proves how false they are.

The Big Brother thought control apparatus you suggest to use for your moral agenda is tantamount to religious control. In order for something such as this to be used effectively, you may want to remove your moral agenda and seep yourself in science.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 10:36 AM

This is why the questions about his Religion (which in honesty he's purposely not stated, perhaps fearing that he would easily be rideculed.) Believe me, J.E. knows full well this because I've been quite forthcoming with my queries, I'm just wondering how much of a vandal he is.

I already answered you religious questions. I'm athiest. I'm scientist. I let nature qualify my senses by observation, not religious or cultural tampering.

Bring on any argument relevant to this subject matter. I do not fear looking at it accurately.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 10:48 AM

In AncientRegime's case he's been very prudent to make sure that he doesn't admit anything from his perspective, generating argument should anyone state that suggests that "he" saw or did anything in examples.

If the argument becomes too personally attached to him he stalls, until the person trying to point out says something that he can use as ammo. I can understand the debate technique, however I can also understand it being predatorial, where they try to stay just outside of reach.

Does Stryder think that making the debate personal contributes to the argument?

If he does, it is not science, because science is not based upon consensus. Instead it is based upon empirically grounded argumentation.

I point this out because he is distracting from the subject matter and trying to turn this into a psychological examination of me. This is a debate, not a shrink session Stryder. Your contributions will have value when you can stay focused on the subject matter of the thread topic. Perhaps you should start a threat on acientregimes psychological make up. I welcome this. These sort of comments would be fine there. Go for it, have a heyday. But, please quit trolling with irrelevant subject matter.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 11:06 AM

Sorry, AR, objection noted, chastisement accepted. Please allow me to rephrase...

Thank you for showing some pride in reason. Idiots will think you are kissing ass, but it's clearly not the case, unless of course you are lying. I'll assume you are being reasonable and I will qualify your action for what it is and leaving intention where is belongs, nowhere here.

Exactly what picture do you conjure up of "sex" with a newborn? Someone licking her clitoris (or his penis), or perhaps penetration? You tell me?

Now, without implying any offense to you personally, could you please, pretty please, answer the following question?

Is there any child too young to have sex with a "thirty something" adult?

The one of the most significant points of contention of the thread debate is whether or not harm is caused in all cases. You have brought up erotic vaginal kissing. This is a specific example to test.

Vaginal licking, sucking, kissing, etc, would seem to cause no harm physically. Basis: it's does not create tissue damage.

Vaginal licking, sucking, kissing, etc, would seem to cause no harm emotionally. Basis: the emotions produced from it in the child would be neutral or positive in nature.

Vaginal licking, sucking, kissing, etc, would seem to cause no harm psychologically. Basis: The psychology represent the physical and emotional states. There is no reason to believe that a neutral or pleasurable memory would induce mental illness.

I am open to hear how such a psychological dynamic of mental illness can occur, because scientific minds are open minds. For example, describe from the empirical level to the psychological level how mental illness would manifest from this erotic kissing. I'm not interested in hearing someone just say it's abuse. I want a clean cut empirical to psychological process described.

I've showed the fundamental psychological states that would be received from this physical and emotional activity. Now clearly show the process in which they become mangled into mental illness.

Scientist taps fingers.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 11:18 AM

Laws are not solely grounded in science, but ethics, morality, and cultural standards.

Not all of them. The trend is away from morality and to science. Morality is subjective reasoning. Science is empirical reasoning.

Seems AR just doesn't have faith in the judicial system to vindicate his actions.

I'm not interested in faith, you are right. Faith based reasoning and empirical based reasoning are different. Once you come to know the difference, the amazement of astonishment of the magic ceases. It's almost depressing, but the knowledge is so satisfactory, a person who attains this level wouldn't have it any other way.

Enmos

03-04-09, 11:20 AM

Perhaps this discussion is going too far..

Randwolf

03-04-09, 11:24 AM

Thank you for showing some pride in reason. Idiots will think you are kissing ass, but it's clearly not the case, unless of course you are lying. I'll assume you are being reasonable and I will qualify your action for what it is and leaving intention where is belongs, nowhere here.

Just to be fair, the intent was actually sarcasm directed at your ruffled feathers...

The one of the most significant points of contention of the thread debate is whether or not harm is caused in all cases. You have brought up erotic vaginal kissing. This is a specific example to test.

Vaginal licking, sucking, kissing, etc, would seem to cause no harm physically. Basis: it's does not create tissue damage.

Vaginal licking, sucking, kissing, etc, would seem to cause no harm emotionally. Basis: the emotions produced from it in the child would be neutral or positive in nature.

Vaginal licking, sucking, kissing, etc, would seem to cause no harm psychologically. Basis: The psychology represent the physical and emotional states. There is no reason to believe that a neutral or pleasurable memory would induce mental illness.

I am open to hear how such a psychological dynamic of mental illness can occur, because scientific minds are open minds. For example, describe from the empirical level to the psychological level how mental illness would manifest from this erotic kissing. I'm not interested in hearing someone just say it's abuse. I want a clean cut empirical to psychological process described.

I've showed the fundamental psychological states that would be received from this physical and emotional activity. Now clearly show the process in which they become mangled into mental illness.

Scientist taps fingers.

I'm not quite sure exactly what you would accept as empirical evidence since there appears to be no controlled studies on "vaginal kissing" of infants. Pro or con... (Wonder why that is)

However, JamesR certainly cited numerous sources that document damage to prepubescent children involved in sexual acts with adults. Perhaps you missed those?

Here's one more, not that you are likely to comprehend it:

http://www.womens-wellbeing-and-mental-health.com/Sexual-Abuse.html

Sexual abuse creates a certain syndrome of symptoms: repetition (the compulsion to re-live the trauma), nightmares, dissociation (slipping into trance states when some smell, or sight, or person triggers traumatic memory), and hyper vigilance, a state of anxious awareness maintained to fend off danger, that plagues both sleeping and waking hours, and which makes intimacy with others difficult, if not impossible. Sadly, parents often miss the signs of sexual abuse in their daughters and girls are too ashamed to report it.

For over a decade, now, psychologists and therapists have been concerned about the mood problems, the eating disorders, the loss of self esteem--the disaffection from school, and sport, and other interests that have become pandemic among adolescent females. The rush to uncover, and treat, depression, anorexia and bulimia, self-cutting, suicide attempts and other dramatic symptoms of inner despair, has been everywhere noted. But very rarely have these behaviors been connected with sexual trauma.

...

Now it's recognized that the same kinds of symptoms are found in those who've been raped and sexually assaulted. Such experiences live on forever inside the body and brain unless they are treated with psychotherapy. But trauma symptoms in adolescent girls are still being ascribed to the "normal" tumult of the teenage years. Even when the statistics on the sexual abuse of girls are known, somehow the biological and mental effects of such abuse continues to be denied. Without getting psychological help, girls will not be able to process the assaults they receive--in school stairwells, on the street, in their families. The effects of trauma will color their lives and relationships indefinitely.

http://www.womens-wellbeing-and-mental-health.com/Sexual-Abuse.html

Appeal to authority maybe, but why do the authorities hold this consensus AR? Chance and coincidence? Conspiracy maybe?

phlogistician

03-04-09, 11:25 AM

Not all of them. The trend is away from morality and to science. Morality is subjective reasoning. Science is empirical reasoning.

Like I said, investigating whether your proposed practise causes harm would be unethical. I said laws were based on ethics, morality, and cultural standards. You can argue the 'science' part all you like (not that you actually have any) but it does not detract from the three things that make law, law.

I'm not interested in faith,

Good, because I never mentioned it.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 11:27 AM

Pedophiles should have one of their balls removed , do it again the other ball is removed

Simple arousal in prepubescent children is called a pedophilic interest. Guess you got to mutilate the genitals of 25% of the population [1] (http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-048_article.html), since a quarter of them get aroused at the sight of a pre-pubscence child. Some of these men are judges. Some are police officers. Some of them are in your family. Some of them are big bulky tough guys. Some of them are holding guns in our military. Perhaps you have bit off more than you can chew? You are declaring words of war by promoting such draconian and inhuman acts based on moral filth beliefs. It is a war you will not win.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 11:39 AM

However, JamesR certainly cited numerous sources that document damage to prepubescent children involved in sexual acts with adults. Perhaps you missed those?

Here's one more, not that you are likely to comprehend it:

Those studies, nor the ones you cite, satisfy an empirical basis for genital kissing causing mental illness. The onus is for you to show the process from the physiological and emotional to the psychological illness. Your citations, as well as James', though relevant to the subject matter, are irrelevant to this point, because they don't satisfy a description of the process from being erotically kissed to mental illness.

You don't have to have a study on the exact behavior, it is unnecessary. Just describe the process. No one has provided such a process to scrutinize. It's just implied to exist in all the studies. I reminds me of the God issue. I ask a Theist, "Where is this God?" But they can never show me, yet they want me to believe in their conclusion.

Still, tapping fingers.

Outro, for now.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 11:42 AM

Good, because I never mentioned it (faith).

You did too.

Seems AR just doesn't have faith in the judicial system to vindicate his actions.

Again, no faith isn't important to me.

theobserver

03-04-09, 11:46 AM

Simple arousal in prepubescent children is called a pedophilic interest. Guess you got to mutilate the genitals of 25% of the population [1] (http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/97-048_article.html), since a quarter of them get aroused at the sight of a pre-pubscence child. Some of these men are judges. Some are police officers. Some of them are in your family. Some of them are big bulky tough guys. Some of them are holding guns in our military. Perhaps you have bit off more than you can chew? You are declaring words of war by promoting such draconian and inhuman acts based moral filth beliefs. It is a war you will not win.

They only used slides for the test. If they use real humans walking around a room with a clear vision of movements, i guess it might have been far above 90%. Its mostly in the brain. Once our eyes detect a preferred pattern of movements and facial gestures, it ignites sexual arousal in cases where no physical contact was established. So slides alone cannot reveal the accuracy. Also each male should be subjected to a minimum of 12 different subjects from each age group to get the precise information needed to conclude the study.

Randwolf

03-04-09, 11:52 AM

Those studies, nor the ones you cite, satisfy an empirical basis for genital kissing causing mental illness. The onus is for you to show the process from the physiological and emotional to the psychological illness. Your citations, as well as James', though relevant to the subject matter, are irrelevant to this point, because they don't satisfy a description of the process from being erotically kissed to mental illness.

Perhaps current science can not explain the physiological process per se, but it can certainly identify correlation. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but it can be a strong indicator. Here are the results of a scientific study directly on topic:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol17N1/Childhood.html
Among more than 1,400 adult females, childhood sexual abuse was associated with increased likelihood of drug dependence, alcohol dependence, and psychiatric disorders. The associations are expressed as odds ratios: for example, women who experienced nongenital sexual abuse in childhood were 2.93 times more likely to suffer drug dependence as adults than were women who were not abused.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol17N1/Childhood.html

It seems that you are left with very few options here, AR.

Concede, assert that drug dependence does not qualify as a psychological disorder or dispute the validity of the study. Any other ideas? Remember, due to some unknown mechanism, "women who experienced nongenital sexual abuse in childhood were 2.93 times more likely to suffer drug dependence as adults". What is your take on this?

RobDegraves

03-04-09, 11:59 AM

Hmmmm... I keep seeing Ancient Regimes refusing to answer questions that would determine whether he is correct or not. I wonder why...

Let's see. In his own words...

I agree coersion has the potetial for signficant harm.

Despite the poor grammar... this seems fairly straightforward.

If you are not willing, you are coerced.

If you are coerced, it is harmful.

Question...

Can a 1 month old baby consent?

Or would that be coercion?

theobserver

03-04-09, 12:09 PM

Can a 1 month old baby consent?

May be you should try asking a 1 month old baby. An adult cannot possibly know the answer to that question because we think like adults.

Randwolf

03-04-09, 12:22 PM

May be you should try asking a 1 month old baby. An adult cannot possibly know the answer to that question because we think like adults.

Actually, since a 1 month old can not answer the question regarding consent I think it is fair to say that they can not consent!

Why am I even addressing this...

leopold99

03-04-09, 01:00 PM

apparently ancient regime cannot prove that the collective will of the people is in error in regards to AOC.

therefor i submit he stop using the argument it is in error.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 03:31 PM

Perhaps current science can not explain the physiological process per se, but it can certainly identify correlation. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but it can be a strong indicator. Here are the results of a scientific study directly on topic:

http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol17N1/Childhood.html

http://www.nida.nih.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol17N1/Childhood.html

It seems that you are left with very few options here, AR.

Concede, assert that drug dependence does not qualify as a psychological disorder or dispute the validity of the study. Any other ideas? Remember, due to some unknown mechanism, "women who experienced nongenital sexual abuse in childhood were 2.93 times more likely to suffer drug dependence as adults". What is your take on this?

This study does not show the statistic about the parents. Perhaps the parents were chemically dependent which would have a much more logical connect.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 04:04 PM

Perhaps current science can not explain the physiological process per se, but it can certainly identify correlation. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but it can be a strong indicator.

Let me give you an example on how to explain in laymen terms how a mental disorder is created in a child and creates problems later on.

Tommy was a orphan. His adoptive parents woke him up evey morning by saying he was a "piece of shit" in a thousand different ways. They not only planted emotions based on "the sight, smell and taste of feces" that were associated with his identity, but everytime he brought up his dream of becoming a musician, they responded with emotional negative comments, stating him being ugly and untalented, and wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. He couldn't even eats beans as an adult, becaue all he could hear was his adoptive parents voices. No one would want to see him play music, they said. Even if they did, he was retarded and wasn't capable of accomplishing anything. They smacked him on the face and belittled him almost everytime he ate at the table, later on in life, he couldn't even eat food without feeling anger, because negative emotoins were planted always with eating time. His adoptive parents were horrible day in and day out through his upbringing. He never graduated high school and left home. Every day he woke up was associated with the feelings of worthlessness and anger planted by his adoptive parents, even though there was nothing to be angry about or feel bad about. He was unable to be around people, because the habit of feeling shitty stayed with him. He wound up homeless because he got fired from every job he'd take on because of his anti-social attitude. He found drugs. It was a godsend. He finally could feel good for once in his life. He pumped the heroin into his viens. Finally, the sun comming up in the morning made him fall in love with life for the first time. When the herion stopped working, he couldn't take life anymore and ended it.

Do you follow the logic of telling someone they are a peice of shit and how that created emotional habits and a self-destructive self-concept? I could take the time and base every statement empirially by citing emotion studies and psycholgoy studies that show every step of progression from the events of childhood to his suicide. But showing the citations are not important at this point.

Now, it' your turn. Provide a logical progression like this one above that shows how (Randwolfs example) erotic kissing of the genetials is a behavior that creates mental illness, like calling someone a pieice of shit on a regular basis. It doesn't have to be a real case study, just demostate in laymen terms how erotic kissing early in life leads to whatevery mental illness you claim it leads to.

If you choose not to show this I will assume that you are taking your own argument seriously, because you can't provide a laymen terms argument showing how a sexual act can cause mental illness.

This is your chance to convince a reasonable open minded person.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 04:12 PM

Hmmmm... I keep seeing Ancient Regimes refusing to answer questions that would determine whether he is correct or not. I wonder why...

What question? See I answered yours.

Despite the poor grammar... this seems fairly straightforward.

If you are not willing, you are coerced.

If you are coerced, it is harmful.

Question...

Can a 1 month old baby consent?

Or would that be coercion?

IQ is a rating of how well you can figure things out. Despite my bad grammar is you IQ high enough to deal with the puzzle my grammar creates for you?

Consent to what? What exactly do you mean? Be specific. Please include all questions with neccessary information to answer them.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 04:27 PM

apparently ancient regime cannot prove that the collective will of the people is in error in regards to AOC.

therefor i submit he stop using the argument it is in error.

Informed Consent is being misused here as I have stated before. Some people have read the arguments me and James posted.

Let me repeat it. Informed Consent is intended for situations where a person has something at stake. They have to understand this before they are considered properly informed to make a decision.

Does a baby need to understand why they need crap cleaned out of their genitals to have a diaper change? Does a baby need to know that food is what they need to live before they are fed? Do they need to know what a feather feels like on their tiny feets before they are tickled? Do they need to know that suckling a breast will build their immunities? No. Because these actions don't harm them or put anything at stake. It's not a standard practice that a child must legaly know everything about Disneyland before they are allowed enter the gates.

Since consent is irrelevant on more than one grounds to your question, I think it would more appropriately to ask would they benefit from whatever behavior you have in question and if that behavior can be proven to harm them.

Consent is really irrelevant to the main topic. It's whether or not sexual acts cause mental illness at this point.

scott3x

03-04-09, 06:29 PM

Informed Consent is being misused here as I have stated before. Some people have read the arguments me and James posted.

Let me repeat it. Informed Consent is intended for situations where a person has something at stake. They have to understand this before they are considered properly informed to make a decision.

Does a baby need to understand why they need crap cleaned out of their genitals to have a diaper change? Does a baby need to know that food is what they need to live before they are fed? Do they need to know what a feather feels like on their tiny feets before they are tickled? Do they need to know that suckling a breast will build their immunities? No. Because these actions don't harm them or put anything at stake. It's not a standard practice that a child must legaly know everything about Disneyland before they are allowed enter the gates.

Since consent is irrelevant on more than one grounds to your question, I think it would more appropriately to ask would they benefit from whatever behavior you have in question and if that behavior can be proven to harm them.

Consent is really irrelevant to the main topic. It's whether or not sexual acts cause mental illness at this point.

You raise a lot of good points ancient. There is only -one- issue where we seem to continually lock heads: while I agree with you that the most important issue is if a sexual interaction would be beneficial for all involved, you seem to always favour the side of 'if there's no proof of harm, it should be allowed'. I, on the other hand, favour a more cautious approach. I think the argument that something is beneficial is strengthened enormously if all parties in a sexual interaction state that this was so. There must still be some work done to ascertain that the statements weren't made under any type of duress, ofcourse, but I'd think that if all parties involved in the sexual interaction state that it was beneficial, they're just one stop short of a home run to proving beneficiality.

leopold99

03-04-09, 06:51 PM

Consent is really irrelevant to the main topic. It's whether or not sexual acts cause mental illness at this point.
actually antiregime the topic is whether the AOC is correct and that the collective will is in error in assessing it.

my opinion is that you are a troll.

formal debates forum indeed. :rolleyes:

theobserver

03-04-09, 08:34 PM

Actually, since a 1 month old can not answer the question regarding consent I think it is fair to say that they can not consent!

So in that case, is it necessary for a 1 month old to consent regarding anything about his or her life? As long as there is no physical harm observed, can it be treated as a crime?

Can anyone be sure that when they were 1 month old they were not licked or sucked around their genetial area by one of their relatives/nurses/doctors or whoever. I guess not. So even if such an incident did happened, how can it become mental illness? Unless of course a member of the orthodox society witness it, blew it out of proportion, treat the other person as a pedophile, send them to jail, get media coverage, and later implant the same memories with an extra amount of guilt and shame on to the kid.

I wonder if anyone around here saw the movie Little Children (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0404203/).

Bells

03-04-09, 08:54 PM

So an adult who gains sexual gratification by performing oral sex on a newborn is normal in your opinion?

ancientregime

03-04-09, 09:00 PM

You raise a lot of good points ancient. There is only -one- issue where we seem to continually lock heads: while I agree with you that the most important issue is if a sexual interaction would be beneficial for all involved, you seem to always favour the side of 'if there's no proof of harm, it should be allowed'. I, on the other hand, favour a more cautious approach. I think the argument that something is beneficial is strengthened enormously if all parties in a sexual interaction state that this was so. There must still be some work done to ascertain that the statements weren't made under any type of duress, ofcourse, but I'd think that if all parties involved in the sexual interaction state that it was beneficial, they're just one stop short of a home run to proving beneficiality.

If both parties don't state it was beneficial, then this raises reasonable suspicion there may be harm. The cause of that harm should be investigated for manipulation, threat, physical force or iatrogenic type harm (culturally created or psychological treatment).

Crime in principle is whether or not injury has come to a person or not. Harm is necessary for an act to be a crime. Do you think every sexual act needs consent or it may cause harm?

I'm not concerned with something if doesn't cause harm to be considered a crime. If we are not careful, we may be stepping into an area where no evidence of harm is used to punish people.

I don't think the law should be used for a pulpit to push morality. This should be left to the decision of families and friends.

BTW, you may be one of the only people here who argues respectfully. Good man. Some people need to learn some manners around here. Although, there arguments tell us more about their culture than about the problems they are supposedly addressing.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 09:05 PM

actually antiregime the topic is whether the AOC is correct and that the collective will is in error in assessing it.

my opinion is that you are a troll.

formal debates forum indeed. :rolleyes:

Age of Consent is based upon the idea of Informed Consent. It is irrelevant, because something must be a stake for it to be relevant. What is at stake that makes it necessary when over 99% of human sex is not done for procreative purposes?

leopold99

03-04-09, 09:08 PM

Age of Consent is based upon the idea of Informed Consent. It is irrelevant, because something must be a stake for it to be relevant. What is at stake that makes it necessary when over 99% of human sex is not done for procreative purposes?
AOC is based on the collective will of the people. it's the law.

i submit that since ancient regime can not prove it isn't the law that he also defer from using this argument.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 09:26 PM

I'm still waiting for someone to write up a laymen case study that demonstrates how erotic kissing, Randwolfs example where the sexual act with a newborn causes mental illness :

"Someone licking her clitoris (or his penis),

It doesn't have to be real, but needs to be realistic. I already showed how to do it for verbal and physical abuse in this post. [1] (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2184976&postcount=220)

Many people here are seem to state that all sex between an adult and a child is harmful and creates a mental illness. So prove it by describing the process like I did with verbal and emotional abuse, but instead show how Randwolf's sexual example logically progresses, (the chain of cause and effect) into whatever mental illness you claim it evolves into.

If anyone here really understands what they've been claiming is science (the interpretation of those numerous sex abuse studies), they should be able to point it out easily.

If it no one chooses to serve up an example, I'm out, because it's not fair you claim a process exists but you refuse to describe it in laymen terms like I so easily did.

theobserver

03-04-09, 10:33 PM

So an adult who gains sexual gratification by performing oral sex on a newborn is normal in your opinion?

Is there something abnormal about seeking sexual gratification irrespective of the age of the parties involved? Were you religious at some point of time in your life? May be that explains the undertone in your question. It appears like you are still living with the idea that sex is a bad thing.

theobserver

03-04-09, 10:34 PM

AOC is based on the collective will of the people. it's the law.

With that same logic, i can argue that intelligence is mental illness since majority of people are below average.

James R

03-04-09, 10:38 PM

leopold99

03-04-09, 10:43 PM

With that same logic, i can argue that intelligence is mental illness since majority of people are below average.
and again the "i" in your example must be changed to "the collective will of the people".
apparently you aren't grasping the fact it doesn't matter what you say.
the best you can do is to prove the collective will of the people is in error in regards to AOC.

and to add to that collective will:
leave my children alone, they grow up fast enough. maybe a little too fast.

John99

03-04-09, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by theobserver
i can argue that intelligence is mental illness since majority of people are below average.

and exactly how can the majority of people be below average?

theobserver

03-04-09, 11:05 PM

In post 231, theobserver, you answered a question with a question. Let me ask you again what Bells asked you:

Is an adult who gains sexual gratification by performing oral sex on a newborn normal in your opinion?

And I have an additional question:

Do you approve of adults performing oral sex on newborns?

Answer to bell's question was answered in the post 153 if you are still wondering. I particularly don't like a situation when the same question is being asked again and again expecting me to go around in circles. Judging her question from a current stand point, I realized that she haven't cared to analyze my explanations on normality or my explanation was difficult for her to comprehend. So I posted a question back which I hope might make her think on her own and reach a conclusion than me explaining the same thing for the second time.

Answer to second question: It depends on the kid. If the kid has no problem with it and seems to be enjoying, why should I interfere? Its none of my business to put my head between two individuals who seems to be mutually benefiting from an act. If the kid is screaming and crying and appears to be in pain from such an act, I would definitely interfere.

To add a bit, I personally don't like law and order based on non scientific principles. Ever since I was a kid, I had a hard time understanding the logic behind most laws. Its only designed to serve a sense of satisfaction in a so called civilized manner and keep humans under control by inflicting fear.

theobserver

03-04-09, 11:09 PM

and exactly how can the majority of people be below average?

Why do you even have to ask me that question??? :( Isn't it so obvious???

John99

03-04-09, 11:10 PM

no because you need to set the bar. this would be average and the majority would be average.

James R

03-04-09, 11:24 PM

Do you approve of adults performing oral sex on newborns?

It depends on the kid. If the kid has no problem with it and seems to be enjoying, why should I interfere?

That's something you might want to think about.

If somebody performs oral sex on a newborn child, clearly the child is not giving informed consent to the sex act.

Do you agree with the principle that a person ought to freely and knowingly consent to sexual activity with another person?

If so, why do you not apply this standard to infants?

If not, do you approve of rape?

Also, are you aware that an adult who has this kind of sexual activity with a newborn will most likely continue to abuse that child (and maybe others) sexually in future? Is this not a problem for you?

scott3x

03-04-09, 11:30 PM

If both parties don't state it was beneficial, then this raises reasonable suspicion there may be harm. The cause of that harm should be investigated for manipulation, threat, physical force or iatrogenic type harm (culturally created or psychological treatment).

Crime in principle is whether or not injury has come to a person or not. Harm is necessary for an act to be a crime. Do you think every sexual act needs consent or it may cause harm?

Yes, although people don't always need to consent with words...

I'm not concerned with something if doesn't cause harm to be considered a crime. If we are not careful, we may be stepping into an area where no evidence of harm is used to punish people.

We already exist in such an area :-p. However, we have argued over one thing; if one person states that they were harmed by another and the other denies it, I do believe that, if it's a toss up as to what actually happened, a compromise solution, such as a restraining order (instead of jail time for the alleged perpetrator or complete freedom for same), may be best.

I don't think the law should be used for a pulpit to push morality. This should be left to the decision of families and friends.

I disagree. I think the law -should- be used as a pulpit to push morality. Ofcourse, I'd like the morality in question to make sense.

BTW, you may be one of the only people here who argues respectfully. Good man.

I think it's safe to say that I agree more with your positions then anyone else who has posted much here, but I think that virtually anyone here would have to admit that I'm fairly civil. I think it has served me fairly well, considering that I seem to have a knack for getting into controversial topics :-p.

Some people need to learn some manners around here.

I'm still hoping that at some point in time, there will be a list of personal attacks that aren't allowed to be used in all of the formal debates forum.

Although, their arguments tell us more about their culture than about the problems they are supposedly addressing.

Sure, but then we talk about our culture or points of view as well. Anyway, I've discussed issues of this nature; this is by far the most civil discussion I've ever had of it in a place that isn't specifically focused on this particular topic.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 11:34 PM

Answer to second question: It depends on the kid. If the kid has no problem with it and seems to be enjoying, why should I interfere? Its none of my business to put my head between two individuals who seems to be mutually benefiting from an act. If the kid is screaming and crying and appears to be in pain from such an act, I would definitely interfere.

I would be willing to interfere even if there was no sign of distress or pain, if and only if, anyone here can show how the process "that feels good" turns into a mental illness. I showed how it does with verbal abuse and a bit of violence here. [1] (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2184976&postcount=220)

I think it's time for people to back the process they are claiming exists with a simple example. If you can't demonstrate you understand the process, you only believe it. That is faith, not science.

theobserver

03-04-09, 11:35 PM

Do you agree with the principle that a person ought to freely and knowingly consent to sexual activity with another person?

I can't agree with the idea that a person should knowingly consent to sexual activity. Is it something so dangerous that prior detailed knowledge is essential to consent? Sure the kid will cry for help if there is an attempt for penetration or even if the kid don't like the person who is around him/her. Their instincts are more sharper than adults. On top of it, parents from other species wont hire a maid or leave the child with an uncle or a stranger till their offspring can handle own their own. Its only a defect found in human societies.

I don't agree with rape the same way I don't agree with murder. That's violence which results in physical harm. Comparing a sexual activity which ended physically harmless with rape would be irrational.

Also, are you aware that an adult who has this kind of sexual activity with a newborn will most likely continue to abuse that child (and maybe others) sexually in future? Is this not a problem for you? Its not a problem with me if its not proved as harmful activity.

ancientregime

03-04-09, 11:44 PM

That's something you might want to think about.

If somebody performs oral sex on a newborn child, clearly the child is not giving informed consent to the sex act.

Do you agree with the principle that a person ought to freely and knowingly consent to sexual activity with another person?

If so, why do you not apply this standard to infants?

If not, do you approve of rape?

Also, are you aware that an adult who has this kind of sexual activity with a newborn will most likely continue to abuse that child (and maybe others) sexually in future? Is this not a problem for you?

There are many things that child has done to them that they can't give consent to have done when they are at very early ages. We can only hope that people aren't harming them. This is terrible to even imagine. The questions here surround sexual behavior with such a young child and we have wandered into an area where consent seems not to apply, because it can't be given. We are left then with the question of a crime. The test for criminal behavior is: Does the behavior cause harm? If indeed it can empirically proven, then yes, it is a crime. Otherwise, the behavior may no be acceptable by some people in society, but acceptable by others. I do not think the law is a place to impose morality.

James R

03-04-09, 11:44 PM

Comparing a sexual activity which ended physically harmless with rape would be irrational.

Only physical harm counts then? That's ancientregime's position, too.

Also, are you aware that an adult who has this kind of sexual activity with a newborn will most likely continue to abuse that child (and maybe others) sexually in future? Is this not a problem for you?

Its not a problem with me as long as it can be proved as harmful activity.

Read my contributions to the debate on this topic. It has been proved over and over again to be harmful.

theobserver

03-04-09, 11:58 PM

Only physical harm counts then? That's ancientregime's position, too.

Read my contributions to the debate on this topic. It has been proved over and over again to be harmful.

I went through the whole thread. Like I mentioned earlier in the post, I can agree with every argument from you and few others from a societies emotional perspective and current understanding of the act and various dynamics associated with it. But that doesn't prove that psychological harm happens because of the act alone. And psychological harm under any case happens because of people's mindset and social conditioning.

And I can see that AR has made his points very clear that even if I don't want to agree with his arguments due to my own personal emotional reasons, I simply cant refute his arguments using any possible logic.

ancientregime

03-05-09, 12:02 AM

Only physical harm counts then? That's ancientregime's position, too.

No, emotional and psychological harm that would occur to obtain/maintain the sexual act would be evidence of a crime. My claim of violence only was in the context of my first post. I assumed the items here:

"sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

...mean sexual acts. I take the term sex at face value in this context. I do not assume it means "rape". Rape more likely be defined as sex obtained/maintained with violence, threats, and/or manipulation. That is why I said it only could cause harm with the sadist behavior.

phlogistician

03-05-09, 05:04 AM

You did too.

Again, no faith isn't important to me.

You conflate the use of the word 'faith'.

phlogistician

03-05-09, 05:20 AM

and exactly how can the majority of people be below average?

I'm tempted to make comment that it's due to people with below average intelligence not understanding statistics,. ....

Here's a simple illustration.

To keep it simple, we have just three people.

Person 'A' has an IQ of 75
Person 'B' has an IQ of 75
Person 'C' has an IQ of 150

Average IQ = 75+75+150/3 = 100

How many people fall under the 'average'? Two. The majority in this instance.

John, you need to learn about Bell curves, mean, mode, and average. You are assuming a uniform distribution, but that clearly is not always the case.

phlogistician

03-05-09, 05:36 AM

But that doesn't prove that psychological harm happens because of the act alone.

We cannot isolate children from society to perform a double blind test. That would be unethical. So AR cannot prove his position scientifically as he has absolutely no data, so he fails.

And I can see that AR has made his points very clear that even if I don't want to agree with his arguments due to my own personal emotional reasons, I simply cant refute his arguments using any possible logic.

Society deems it OK to base laws partly on emotion. It's not just about logic, but also ethics, morality, cultural standards, equity, and fairness.

Not that AR actually has any data to base his logic on, and it seems he wants to rewrite all societal mores to suit his persuasion. Well, there is a saying 'if enough people tell you you're dead, fall over.' It's about time we euthanased this debate. Not being able to disprove his claims (because all experiments to do so would be unethical) does not prove his point.

He's failed to prove his point, so loses the debate.

John99

03-05-09, 06:05 AM

I'm tempted to make comment that it's due to people with below average intelligence not understanding statistics,. ....

Here's a simple illustration.

To keep it simple, we have just three people.

Person 'A' has an IQ of 75
Person 'B' has an IQ of 75
Person 'C' has an IQ of 150

Average IQ = 75+75+150/3 = 100

How many people fall under the 'average'? Two. The majority in this instance.

John, you need to learn about Bell curves, mean, mode, and average. You are assuming a uniform distribution, but that clearly is not always the case.

that is why in my post i stated we would lower the bar for observer. pay attention.

I had calculus in ninth grade phlog.