Paedophiles - where do they come from?

They wouldn't, ofcourse. That's my point. If the parent is willing to take on the responsibility because their child isn't capable of handling the burden alone, then I think it should be ok.

That is the alternative, to be sure, in a society that doesn't lock up the adult in question.

I believe I have previously gotten into a discussion with Tiassa, wherein he mentioned the physical health risks of females below a certain age (15 perhaps) engaging in sexual intercourse. He stated that he wasn't completely sure about the validity of the study he had in mind, but I certainly believe that such studies are worth looking into. However, there is another point; not all sexual interactions involve sexual intercourse.

Adult male engaging in a sexual activity with a young female or male present certain issues that aren't present with an adult female and a young male or female.

The issue has to do with a certain body part of an adult male has that adult females don't have.

Other than this, as to what should be considered ok, it really depends on the society in question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Me and my hang ups like not making out with nine year olds.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As I have stated previously, many researchers find that the current definitions concerning pedophilia can be confusing. While the law may not differentiate between a pre pubescent and a pubescent individual, there are, in fact, differences. A minor is defined differently in different places, but they do bottom line cutoff generally doesn't go below 13, which is around the beginning of pubescence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have not read that book, I'll look into it. What are you defining as a minor? 17 seems to be the statutory age in several states (in the US), and that's an age I can understand. It's weird though, because a 17-year old can have sex, yet not smoke or drink, but that's a different topic altogether.

Yes. Some people don't realize when they're being taken advantage of.

 

What happens in the non human world isn't always the best, but I definitely go with your idea that the law should be more scientific.

Not so fast. There is certainly some truth in the assertion that many minors aren't yet ready to be parents, for instance. For this reason, I think that minors shoudn't simply be left to their own devices when it comes to their sexual interactions with others but rather, to be provided with guidance.

 

So if a parent for example allows an adult to have sex with a child under 12 its ok?

I didn't ask about what Tiassa said I asked you this

Do you need a law to tell you its wrong to have sex with a child under the age of 12?

Scott: Adult male engaging in a sexual activity with a young female or male present certain issues that aren't present with an adult female and a young male or female.
The issue has to do with a certain body part of an adult male has that adult females don't have.Other than this, as to what should be considered ok, it really depends on the society in question.

You didn't answer the question and meandering isn't an answer to the question. Its quite simple

A kiss is different so what about oral sex performed on an adult? Fondling? All at the age of 9.

I am not asking you what society thinks is ok because I know what society thinks. I am asking what you think. And since you are proud of the fact that you don't agree with what the majority would agree with you should have no problem answering a direct question. Mavericks don't need to worm their way out of questions only cowards need do that.

 

Sigh. You're only quoting the medical definition. You're forgetting the other definitions in that same link. I quoted the other definitions in post 29.

 

Scott...many researchers find that the current definitions concerning pedophilia can be confusing.

No scott they are not confused. You told me that I should check your link and this is what it had to say:

The APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition, Text Revision gives the following as its "Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 Pedophilia":[22][23]
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.


That is a definite detailed description of what is defined as a paedophile. Note the age preference is for children under 13

 

And so this confuses you?

A child (plural: children) is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty.

 

Ofcourse he does. Not only that, but he just did it. Just because he said it doesn't make his statement true, to be sure, but any relatively decent democracy gives people the authority to question and disagree with its laws.

 

If that were true, I -really- wouldn't be here. I think you're confusing me -seeing- your point of view with agreeing with it.

What gave you that notion?

 

Ofcourse I do. I realize I've been following along the deviations of the pre pubescent trend that many of you seem to favour, but I think it would be best to stick to the adult/minor terminology. Do I believe that some adult/minor sexual interactions should be permitted? Yes. And, in fact, some are. I believe, however, that the permission should be based on one or both parties being knowledgeable enough to carry on a good sexual relationship, not on the particular ages of the people involved.

I think that focusing on numbers is the biggest problem to change here. This is why I prefer focusing on the term 'minor'. Within that term constitutes the thing grey line that separates the legal from the illegal. I understand your wish to make your case stronger by going for the pre pubescent group, but surely you realize that change is gradual; the first step is the issue at the front, which is the upper teen years.

 

Well, if you've read my last post, I hope you now realize the mistaken assumption you made there.

 

Despite your erroneous assumption, I found that comment somewhat humorous

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Scott: Do I believe that some adult/minor sexual interactions should be permitted? Yes.

What sexual interaction between an adult and minor are permitted in your belief?

Scott: I think that focusing on numbers is the biggest problem to change here. This is why I prefer focusing on the term 'minor'. Within that term constitutes the thing grey line that separates the legal from the illegal. I understand your wish to make your case stronger by going for the pre pubescent group, but surely you realize that change is gradual; the first step is the issue at the front, which is the upper teen years.

No scott 'numbers' are not the problem it is the focus. I didn't ask what you terms you felt comfortable with i asked you a direct questions which were:

Do you see sex with children under the age of 12 as being 'the thing' in the future? A kind of sexual revolution?

If a kiss is different so what about oral sex performed on an adult? Fondling? All at the age of 9.

Do you need a law to tell you its wrong to have sex with a child under the age of 12?


You don't need to use too many words two out of three of those questions are yes or no answers. I don't know why you are having such difficulty giving a straight answer.

 

Scott:I think that focusing on numbers is the biggest problem to change here. This is why I prefer focusing on the term 'minor'. Within that term constitutes the thing grey line that separates the legal from the illegal.

Wouldn't you agree that a 'grey line' separating the 'legal from the illegal' using the ambiguous term 'minor' when paedophilia is related to children under the age of 12, is like leaving a loophole open for manipulation? Legal manipulation?

You say:

surely you realize that change is gradual; the first step is the issue at the front, which is the upper teen years.

Do you mean first tackle the upper teens and then move on down? The upper teens being that dividing line that can gradually be moved further back?

 

Yeah, that's right. I have seen no sign that Vili was harmed from the relationship. Vili claimed then what he claimed in the book that he and Mary wrote together; that love is not a crime.

Was their relationship perfect? Obviously not. But despite society's putting so many roadblocks in their way, they managed. Imagine if society had seen that they were in love and given them more leeway?

Yep.

She didn't "leave" him. She was forcibly sent to jail.

Hardly something that's unknown to youth. Society imprisoning his lover may have had something to do with it as well.

Perhaps that love can perservere despite the harshness of our society towards it at times.

The real question to ask is, why is it that he has "no prospects of a secure financial future"? Is he being ostracized because of his taboo relationship? Or perhaps he was emotionally stunted by the condemnation by his family and society of his lover? Who knows. But I definitely think it's worth investigating.

I figured that. I believe you're wrong, however.

Or how society can mess up an adolescent and his lover. I wish I had the book Vili and Mary wrote so I could learn more of their story. As it is, all I have are a few media reports.

 

Oh, I think I'm pretty spot on.