Delete the paedophilia threads

This post is in response to the 6th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

Ok, so "in late adolescence, important aspects of brain maturation remain incomplete". This doesn't mean that all adolescents are incapable of making informed decisions regarding sexuality.

Sorry Tiassa, but I did not reach that conclusion at all. The only think that seems apparent from all of this is that the brain continues to evolve during adolescence. Nowhere does it say that all adolescents aren't capable of engaging in informed sexual interactions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This post is in response to the 7th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

On this we can agree atleast. If.

I have definitely not been persuaded of this at all by the data you have provided.

Be amused all you like. However, I think it makes far more sense to test people for maturity then to rely on statistical probabilities of such.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This post is in response to the 8th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

Another good Simpsons episode

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. However, I don't see how that quote connects to what we're talking about...

I'm going to take a guess at what you're trying to convey to me here: are you trying to say that minors simply aren't mature enough to know that having sexual interactions with adults is bad for them?

While it is possible, from what I've heard it's certainly rare; for the uninfected person giving the oral sex, must there be a cut in the mouth for it to be transmitted or can it actually go through the digestive system and infect? Also, in reverse; for the uninfected person receiving the oral sex, must there be a cut in the genital for it to be transmitted or can saliva infect a person that way?

Pregnancy, ofcourse, is not possible.

Technically we don't even need to live. The question shouldn't be about what people need but what people -desire-, balanced against what would benefit society in general. In terms of your example, I think that we have to be realistic; I believe that sexual contact between adults and pre pubescents will be off limits in terms of the law for the foreseeable future when it comes to adults unless you're living in a country with islamic laws. Therefore, I think the main focus should be on teenage minors.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Really? What about a 16 year old screwing a 15 year old ?

The line blurs with teenagers.

 

there are certainly going to be special cases.
the outcome is decided in our courts.

 

This post is in response to the 9th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

It's worrisome to the society we live in today. It's not necessarily worrisome to past societies. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest things to worry about, at any age, are things such as if it's something both parties want and stds. After a certain age and before a much later age, there is also the possibility of pregnancy, which can be very wanted, unwanted, or somewhere in between, depending on the situation.

They were. They still are.

They still are that too.

Yep...

It was always very hard to pressure me into doing something I didn't want to do; when I was in preschool or thereabouts, a teacher told my mother that I was a boy that wouldn't bend to peer pressure as others did. I think my life has borne that out relatively well.

Why do you believe that?

 

This post is in response to the 10th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

I didn't describe it, lucifers angel did; I just summarized. Perhaps the problem is all of the above, plus the society that engulfs them all.

Agreed...

I disagree.

Yes, I know they stretch the points to the ridiculous, but I would argue that they do so to make a -point- that society is -already- out of touch with reality in some ways and by pushing it even further, it becomes ridiculous.

At last you admit a point; I don't have cable, but your belief that it should have never gone as far as it did is -precisely- the point I'm trying to make; people have pushed these witch hunts -way- too much. It's time that people take a look at the monstrosities they've created:
The Effects of a False Allegation of Child Sexual Abuse on an Intact Middle Class Family

Defending False Allegations of Abuse - Cowling Investigations

High Schoolers Accused Of Sending Naked Pictures To Each Other

Judith Levine chronicles several such monstrosities in her book "Harmful to Minors". Here's a good passage near the beginning of her chapter "Therapy- "Children who Molest" and the Tyranny of the Normal" [Judith changed the names of the children to protect their identities]:

In November 1993, the San Diego County Child Protective Services pronounced Tony Diamond a grave danger to his sister. Jessica told someone at school that her brother had "touched her front and back." Mandated by the 1974 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to report any suspicion of child abuse, even by a child, the school called the Child Abuse Hotline. The social worker who did the family's intake interview elicited a record of Tony's earlier offenses: In elementary school, he used sexual language and looked under girls' skirts. At four, he lay on top of Jessie in the bath.
With only Jessica's testimony to go on, the juvenile court charged Tony with "sexual abuse" of "the minor" Jessica, "including, but not limited to touching her vagina and anal areas... placing a pencil in her buttocks" (that is, he poked the flesh of her buttocks with a pencil), and threatening to hurt her if she "disclosed the molest." Jessica's story would change over the weeks and months and none of what transpired between them is clear.
Nevertheless, the interviewer made this confident assessment: "It would appear from a review of the case that Tony is a budding sex offender.". Tony was nine years old.
Tony was to become one case in a new "epidemic", the "sexualization" of children; a new class of patient, "children with sexual behavior problems"; and a new category of sexual criminal perpetrator, "children who molest". Although some youngsters, particularly teen boys, do commit real sexual intrusions, even rape of other kids, "children who molest" are of another order. As young as two, they are diagnosed and treated, and sometimes prosecuted, for "innapropriate" behaviours like fondling, putting things inside genitals or even flashing, mooning, or masturbating "compulsively". From the anecdotes I have gathered since reporting on Tony, it appears that sex play between siblings is considered the gravest, though ironically the commonest species of a grave and not uncommon problem.
Children who molest are accused of coercion, though often the "victim" complies willingly, enjoys, or does not notice the "abuse". And while some such kids are aggressive in other ways, such as fighting, stealing or setting fires, their doctors practice under the assumption that any sexual acting-out is of a wholly different, and worse, order of behaviour. So, with little supportive evidence, a new group of self-styled experts has persuaded the child-protecitve systems that "sex-offense-specific" therapy is necessary for any minor with a "sexual behaviour problem."
Although the events that befell Tony and his family may seem extreme, they are not unique...​

She continues with other such stories. I highly recommend you pick up the book and take a look at our 'brave new world'.

 

This post is in response to the 11th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

A view of yours that I don't agree with...

I never said I was an extra terrestrial and all of this stuff didn't affect me. There is a difference, however, between something affecting you and losing one's good judgement.

I've seen how much damage the status quo regarding society's views concerning sexuality can produce. That is why.

 

This post is in response to the 12th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

I already made that clear in my last post.

I never asked you to.

I didn't hear about the first 2. I'm not saying that all sexual abuse victims are vindicated, but neither are all people who are innocent of the accusations laid against them.

Looks like I've gotten even you a little hot under the collar this time. It is certainly an emotional subject, for just about anyone. Anyway, I disagree.

I agree wholeheartedly that adults should protect children from danger. The problem, ofcourse is that adults don't always know what is good and what is bad for them; I believe the laws reflect this. However, I don't advocate breaking laws I disagree with; I advocate questioning them and the society which has instituted them.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2184297&postcount=160

 

This post is in response to the 13th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

Even the first time? I certainly admit that -I- was curious the first time, if somewhat afraid of the 'dangers of marijuana'.

Never said it was.

I would argue that you didn't and that's why you started again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Hindsight is 20/20. The moment you do things, however, is frequently something else.

I believe that you did what you felt was best at the time. I believe that everyone else does the same too, ofcourse. It doesn't mean it -was- the best decision you could have made had you known what would ensue, but like I said, hindsight is 20/20; the present moment frequently isn't.

 

So go find another society to live in. Simple isnt it?

That is what i was told when i was a young whipper snapper. "john, you are a malcontent" and i said...:scratchin:"you know, your right".

 

Addressed:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2184313&postcount=161

 

Finding another society, sure. Finding one I like better then then one I live in, not so much.

Lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

This post is in response to the 14th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

I wasn't very talkative, but I definitely wanted to be closer to them.

In this particular case, I believe I was, yes.

Exactly eh? How ever can you tell the good and the bad guys apart then? Perhaps you, too, are a "bad guy" (tm)?

When did I say that someone was a 'bitch'? I have a feeling you've confused me with a post from lucifers' angel. I also never said that women were always so naîve as to require a man's protection; in fact, I don't even remember saying anything about the naîvety of women... or of the naîvety of men for that matter.

 

Exactly. The mental development of both individuals would be taken into account before charges would be filed.

It's like the pro side of this debate want to pre-judge any outcome, and fear it coming to court. I don't understand that.

 

This post is in response to the 15th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

Ah. Perhaps I had heard it. My unfamiliarity with it may have to do with the fact that I don't live in the U.S.

Sometimes. On the other hand, there are situations as the one Judith Levine chronicled in her book Harmful to Minors and which I quoted in post 187. She chronicles other such stories as well in this book. Here's a few more she chronicled:

While in San Diego reporting on the Diamonds for Mother Jones Magazine, I also met Brian flynn, who at fourteen in 1993 had been charged with lewd and lascivious conduct and oral copulation with a minor, felonies punishable by three- and eight-year terms of incarceration, respectively. His crime, denied by both alleged participants, was asking- or, depending on who told the story and when, allowing- his ten-year-old sister to lick his penis. After much persuasion, Brian pled to the first count, for which he spent more than two years in the state's punitive custody. When he went AWOL from one of his placements, the country sent a SWAT team: half a dozen squad cars with loudspeakers warning neighbors to beware of a "dangerous sex offender" and a helicopter buzzing the scrubby backyards of his father's community. Brian scrambled up a hill; an officer took chase and pulled a gun. The fugitive jumped a fence into the night. His mother finally, reluctantly, turned him in. "I was scared he was going to get himself killed", she told me.2
After the Mother Jones story came out, I began reading more and more stories like Tony's and Brian's in the papers. In 1996, in Mahcnester, New Hampshire, a ten-year-old "touched [two girls] in a sexual manner" (he grabbed at them on the school playground) and was charged with two counts of rape.3 In New Jersey, a neurologically impaired twelve-year-old who groped his eight-year-old stepbrother in the bath was compelled to register as a sex offender under Megan's Law,4 a mark that could stimatize him for life. In 1999, the newspapers briefly bristled with reports of a "child sex ring" in York Haven, Pennsylvania, in which "children as young as 7... taught each other to have sex." An eleven-year-old girl was convicted of rape.5

My research has made me suspicious of these reports, and my doubts were heightened by the phone calls I was receiving from distraught parents and grandparents whose kids were being charged in similar situations...
​

So there you have it; forget about 11 year old girls simply blackmailing; they can 'rape', too, if you believe the courts. That and unarmed 14 year olds need to get SWAT teams after them after they go AWOL from custody. It all reminds me a bit of the movie "Fortress"; the movie doesn't really deal with minors, although there is this one scene, where the male protagonist, in a dream, is a child and reaches out to his wife, who I think is trying to save him from despair...

I remember a South Park episode where they were indoctrinating gay kids into not being gay.. with a few suicides for good measure. South Park prides itself on pointing out the absurd in society by exagerating it, but they frequently base themselves on some very real events.

 

No need to prejudge anything here as far as I'm concerned. There are already many unjust convictions with which to work with, as I have mentioned in both post 187, my last post and others (I've noted how most people tend to avoid dealing with the relationship between Mary Kay Letourneau and Vili Fualaau, for instance).

 

This post is in response to the 16th part of Tiassa's post 171 in this thread.

So?

I went to multiple high schools; I don't know how many students were in any of them.

Again, I wouldn't know. The only thing I know is that in the second last high school I went to, in the grade 12 class there were apparently only one or 2 female holdouts (there was only one grade 12 class, it was a small private school).

No idea.

You saying you're sure that, amoung 5 thousands students, none of them got in trouble with the law due to sexual interactions?

I've certainly heard of date rape and if crimes involving someone who was actually unwilling have been committed, I definitely think that something should be done. Nevertheless, this doesn't take away from the examples that I have given.

Are you suggesting that I'm not being careful?

Tiassa, I never said anything about offering anything. I was simply stating that parents have a lot of control over the lives of their children/minors, so to simply state that children/minors can be as sexual as they please with each other is, I think you'll agree, not exactly true.

I also note that you seem to think that an adult who would like to be sexual with a minor must be a 'socially-dysfunctional predator who depends on emtional immaturity and psychological underdevelopment to find sexual gratification'. I strongly disagree with that statement.