Delete the paedophilia threads

This post is in response to the 17th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

Finally, we get to the part of your post that made me find your using the term 'prize' to be ironical...

I definitely agree that children are not prizes to be won. -However-, I -do- think there is a competition between parents and their children's friends and lovers to influence the way said children think. I think that as a general rule, a parent who has a fairly good ideological framework has much better chances of holding on to their children's ways of thinking, atleast until the later teen years. If a parent's framework isn't so good, however, I think that the severance of parent/child ideologies may well happen earlier.

I believe that the answer is neither yes nor no, but rather depends upon the given situation.

Ok, we can agree there at any rate.

Agreed.

Again, agreed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Tiassa, we may disagree at times but I really do think that these long posts can at times show that we actually do agree on a lot of things as well. Perhaps given time we might be able to bridge our differences.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Adults who are attracted to minors can range from healthy to deranged, just as adults attracted to adults can be.. or minors attracted to minors. Or men attracted to men and women attracted to women or people attracted to both genders. In the past, homosexuality and bisexuality was thought to be a mental illness as well; thankfully, we don't see it that way these days. I personally believe that eventually we won't see pedosexuality and all-age sexuality as a mental illness as well, but I don't know how long this will take.

Depends on what I guess I can call 'the 3 factors':
1- Most importantly, the consent of both parties. ancientregime has made some good points concerning consent, but I think that this is still a good general answer.
2- The law.
3- other societal factors.

How are we defining sex here? After you do this, the 3 factors have to be applied.

Yes. However, there is another factor; in a theoretical future society where this would be permitted, if -one- person can be trusted not to do something sexually harmful to someone who wouldn't be able to make fully informed consent, then I think it could, in some future society, be waived for the other individual.

I don't think we should be defining sexual maturity based on age. This is why leopold99's argument that we should wait until we can settle on a universal age of consent before discussing other matters doesn't wash with me. I think we should be defining sexual maturity based on a testing scheme. There could be different versions; one for someone who wishes to engage in sexual interactions with other people who are similarly mature and one (in the further future) wherein someone could be licensed as trustable to teach people about sexuality in a first hand manner.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it doesn't matter what you think scott, it's the law.
a law that was determined by a representative government with the collective will of the people as its guide.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I disagree.

Society's constantly changing, as are its laws.

 

ideally the age of consent would be 28-30 but it would need to be instituted globally.

 

I don't agree with that assertion and I have a feeling that in this particular case I'm in the majority

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

quoting me know?

i'm not so sure. especially on sciforums. we can lower it to 25.

 

This post is in response to the 18th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

On blackmailing someone into having sex with you

Given the current political climate concerning the power of minors accusing adults concerning sexual abuse, I think that it's not such a far stretch that even someone who -isn't- attracted to minors might succumb. In this particular case, however, the man in question -was- attracted to minors, making succumbing all the more tempting I'm sure.

I agree with you here.

I would never have blackmailed someone for sex, regardless of my age. I think that someone who -would- blackmail someone for sex is more then simply emotionally immature, but emotionally -disturbed-, as someone else has stated in one of these threads.

 

You mean 'quoting me now?' If so, yes... not sure why you bring it up though.

I still think most sciforums members won't agree, laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

what's the difference?

 

Your version had a k at the beginning of now.. which would be know.

 

what the hell? i never made that mistake before.

 

Maybe you were distracted..

 

you can agree with or disagree with it all you want, it's still the law. period.
until you prove that the collective will of the people wishes it to be changed it will remain a law.

the collective will of the people says that adults that diddle children are, in most cases, perverts. now, if you don't like the sound of that then maybe you need to re-evaluate your moral position.

 

This post is in response to the 19th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

On puritan porn and how 'sin', shame and the law frequently meld...

Women are taught to see it that way when in a public setting...

The lengths that a puritan would have to go to get a little porn in those days, laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ofcourse. In our society, it's illegal for an adult to have sex with an eleven year old for starters...

 

And you would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that dastardly spell checking guy; sorry, I used to love watching scooby doo, even though it frequently frightened me; but I'd watch it with my sister, which would make it easier

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yep, definitely a possibility

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sure. Laws can change, though...

Pretty much. Perhaps you haven't realized that I'm trying to persuade others that my points of view are correct?

I recognize that this is what society believes. In cases where the 'diddling' is non consensual or where one of the partners didn't understand what they were getting into and later regretted giving their consent, I would also say that society is frequently if not always right. The main issue is when the 'diddling' -is- consensual , such as the case of Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau. Then it can become something quite different. I firmly believe that society owes them an apology for what they had to go through.

 

all you are doing scott is attempting to lower the moral standards of the united states.
and for that your beneath contempt.

get a life dude, seriously.

why james allows this trollish behavior is a mystery.

 

citing one case is not exactly a good example. one way to look at it is this way: you have a son or daughter who is in second grade (the first time she taught him), remember your kid goes to school to learn...

anyway, your child lets make it female, meets the teacher again at 13 and the teacher is 34 (the ages that they were first sexual encounter) you would be fine with this?

 

This post is in response to the 20th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

It? Look, I've read many online accounts of adults fondly recalling sexual interactions with adults when they were minors. Studies have been done, in such books such as Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, a book edited by a psychiatrist, wherein a significant amount of the adult participants reported having positive sexual interactions with adults in their childhood. In the Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions study that I'm thinking of, there seems to be a correlation between the amount of people who reported positive sexual interactions and the amount of people who reported consenting to the sexual interaction as well.

Some MAAs try to reclaim it for what the 2 conjoined words originally stood for (child lover), especially in environments that are relatively positive towards these types of attractions, as a general rule, outside of these close knit online communities which do not advocate breaking the law (girl chat and boy chat are the most well known), outside of such environments, as a general rule I think that many prefer to outright deny being one, as the term pedophile has for many become practically synonymous with predator. Thus, the need for a new term. As a general rule, people who identify themselves as MAAs state that they would never want to harm a minor, just as 'normal' age range people would never want to harm those who they are attracted to, and are generally also law abiding citizens.

If you ever stop by a forum such as girlchat, you will find that many simply like to look at minors, as that's generally about all they can legally do and they don't wish to break the law.

Why not just looking for tail? In my view, trolls engage in trolling. This, for me, is a troll:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I personally don't think that most people would want to be associated with such a creature

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fine, there's a difference. That doesn't mean that I'd ever want to be considered to be 'trolling', for anything.

Yep.

What's not a reasonable argument?