what's wrong with having sex with underage kids?

there's a site i stumbled into recently (sorry, cant find the URL) that represents a society of adults who "love" children. they say they're not wild predators but gentle souls who wish to "take care" of kids.

i'm sure they think what they're doing, or want/attempting to do is moral. why are they wrong?



*disclaimer: if i ever got my hands on one of those f*ckers i'd tear off their heads. i just wanna see your objective opinions on this subject.

They are wrong because there is no informed consent from the children involved.

Originally posted by James R
They are wrong because there is no informed consent from the children involved.

WRONG James.

My four years old girl, would give consent to practically anything that would promise her a lolly pop. She would be quite informed and willing to engage in anything that resembels play. I heard about a down syndrom 22 year old girl who gave full consent to her boss at Kmart to have sex with her, because he convinced her that it was excercise. He told her that excercise is good for her and that all she needs to do is jump up and down 50 times while he couches her from underneath. Of course, cloth are not needed while excercising. This went on for two years and she even got pregnant, and as she was questioned on who had sex with her, she said noone, until oneday she was watching two making love on a TV show with her mom and she said, this is how I excercise with Mr. Y....

But thats not informed consent, thats consent to something pretending to be something else that they know about.

Originally posted by guthrie
But thats not informed consent, thats consent to something pretending to be something else that they know about.

Tell that to the judge, because I didn't want to have sex with that bastard, but he told me that he loves me and wants to marry me and give me security. He lied to me and escaped instead. Should I take him to court for rape because he misinformed me about his intentions with me?

Think about it, it's not a consent issue, it's purely a moral issue supported by our current legal system. Our system is designed to help those that can't help themselves.....The gudge would dismiss my case though, because our courts don't protect the fools.

Originally posted by otheadp
what's wrong with having sex with underage kids?

It is considered morally wrong

there's a site i stumbled into recently (sorry, cant find the URL) that represents a society of adults who "love" children. they say they're not wild predators but gentle souls who wish to "take care" of kids.

These could be jaded adults with heavy mental issues who feel disenchantment with reality and relationships with adults so they resort back to love with childern...i guess they see their innocence in those kids......or maybe i am reading too much into this.

i'm sure they think what they're doing, or want/attempting to do is moral. why are they wrong?


Well obviously they find no fault in this but the question is does the child invloved truly knows what he/she is getting into. It may seem no harm to the child at that age but upon growing up they might hate themselves and express disgust at themselves. Some could be even maladaptive to themselves

or again i am reading too deep into this.

Your missing the point. The little girl cannot give informed consent to sex, becasue she doesnt know exactly what it involves, and the attendant potential impact on her life, in any way taht is likely. Thats why we have ages of consent. Whereas in your case, your presumably over the age of consent and therefore capable of exercising some sort of judgement on what was likely and not. It might be better if you could get him for breach of contract.
So you didnt want to, yet did? Whereas the little girl, doesnt know what sex is about, and is told its something completely different, therefore she is missing the informed bit.

Flores:

You got the "consent" part, but you completely missed the "informed" part.

To be able to give informed consent to something, you need to understand what it is you are consenting to. A four year old child does not have a full understanding of the sexual act, and therefore is incapable of giving informed consent. Similarly, in your Downs syndrome example, there was no informed consent because the girl did not fully understand what she ws consenting to.

in other cultures and times girls would be married at 11 and have babies by 12, even today

it is/was not morally wrong in those societies
why did we (socieity) legally define the "correct"age at 18 when nature defined it at somewhere between 11 and 13 ?

another thing, re: down syndrome girl
how exactly was she hurt by this whole thing? (besides the pregnancy) i think she was having fun.

"in other cultures and times girls would be married at 11 and have babies by 12, even today

it is/was not morally wrong in those societies
why did we (socieity) legally define the "correct"age at 18 when nature defined it at somewhere between 11 and 13 ?"

Which correct age? Here you can have sex at 16. In I think Holland you can have sex at 12 or 13, if its with another child your own age. The laws were introduced precisely for the reasons given above, that hte 12 or 13 year old child, apart from often being unable to have children safely, waas also very easy to trick into promieses of marriage and jsut get dumped after sex. remember the value a girls virginity has. Moreover, you also dont want your daughter persuaded away from the family when she can still do work etc, and is still undergoing training, after all you want her to make a good marriage, not just waste herself on the first person to come along. So its a combination of concern for the girls wellbeing and for the families wellbeing, given the amount of effort that went into children in those days. Also you should bear in mind that children nowadays are reaching puberty earlier than before, thanks to more food and better nutrition. IN the old days I think it was more like 14 or so. In the UK, marriages at 12 or so were only carried out amongst the upper classes, if perhaps only royalty, for dynastic purposes. Everyone else was marrying more like their 20's. Enough time for them to get a handle on what theyre doing in life, what sex and emotions are about, etc etc. Whereas with a12 year old, unless theyve been brought up in a slum living off their wits, how much do you really expect them to be able to have knowing consent?

"another thing, re: down syndrome girl
how exactly was she hurt by this whole thing? (besides the pregnancy) i think she was having fun."

She likely was. It seems that she had no concept of sex and how it might affect her, therefore she was being taken advantage of. However, whether she enjoyed it all or not, you'd have to ask her. She might not have enjoyed the messier bits of childbirth though.

In different cultures maybe different ages of consent are appropriate as people grow up dfferently in different cultures.

that is no justification for abusing a child in our culture.

Children and young people are still growing and developing. I work closely with teenagers. i would say that girls under 17 in general are not old enough to give a true consent and boys at 18 are also unlikely to be able to give what i would call true consent.

That is to sex with an older person of either sex who has the social advantage of experience and being grown up, that means in any such sexual relationship there is a clear power disadvantage and clear potential for a more experienced person to abuse the trust placed in them by these young half-grown people.

According to Islamic scriptures Mohd married a 6 year old and had sex with her when she was 9 year old...I guess it depends on the society where you are brought up ...

Since now under pressure the age must have been raised ...also this raises the question of Circumcision of girls ... as Guys will have no problem with circumcision even if done without their consent at birth but for Girls it is losing their sexual response...

You can deform a child but you can not have sex with her without her consent... though both of them seems barbaric but still I would call them Double Standard:rolleyes:

We've had several discussions on age of consent in this forum, and I don't see this one going anywhere we haven't been before...

Anyway, It seems to me that it's inappropriate for adults to have sex with children before puberty, but past puberty, it seems like nature intended...

I'm not really attached to either side of this issue though...age of consent laws don't really bother me, but they do seem kind of pointless.

Originally posted by coolsoldier
We've had several discussions on age of consent in this forum, and I don't see this one going anywhere we haven't been before...

Anyway, It seems to me that it's inappropriate for adults to have sex with children before puberty, but past puberty, it seems like nature intended...

I'm not really attached to either side of this issue though...age of consent laws don't really bother me, but they do seem kind of pointless.

Well said. I exactly agree except that the laws annoy me a little as they seem to be a result of judeo christian psychological denial rather than good sense.

It's wrong to have sex with children let's say... under 13. It's ok, if the age difference is like.. 18-15, or 19-15, but 35-11 is sick :)

No, James has this one nailed and I'll take it a bit further. During your teen years, between 12 and around 18-19, you are also going through defiance and rebellion against your parents. Having sex is a GREAT way to rebel if your parents are very stern about not letting you do it.

In the end, the little teenyboppers did not think about what it was they were really doing and end up facing pregnancy and all the other consequences of an adult act. And yet, they wern't acting with the responsibility of adults in this particular example, but with the typical defiance of kids throwing a temper tantrum over a parents reproval.

I think something has been missed. It has been mentioned that children can give their consent, but children can also give their consent to smoke a cigarette, give their consent to drink a beer, or even give their consent to die for America. So why are the not allowed? Children are basically property until the age of 18, they are protected by law, but then again so is my car. So first of all, as another persons property they cannot legally give consent to do anything with out the consent of the owner (parents). It is then not legal with the consent of the parent (in most states) because as a person it requires their consent as well, but legally they are not considered mature enough to make such a decision. I am running into circular reasoning here...someone help.

- KitNyx

It's mostly an issue of personal maturity when a child is able to make informed decisions on their own. Some people never get to the point where they can make intelligent decisions, and some 12 year olds are perfectly capable of making informed decisions. Our society has apparently decided that people typically reach this level around 18-21 years old (I'm not sure if this is actually the case, it's an arbitrary legal distinction for the most part)

I should point out though, that making bad decisions is NOT synonymous with making uninformed decisions. It is entirely possible for a teenager to make an informed decision to be sexually deviant or rebellious -- and while in some situations that decision can be uninformed, it is entirely possible to make an informed, conscious decision that, in the eyes of those watching, is a bad decision. That fact alone does not make it an uninformed one.

cool soldier there is no way i would let you itno a class of 13 or 14 yr olds then. they may well ahve gone through the physical onset of puberty but the hell if they are old enough to give informed consent to an adult having sex with them. they are not. I work with kids these ages- they simoply dont have the enmotional maturity or the life exoperience not to be seriously disadvantged by placing their trust and body int he hands of a sexual partner of mature years.

not to be seriously disadvantged by placing their trust and body int he hands of a sexual partner of mature years.

Since when do you need to trust someone to fuck them? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by ele
cool soldier there is no way i would let you itno a class of 13 or 14 yr olds then. they may well ahve gone through the physical onset of puberty but the hell if they are old enough to give informed consent to an adult having sex with them. they are not. I work with kids these ages- they simoply dont have the enmotional maturity or the life exoperience not to be seriously disadvantged by placing their trust and body int he hands of a sexual partner of mature years.

OK you are completely misrepresenting what I said. I said that some teenagers are mature enough to know and understand what they are getting into. Admittedly most aren't. Maturity is an individual issue though. You can't say "at this age children are mature enough to make their own decisions" because some people are emotionally mature as teenagers, and some 40 year olds never emotionally mature. READ: It depends on the individual maturity of the individual.

Please read what I have written before you respond to it :m:

"Since when do you need to trust someone to fuck them? "

Well xev, since forever for me. :) Different for you is it? :)

Actually, I think for most women there is a strength disadvantage with most men and therefore in a sense a woman is very physically vunerable in the sense of risking physical abuse or murder in being alone and naked with a man. So it is better if you can trust them. The same in any sitiuation where one person has a physical strength advantage over another.

However in the examples i was talking about, these kids are very at risk placing their trust in someone who not only is likely to be physically more powerful and mature than them, but also more experienced and more knowledgable in the ways of the world. Emotion and sex are often entangled and it is often more than their bodies young people would trust a seemingly sophisticated otr mature older person with- it is their hearts, minds and future development to maturity.

ele:
Actually, I think for most women there is a strength disadvantage with most men and therefore in a sense a woman is very physically vunerable in the sense of risking physical abuse or murder in being alone and naked with a man.

Uhhh....I'm not even going to begin on this one. Suffice to say that I don't view all men as psychotic rapists.

So it is better if you can trust them.

Then you lose the fear of physical abuse or murder and then sex is boooooring.

Emotion and sex are often entangled and it is often more than their bodies young people would trust a seemingly sophisticated otr mature older person with- it is their hearts, minds and future development to maturity.

Is this something the government should regulate - a broken heart?

My objective opinion is this;

Informed consent is only one aspect of the issue at hand, the other is capacity. Ask this question, does the person who gives consent have the capacity to understand what consent means?

James R
You hit the nail on the head.

Originally posted by fireguy_31
My objective opinion is this;

Informed consent is only one aspect of the issue at hand, the other is capacity. Ask this question, does the person who gives consent have the capacity to understand what consent means?

James R
You hit the nail on the head.

While I might agree that optimally you might both be correct (in a perfect, sterile, uniform world) how do you consider actual life to be even remotely optimal.?

In other words, you cannot have sex for the first time and be 'informed' ya know? No two people can have the same comprehension of what they're getting themselves into, but EVERYONE (to some extent) has the primal urge to fuck. Once equiped to do so, who the fuck are you to determine if someone who claims that they made an informed decision, didn't?

Think of my point this way:

Most likely you have, when you were younger(as I have), coerced someone younger than you to do something stupid. Why did they do what you coerced them to do? Because their capacity to understand fully what it was they were/are gonna do was inept.

When one person understands that anothers mental capacity is not developed enough -- because of mental ilness or just too young -- to fully understand ramifications of their coercion then it is wrong..

Think of it this way Wes..., if you rolled a quarter into a busy street and told a 10 year old to go get it they would. I doubt you would blame them for getting hit by a car. Or would you?????

Good thanks, you? It's been a while, wow.

/hink of my point this way:

So you think that my response comes from a failure on my part to 'really understand' your point? What do I have to do to get a litte more credit?

/Most likely you have, when you were younger(as I have), coerced someone younger than you to do something stupid.

Yeah when I was under 10 probably, hmm.. okay maybe a little older. :D Hmm.. well, it depends on "stupid to whom". I haven't done it on a "stupid to me" basis for a long time but on a "stupid to other people" basis I'm sure I have.

Actually no, I never 'coerce' people into doing anything. I think people act of their will.

/Why did they do what you coerced them to do? Because their capacity to understand fully what it was they were/are gonna do was inept.

Do you think so? LOL. Wow so you're basically a commie then eh? I mean, you want me to take responsibility for YOUR actions (no matter what I did to influences you (within the bounds of ethics)) right? Okay, I'll derantificate and attempt a more decent conversation. I completely disagree with your analysis as I find it short sighted of realistic considerations. It's not that simple. In general as long as my "coersion" as you put it, is with the bounds of ethics (no mal-intent) you are resposible for your choice to follow my advice.

/When one person understands that anothers mental capacity is not developed enough -- because of mental ilness or just too young -- to fully understand ramifications of their coercion then it is wrong..

I know adults that are less sophisticated than some children. I'm sure you've met some. As you should have noted I addressed that issue with "if someone who claims that they made an informed decision". Do you see my meaning?

/Think of it this way Wes..., if you rolled a quarter into a busy street and told a 10 year old to go get it they would. I doubt you would blame them for getting hit by a car. Or would you?????

Well, a ten year old should have the sense to look both ways. Actually that is an excellent idea to allow evolution to work its magic. To be fair, I'm not sure I'd want someone to try it on MY kids, but regardless I'd think they'd pass (if they were old enough).

Why do you want to protect people from themselves???? I'm not talking about physical rape, I'm talking about the concept of statutory rape. I think that if there is some sort of problem because of sex between two post-pubescent individuals, it should be worked out due to the nature of the problem and the particulars of the scenario at the time. The idea that "it is wrong because they aren't informed" is archaic IMO. It's certainly true some of the time, but so are other things.

Children and intellectually challenged individuals are not going to understand the full ramifications of consenting to sex by whatever means they have been conned into doing so. Whether it is sooner or later, the consequences of their actions will play some part in their maturing process. I would like to think that adults have the integrity to recognise when an individual does not fully comprehend what they’re consenting to, and certainly it sickens me that any adult would consider a child fully aware of what he or she is doing.

What's more sickening is an adult saying that they are only expressing love of a child by submitting them to sexual acts. Doesn't anyone see thought that? Wake up.

Lots of people are "intellectually challenged" , the number of People(adults) I've seen "coerced" into sex is great indeed, in fact the type of consent that you guys are implying is essential is a rarity.
Sexual encounters often come about after one person tricks the other into having sex with them, I would honestly say most, a large percentage. I think thats what makes a males genes worthy in the human species. Male weaver birds need to be good house weavers, male giant pacific sea horses need to be good dancers, male humans need to be good shit talkers and deadpan actors.

Don't get me wrong, I think bangin kids is not acceptable but we need a different angle of attack. The fact they are naive has nothing to do with it, 80% of the population are unspeakably naive and are being talked into sex much the same way a child would be.
But this is fine, and even slightly amusing.

Pedofilia is wrong because children have child bodies that aren't meant for sex. Menstruating doesn't mean anything, its like a computer loading up, its working but you can't type yet if you know what I mean.
The question is could the person you are bangin successfully concieve a child through natural means without complications? If not, you are a pedo.

One a side note, I don't try to "pick up tail" with deception, but seriously most guys do, nearly all of my friends and nearly every guy I see in action when I'm out.
I've dabbled in the art whilst drunk, but I find it degrading to both parties, not just the female... But yeah particularly the female, and they consistenly fall for it, can't argue with the results, manipulative skills and the ability to lie and knowingly decieve are obviously traits favoured by evolution.

Dr. Lou Natic;

You make some interesting observations and in the course of doing so you have revealed gaps in my assertions. Good Job! I will now attempt to fill those gaps:

I disagree that physiological factors alone can determine whether or not you are a pedo. If I'm shootin' blanks or a woman is un-fertile does not imply pedo. So, science alone cannot unravel this quagmire.

You talk about manipulation in a mans/womans quest for gettin' lucky! True dat! I have participated and equally been duped!

:( Although this manipulation took place on a level playing field. I believe that at the outset both a male and a female, or male male female female or any combination thereof, understand but may not accept that the purpose of the interaction may be for copulation purposes. I challenge you to go up to a woman you do not know and start talking to her and tell me you can't feel sexual energy.. Most times nothing develops from that but sometimes it will. Of course it is gonna take some good talking and manouvering if you want to get lucky, if not no one would get lucky!! BUT, if at any time neither party understands -- due to mental capacity or whatever -- then it is coercion and wrong. If you apply this to the realm of pedophilia or having sex with a mentally challenged person, then the formula is flawless.

Once again, science can not provide us with clear answers, it takes a social component to make it complete!:)

I understand what you're saying, but I think you're misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. By 'intellectually challenged' I'm referring to retarded or simple minded individuals. Stupidity does not come under the heading. Most females know when they're being conned and even though guys think they doing the leading, it's really up to the female to eventually consent.

I'm only objecting to children and the retarded being subjected to the urging of someone desperate to have sex.

There are silly women out there and they'll learn their lessons in due time. Being naive doesn't mean being retarded. I know about the games played by both men and women.

I'll just reiterate that pedophiles do not have any excuses to take advantage of children. The comment earlier about this being a way of showing love is just not acceptable.

Of course this is only my opinion, and I'm probably more outraged by it because of attempts on myself when I was a child. I was lucky enough to be able to disentangle myself from the situations but many children are not so lucky. Those instances are still very clear in my memory, so I have no doubt that kids grow up with problems through experiences with sick adults.

Cheers
Teri

Hi xev

"Uhhh....I'm not even going to begin on this one. Suffice to say that I don't view all men as psychotic rapists. "

I agree. Nevertheless since you are physically in their power when alone with them what i said still satnds- it involves trust- at least the trust that they are not a psychotic rapist or killer.


"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it is better if you can trust them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then you lose the fear of physical abuse or murder and then sex is boooooring. "

Oh really xev? I wouldn't have thought it of you. Can't you think of other ways to make sex interesting. :)


"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotion and sex are often entangled and it is often more than their bodies young people would trust a seemingly sophisticated otr mature older person with- it is their hearts, minds and future development to maturity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Is this something the government should regulate - a broken heart?"

No, but it isnt a broken heart i am talking about. I am talking about interfering in the mental and emotional development of a child into an adult.

__________________
"That's the problem with killing for amusement/sexual pleasure. Damned inefficiant. What we need is some way to efficiantly kill known idiots. Like a programmed killer android - hundreds of killer androids programmed to recognize morons and immediately exterminate them. "

That is a very controversial statement indeed. Problem is who judges the idiots for a start. And second, what about that old piece of morality about it being wrong to kill?

ele

"In other words, you cannot have sex for the first time and be 'informed' ya know? No two people can have the same comprehension of what they're getting themselves into, but EVERYONE (to some extent) has the primal urge to fuck. Once equiped to do so, who the fuck are you to determine if someone who claims that they made an informed decision, didn't?"

Wes, that is such a bad justification for pedophilia. Maybe it is an adequate justification for children having underage sex- ie experimentation between thos eof equal maturity- but it just doesn't stand as justification for an adult abusing a child. How could you think it would?

Lou
"Pedofilia is wrong because children have child bodies that aren't meant for sex. Menstruating doesn't mean anything, its like a computer loading up, its working but you can't type yet if you know what I mean.
The question is could the person you are bangin successfully concieve a child through natural means without complications? If not, you are a pedo.
"
It is wrong because it is interfering with the mental and emotional development of a child on their journey to adult hood. Many 14 yr old girls could conceive and carry a baby. That doesnt mean itis okay for a 50 yr old man to have sex with them. clearly such a man would be taking adbvantage of the youth and inexperience of the child and also not giving a damn about f$%#g with her mind and emotions whih are still developing into the person she will one day be.

Terri
I am sorry you suffered that. I agree with you, pedophilia is definitely not only a matter of physiological definition.

I think it is entirely possible that teenagers suffer psychological problems after sex with adults not necessarily as a direct result of the encounter, but because of the social stigma surrounding it. If this is in fact the case, psychological problems could be avoided either by (a) changing the social norms or (b) not fucking teenagers. Since the former is not likely to happen, the latter is probably the best idea, not because of an inherent problem with the act itself, but rather because of the social norms of our society.

I'm no psychology expert, though, so I could (easily) be wrong.

ele:
I agree. Nevertheless since you are physically in their power when alone with them what i said still satnds- it involves trust- at least the trust that they are not a psychotic rapist or killer.

I guess you're just physically weak. I suppose if one is incapable of defending oneself, one would have to be dependant on the mercy of others.

As for "trust" - well. One does not have to fuck everything that moves. This may come as a suprise to you, but it is not absolutely impossible to get to know a man before fucking him.

Of course there's an element of risk, but the fact that I risk being killed in sanguinary and delightful ways during coitus does not mean that I trust the person I am fucking not to do this. It simply means that I've accepted the low probability of him doing so.

Duuuuuh. :)

No, but it isnt a broken heart i am talking about. I am talking about interfering in the mental and emotional development of a child into an adult.

We're not talking about children, we're talking about adolescents. I agree that a child is incapable of consent - nor even physically prepared for sex - but an adolescent is.

That is a very controversial statement indeed. Problem is who judges the idiots for a start.

My robots do.

And second, what about that old piece of morality about it being wrong to kill?

Even if morality was useful for anything, I'd say that it's more morally wrong to overbreed so much that we destroy the aestetics of our planet.

It is wrong because it is interfering with the mental and emotional development of a child on their journey to adult hood.

A fourteen year old is not a child. A fourteen year old is an adolescent/teen.

Many 14 yr old girls could conceive and carry a baby. That doesnt mean itis okay for a 50 yr old man to have sex with them. clearly such a man would be taking adbvantage of the youth and inexperience of the child and also not giving a damn about f$%#g with her mind and emotions whih are still developing into the person she will one day be.

That's not clear at all. You have absolutely no argument backing up your assertions.

Originally posted by ele
Wes, that is such a bad justification for pedophilia. Maybe it is an adequate justification for children having underage sex- ie experimentation between thos eof equal maturity- but it just doesn't stand as justification for an adult abusing a child. How could you think it would?

I said the same thing lou said except he said it better (at least he said what I was trying to get at much more clearly), and I don't think there's any excuse for sex with children. Once someone goes through puberty though, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine if they can make an "informed decision". As a matter of fact I don't think it's possible to really make an "informed" decision before doing something. Post-pubescent people generally understand the potential of their actions. They know about STD's and pregnancy, it's just that some percentage of them doesn't comprehend the permanence their decisions, etc. It seems to me that the same can be said for adults. Regardless, the biological urge directs them to action and some of them will heed it. It should ultimately only be a criminal act based on particulars of the scenario. I understand that picking a seemingly sensible number simplifies the legal process in a significant manner, but that doesn't make it ethical.

EDIT: Ele, upon reviewing your posts it could be said that the way you use the word "child" could be descriptive of people in their 50's. Some people are NEVER adults in the way you seem to think they should be. I might ponder if YOU could be considered an adult by MY standards and the same in reverse.

WES
I use the word child advisedly. i am a teacher. I am not a teacher who belittles adolescents but am one who accpets them as developing young adults. they are treated more as equals in my class than in many classes in schools. Nevertheless, from the point of view of someone who knows several of these young people, these adolescents very well indeed, I am aware that they are definitely still growing up whatever their physiological development and equipment. A girl or boy doesnt become fair game for a pedophile because they turn thirteen or fourteen. They are the same person, one day olde than when they were 12 or 13.


I am talking about my experience of people of these ages, including being privy to their thoughts and feelings and discussions of relationships and being trained and aware of their emotional and mental development. While it is true people grow through-out their lives it is without question that children of thirteen or fourteen are not as emotionally and mentally developed as adults and are still working out their sexuality and their perdsonality and their beliefs that will guide them and their future development. Fucking with their minds, emotions and bodies, taking advantage of them before they have actually developed in these ways, is wrong and it is pedophilia.

Xev
"Many 14 yr old girls could conceive and carry a baby. That doesnt mean itis okay for a 50 yr old man to have sex with them. clearly such a man would be taking adbvantage of the youth and inexperience of the child and also not giving a damn about f$%#g with her mind and emotions whih are still developing into the person she will one day be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's not clear at all. You have absolutely no argument backing up your assertions."

It is clear from my experience as a teacher who works with fourteen year old girls daily and is aware of what they are like and their level of development. It is an experience based argument.

"my robots"
Damn, I'm sure they wouldn't be any better than mine. :)


The stuff you said about choosing the people you fuck.

Oh good, I am glad you choose wisely and doint just choose anyone. Dont think i said anything to indicate it was otherwise for myself did i? Infact, im longtrem married and only choose one person at the moment. :)

ele:
It is clear from my experience as a teacher who works with fourteen year old girls daily and is aware of what they are like and their level of development. It is an experience based argument.

*Laughs*
You watch, patronize and pump their heads with the drivel the schools tell you to pump them full of - and you think you know what they are like?

Oh good, I am glad you choose wisely and doint just choose anyone. Dont think i said anything to indicate it was otherwise for myself did i? Infact, im longtrem married and only choose one person at the moment.

So thus trusting someone has absolutely nothing to do with whether you are fucking them, yes? Sex need not encompass something as dishonourable as trust. It is just sex. Get over it.

The fact stands that some fourteen year olds are capable of giving informed consent and some eighteen year olds aren't. Nor is having sex some momentous event that will cause China to launch its nuclear arsenal against Russia if done wrong - it's just sex.

To label it "paedophilia" just because you find it distasteful dilutes efforts to prevent actual paedophilia by putting a fifteen year old fucking her fourteen year old boyfriend on the same level as an uncle who harms his twelve year old neice. Somehow, I see a world of difference between the two situations.

I see a world of difference in the two situations too xev, as i think u will see if u read what i have posted.

And no i dont treat the kids in my classes like you describe at all. I would think it wrong.