Delete the paedophilia threads

reported

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That certainly is mature....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

all of this brings back an old saying i once heard. it goes like this:
"women have their brains in their hearts, men have theirs in the head of their dicks".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reported...

 

it appears you are correct.
in 48 of the 50 states it is 18.
in mississippi its 21 and nebraska its 19.

 

This is the age of consent for Canada.

 

Where you getting your information from leopold? Here's the first few U.S. states from the avert site:

M-F sex M-M sex F-F sex
USA Alabama 16 16 16
USA Alaska 16 16 16
USA Arizona 18 18 18
USA Arkansas16 14/16 14/16 14/16
USA California 18 18 18
USA Colorado16 15/17 15/17 15/17
USA Connecticut 16 16 16
USA D.C. 16 16 16

 

This and that

In the late 1980s, I think, a study emerged with compelling statistical evidence suggesting that women who became sexually active before age 15 ran thrice the risk of cervical cancer later in life. This statistic is a bit old, though, perhaps obsolete in the face of a vaccination for HPV.

I deliberately skipped over that point because I think it's bullshit. Who the fuck lets themselves get blackmailed by an eleven year-old?

The playing field is substantially skewed? Let's talk about skewed.

Question: What does the death penalty have to do with any of this? Answer: Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551.

Roper v. Simmons is a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued four years ago today that upheld the Missouri State Supreme Court's ruling that offenders who were juveniles at the time of their offense cannot be put to death. From the Opinion of the Court, written by Justice Kennedy:

Three general differences between juveniles under 18 and adults demonstrate that juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders. First, as any parent knows and as the scientific and sociological studies respondent and his amici cite tend to confirm, "[a] lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility are found in youth more often than in adults and are more understandable among the young. These qualities often result in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions." .... ("Even the normal 16-year-old customarily lacks the maturity of an adult"). It has been noted that "adolescents are overrepresented statistically in virtually every category of reckless behavior." Arnett, Reckless Behavior in Adolescence: A Developmental Perspective, 12 Developmental Review 339 (1992). In recognition of the comparative immaturity and irresponsibility of juveniles, almost every State prohibits those under 18 years of age from voting, serving on juries, or marrying without parental consent ....

The second area of difference is that juveniles are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure .... ("[Y]outh is more than a chronological fact. It is a time and condition of life when a person may be most susceptible to influence and to psychological damage"). This is explained in part by the prevailing circumstance that juveniles have less control, or less experience with control, over their own environment. See Steinberg & Scott, Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty, 58 Am. Psychologist 1009, 1014 (2003) (hereinafter Steinberg & Scott) ("[A]s legal minors, [juveniles] lack the freedom that adults have to extricate themselves from a criminogenic setting").

The third broad difference is that the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult. The personality traits of juveniles are more transitory, less fixed. See generally E. Erikson, Identity: Youth and Crisis (1968).​

And this brings us to the next point:

You can load a kid up with as much information as you want. You can test them to ensure they're retaining an acceptable amount. (And remember, 60% is a passing grade in most schools.)

And that speaks nothing of emotional or psychological maturity.

The underlying logic of the Roper decision was that the juvenile decision-making process was fundamentally different from that of an adult. And, yes, we set approximate standards—e.g. 16 to drive, 18 to vote, serve on a jury, &c.—but if we're going to spend the resources to develop an objective, expedient test to determine any particular individual's psychological maturity, I would hope that we do so for better reasons than wanting to bang children.

Let's just clear up one thing here: Not allowing children to be sexual, or not allowing them to be sexual with you? Ever hear the phrase, "Three gets you five"?

Children are allowed, by law, to be sexual. Just not with adults.

Now that is a testament to the emotional immaturity of children. Or adults, such as the case may be. And sex under duress—including blackmail—is illegal among adults. Ask any psychologist about the emotional maturity and balance of an adult who is compelled to resort to duress in order to obtain sexual gratification.

I think part of the problem with your point is that it mixes two separate arguments. Yes, demonizing sexuality and its aspects including sexual arousal, curiosity, and self-gratification among others, has a harmful effect on an individual's psychological condition. This is evident in history and the present day among sexually-repressed cultures such as conservative Christianity. (Why are prudes so obsessed with sex? And what, exactly, was the point of Puritans punishing women by baring their breasts, packing them into a horse cart, and then hauling them through town for a mid-winter public spectacle? And just what the hell happened to the Catholic clergy?)

The other issue is whether children and adults should engage in sexual contact. And it is very hard to see how that isn't predatory. Children playing doctor or house are expressing and exploring curiosity. Adolescents with their stupid snap bracelets and the like are ritualizing sexual and social development. An adult trolling for eleven year-olds is simply a predator.

Certainly, but you cannot force emotional or psychological development. I would think any number of dysfunctional adults should be able to show that. Take me as an example. There are certain societal functions I just don't know how to deal with. I'm told—more often than I'm comfortable with—that I'm really smart, but that doesn't mean I know how to deal with a job interview. Seriously, it's not that I'm the last honest fellow in the world; I'm capable of lying, just not as a ritual demand. Job interviews, religion, dating ... the common link is that they all involve ritualistic pretense that I just can't abide by.

So teach them something affirmative. Instead of teaching them to not have sex, or not have sex with adults, teach them to take care of themselves. Then you have to explain the threats to protect against, and this requires reasonable honesty. It also requires psychological balance, or emotional maturity, of the teachers, and that's part of the problem at present.

Cultural emotional immaturity. It's a key component of our American heritage and contributes to everything from teen pregnancy to war.

• • •​

Don't be stunned, m'lady. To the one, this is Sciforums; we've seen a great diversity of the ridiculous over the years. To the other, we know these people exist in the world. To yet another, well, it's something of a digression, but there is a rising—sometimes seemingly prevailing—cynicism in Western culture that we still have to resolve; the inability to trust is in itself significant of cultural emotional dysfunction.

Recall that you're dealing with a sector in which the operating presumption is that any accusation, regardless of its merit, will send a man to jail. Having just—as in last week—witnessed the opposite, in which police and other investigators conducted themselves quite reasonably and the issue was essentially dropped, my opinion that their lament is grotesquely overstated is only reaffirmed.

I would suggest, Bells, that in your own work you've witnessed variations on this theme. People devise a scheme by which they can presume they're already in trouble, so they might as well do the deed. It provides an opportunity to do something they wanted to, and offers them the appearance of an excuse. Obviously, an adult who wants to sleep with an eleven year-old doesn't want to admit the desire to society at large, and this is such a severe conflict that they're willing to pretend susceptibility to blackmail by a child.

And did you ever notice it's always evil females? Really, for the rash of sensationalized female teachers sleeping with their male students, I have yet to hear this whole, "He said if I didn't fuck him, he'd accuse me of raping him," bit. You know, "I figured since I was going to jail anyway, I might as well ...."

And I don't think I've even heard that one from NAMBLA yet. "He said if I didn't stick my dick up his ass he would tell everyone I molested him. So I figured I had to ...."

Always the evil, scheming girl-child.

If your sense of humor is morbid enough, I would encourage you to laugh. But it's not so shocking or stunning that people will take the argument to this degree. Remind yourself that you're viewing a psychological dysfunction, and, well, yeah. Of course, that means I'm laughing at the mentally ill, which is problematic in itself, but there is something ultimately campy about this brand of the macabre.
____________________

Notes:

Kennedy, J. Anthony. "Opinion of the Court". Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551. United States Supreme Court. March 1, 2005. Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. Accessed March 1, 2009. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZO.html

 

Then again, perhaps not. If the study has merit, I certainly wouldn't dismiss it.

A young girl can ruin a person's life based on her word alone; lucifersangel, not exactly someone who thinks highly of pedophilia, made a compelling case for this over in an Ethics forum thread:

i know of a case that i was actually a witness in court for, a family member said that a certain family member abused her sexually, and because the girl caused so much trouble to me and my family i was asked to stand up in court and give a statement now the person who apprently abused her was actually with me the day he was supposed to have abused her, and he was cleared of all charges on my statement, he lost his wife, house job everything because of that lying bitch​

So, let's review; the guy had a rock solid alliby and he -still- loses his wife and his house job. Imagine he was babysitting the girl. The absurdity of the power of a child's word against an adult's in this arena was put into parody in an episode of South Park, where all the kids accused their parents of abusing them and they ended up living in a world without parents, a la "Lord of the Flies", while they're parents were all carted off to jail.

 

Yep.

Ok

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can agree with all of this.

When it comes to sexuality, we can decide that 60% isn't enough if we deem it isn't.

So test for emotional and psychological security as well. Eventually, I don't think we should stop with the kids either. I sincerely believe that people should have proven that they're ready to make kids; in other words, to be licensed to do so.

I disagree. I'll escerpt from that decision to highlight what I think is really going on here:

[a] lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility are found in youth more often than in adults​

Even the normal 16-year-old customarily lacks the maturity of an adult​

And perhaps the most telling:

It has been noted that "adolescents are overrepresented statistically in virtually every category of reckless behavior.​

Tiassa, we're talking statistics and averages here, not fundamental differences. If a certain type of man or woman is, on average, a worse parent, does that mean that we should stereotype -all- these men or women (the proverbial 'red neck', say) and not allow them to reproduce or even engage in sexual activities? Or should we instead let them attempt to prove that they are above average and, if so, allow them to join the rest of us adults? I remember that there was a church that at one point was giving out course material for minors to see regarding sexuality; at the end, they would graduate. Clearly, it had no legal standing, but I think that this was a very good start to what I feel relatively sure will eventually happen; the license to sexual intercourse as a sort of rite of passage, just as the driver's license is today.

I find it highly amusing that you yourself are only buttressing my case. Approximate indeed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. What we are using is extremely fuzzy logic, based on statistics. I believe we should stop relying on statistics to determine who is and isn't mature and instead attempt to measure maturity directly. At first, it can be in conjunction with age, just as it is with a driver's license, for instance. However, as time goes on, we could rely more on the license and less on the age, both up or down.

Ofcourse. Tiassa, you're only looking at this one way; that of adults wanting to bang minors. What you fail to see is that minors are also interested in adults, as well as themselves. Furthermore, one or both of these groups of people aren't necessarily interested in banging at all, or atleast during the time that they're that age; there are many other sexual activities.

Then, ofcourse, there's also the fact that minors don't exactly have free reign with other minors either, as I made abundantly clear in an ethics thread. Yes, I know there are some exemptions for close age but let's be frank about it; how many children, especially girls, can tell their parents that they want to have sex with their boyfriends?

 

from a law source, why?

Age is an additional aspect of consent to marry. All states prescribe the age which must be reached by both parties to the marriage before they are able to legally agree to become husband and wife without parental permission. For all but two states this "age of consent" is eighteen (in Mississippi the age is twenty-one and in Nebraska the age is nineteen).
http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/marriage-basics/marriage-requirements-basics.html

 

and what you fail to see scott is this is called "exploiting the innocent"

 

A good turn of phrase, but you won't divert me. I'm using what I think is the best argument for my case while you, I believe, are using the best argument for your own. By turning it into what someone attracted to minors wants, you dig deep into the fears of many parents that their children will be harmed. Honestly, however, the biggest danger that most children have isn't from outside; it's from within; that is, what -they- want. The same scenario gets played out with the 'war on drugs'. We blame the dealers, but fail to recognize that the dealers would be broke if they didn't have their market.

I can tell you first hand that when -I- was a kid I found many adults quite attractive. At the same time, the message we generally got from them was that they thought of us as just 'kids' and wouldn't seriously consider us to be sexual partners. In the one case in my life where an almost adult (she was 17 I believe, I was 11), I was a little afraid of where it would all lead. But most importantly, I was afraid -for her-. Even 22 years ago, it was clear that the witch hunt for 'pedophiles' had begun and I was not going to allow someone I liked to be harmed; so I said I couldn't go to the girls' camp and didn't offer to take her to the boys'. Would I have benefitted from a light sexual relationship at that time? I think so. But I purposely negated the possibility because I was afraid for her well being.

Nope.

Frequently that's only in theory. Come on Tiassa, surely you, a parent yourself, know the immense power you have to control the lives of your children. As a general rule, only an adult could challenge it (as in, not just be a sexual partner but actually provide for a minor) and they're conveniently prohibited from the playing field.

I'd say it's also a testament to the absurd rules.

It's illegal to blackmail someone into sex, not to succumb to it. If an adult blackmails another adult into sex, they can get into legal trouble. If a child does it, however, the results are not exactly the same.

I agree with you here, but it seems you've forgotten who was the one who blackmailed who.

Your questions are good. In terms of punishing women by baring their breasts, the idea, I believe, is to shame them. In terms of the sexual abuse that certain catholic priests engaged in, I think it speaks volumes of the long term effects of sexual repression. Ditto with the puritans; you can try to supress sexual urges but ultimately, it's a large part of our evolution and it'll tend to come out in one way or another. Frequently, the more repressed, the more negatively it can emerge.

While an adult certainly -can- prey on a child, how is it predatory by default, exactly?

The words you use create a picture in the mind, but that doesn't mean that that picture is what MAAs (Minor Attracted Adults) generally do. It's certainly true that some adults are only attracted to minors, and some exlusively to the 11 and under crowd. -However-, the idea that they must therefore be 'trolling' for 11 year olds is, in my view, unfair. When a guy goes to a community center hoping to meet some beautiful women, is he 'trolling' for them?

What's clear is that our -society- automatically thinks of an adult who wishes to flirt and frequently even talk with a minor (or even look too much at one) must be trolling because he's a troll. But societal impressions aren't necessarily realistic. Most people are strongly affected by them, however, and what this tends to mean is that people attracted to minors and people who just like being with them have begun to distance themselves from them in many ways precisely because they don't want to be condemned by their peers.

 

Ofcourse not. You -can-, however, allow more privileges if someone demonstrates that they are more emotionally and/or psychologically developed, just as driver's licenses are awarded once you demonstrated that you have sufficient knowledge to drive.

I'm the same way

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I agree, on all counts. But most of all, I think the saddest thing is that many parents can't or won't teach their children these things and I think that it's precisely these children that tend to have the most problems.

Amen

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I believe, however, that americans are beginning to realize that abstinence only education simply doesn't work (even Palin's daughter essentially said this) and are beginning to move on.

 

Sigh. leopold, we weren't talking about the age of consent to -marry-. We were talking about the age of consent to -have sex-.

 

It's strange that there are places where you are legally old enough to have sex, but not to be married.

 

it doesn't take a lot of intelligence to stick your dick in a hole.

 

It's also strange how much attitudes about this have changed over the years. Back when I was a kid, Pretty Baby starring a twelve year old Brooke Shields came out. She played a twelve year old whose mother was a prostitute in a New Orleans bordello, and she herself gets auctioned off. It created a stir at the time, but if that film were to be made today, my hunch is it wouldn't be, and if it were, no theaters would be willing to carry it.

 

But the assumption about those below the age of consent is that they are not old enough for the responsibilities that come with "sticking your dick in a hole". Being old enough for the possible responsibilities that come with sex (possible parenthood, diseases) but not old enough for the responsibilities of marriage seems contradictory to me.

 

I would have thought that would be obvious. There is a HUGE difference between expressing your bond with someone by having sex, and getting married.

It doesn't take a whole lot of psychological maturity to use a condom. Even a pissed stoned guy can use one.

I think you actually need sexual experiences as a young person, to learn.