Discussion in 'Human Science' started by gorillasgocrazy, Apr 24, 2009.
No you've misunderstood no one's talking about you
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No scott its not broad. Its anyone who is turned on by sex with another human being 12 or under. There is nothing broad about that.
Castration , chemical or otherwise.
Scott, I don't advocate 18-year olds having sex with 14-year olds either. It's illegal, and ultimately, most paedophilia laws are for the greater good. Occasionally, some people are caught in the statutory law crossfire, who don't deserve it, and that's unfortunate. But there needs to be strict laws involving paedophiles, because (for Christ's sakes) this is a child's welfare we're talking about.
But I don't believe that people choose to be heterosexual, homosexual, or paedophiliacs. I don't see why anyone would choose to be a paedophiliac, and that's what I sympathize with. If a paedophiliac acts on his/her tendency, be it rape, statutory, whatever, I lose sympathy and they deserve punishment.
They followed a path that led to their happiness; and that's despite all the obstacles that society put in their way.
-They- felt it was fine. Who are you to judge them? Who is society, for that matter?
Your point is that your view is not altogether accurate?
I was an english teacher of a few small grade school classes, nothing beyond 13 students (all private schools) in Mexico.
They certainly have things to learn concerning responsibility. But what are teachers for if not to teach things like this?
You.. watched... the mass media? Did you even read their book? I haven't as of yet, but I'd like to. Anyway, you think 'watching' qualifies you to judge their decisions?
Untrue. I am aware that they still need to develop. But I don't believe that this means that engaging in relationships, even sexual ones, with people a fair amount older than them should be taboo.
I have already dealt with the 'not equals' argument. There are many adult/adult relationships that have certain aspects that are unequal. This doesn't mean that the relationship must therefore be doomed to failure and some unequalities can balance out further on in the relationship as well.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not alone, no. We determine such things as a society. Which is why I'm spending time here trying to persuade you and others concerning certain issues; society moves by people being persuaded by this or that argument.
A part of society. And I have to say that I agree 100% that the above is wrong, so that makes 2 of us there.
My question is, was Vili abused? He certainly doesn't believe he was.
If all Vili experienced was pain, do you honestly think that he would be with her today? Personally, I marvel that despite everything, they now live together. That, to me, speaks of the power of their love. Did Mary Kay make a mistake in consumating their relationship when he was so young instead of waiting? I know the law thinks so and I myself would have preferred waiting. But so long as Mary Kay and Vili were qualified to raise their children, I think it should have been their choice to make.
I have heard enough stories to believe that I know that the current approach to regulate sexual interactions isn't working. I believe that comprehensive sex ed is the first step in the right direction and I believe that licensing will eventually follow. If you believe that I don't "know enough", that is your choice to make, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with you.
So the kid should be able to fuck who they want and have no responsibility for what happens? That makes sense. And have you noted that most successful countries don't allow someone twenty years older to bone someone else? [/quote]
If both people are above the age of consent, sure they do. Anyway, as to the responsibility bit, the issue to think of is if -someone- will willingly carry the responsibility for things like children. I think you'd agree that adults are generally more qualified to do this then minors.
That's exactly my point. Which is why, if minors are going to have kids, they should do so with an adult. Thus, the great irony; that minors having sexual interactions with adults is prohibited when that should actually be the safest sexual interaction due to the higher likelihood of the adult being able to deal with potential consequences.
Why did you get the impression that I felt that minors should be sent to jail for being pregnant?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Things like what?
Teachers teach about responsibility to their students. That is why teachers teach them about not sticking pens up little Jimmy's nose in class, and not poking Jane in the eyes with objects or fingers.
Sexual responsibility, teachers can give advice about how to be sexually responsible. That is all a teacher should ever do. Teaching sexual responsibility by having sex with a child is illegal and immoral, not to mention unethical.
No, there isn't. However, I think the definition that most closely resembles your definition is the first one stated on wikipedia's page on 'child':
A child... is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty.
However, we must be clear that this is only -one- of the definitions of child; others that wikipedia mentioned are in post 29.
Well, I can certainly agree that things are much safer if it's legal and breaking laws generally isn't a good idea.
There are certainly many things that are wrong with the Taliban, to be sure. I have never said that minors, especially pre pubescent female minors, should engage in actual sexual intercourse even in an environment where it is legal to do so.
No, Lucy. What I'm saying is that the world doesn't agree on the age of consent. Yes, the age of 9 is the extreme low end. But while actual sexual intercourse is generally harmful at that age, atleast for females, something like a kiss is rather different.
Bells just lock up your children honey!
Scott don't you find this phrase a contradiction?
" but I personally like the idea that engaging in sexual activities be linked with someone who can handle the responsibilities of doing so. That is, if a parent allows their children to engage in sexual activities and their child gets pregnant, they should help shoulder the burden of the consequences."
You say that you like the idea of sexual activity being linked wit someone who can handle responsibility. Why if they can handle responsibility would hey need parental permission? Also if the child is pregnant by an adult why shouldn't that adult take 'burden of the consequences'?
Also you say that breaking laws isn't a good thing. Do you need a law to tell you its wrong to have sex with a child under the age of 12?
Scott: But while actual sexual intercourse is generally harmful at that age, atleast for females, something like a kiss is rather different.
A kiss is different. What about oral sex performed on an adult? Fondling? All at the age of 9.
While the people who created the laws may have felt that they were doing what's best for society, this doesn't mean that it always works out this way.
You speak of a child's welfare, but are you aware that the sexual restriction laws in place can at times be quite harmful to minors as well? I suggest you take a look at Judith Levine's book "Harmful to Minors", which I have quoted extensively from in the past in sciforums...
Even if their lover would disagree with you?
Yes, it is. One need look no further than wikipedia's page on Paedophilia to ascertain this.
you do realize that any argument based on such definitions will be false, correct?
as far as the law goes it defines only two possibilities for the AOC, that of an adult and that of a minor.
Then that law must be redefined to fit science and nature than going with popular belief.
It should clearly say that any human being who has reached puberty will be considered as an adult and is fit for sexual encounters of their choice.
Scott the link you posted says this:
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":
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 quite definite NOT BROAD!
that's just it, you don't have the authority to say the law is wrong.
Things like responsibility and being sexually responsible.
It is certainly illegal. I personally think that it would be best to wait until the students were of legal age, but at the same time I think that some leeway should have been given in the case of Mary Kay Letournea and Vili Fualaau. I definitely believe that our societal mores concerning sexuality are in constantly changing and what is considered taboo today may well only be risky in a few decades from now. I think the gay rights movement is a good example of this phenomenon.
Scott, you refuse to see anyone else's point of view and even entertain the idea that even if a kid gets off, maybe sex with an adult is still wrong. I can't talk with a wall.
Scott: societal mores concerning sexuality are in constantly changing and what is considered taboo today may well only be risky in a few decades from now. I think the gay rights movement is a good example of this phenomenon.
So you don't see any difference between sex between gay adults and sex between adults and children under the age of 12?
Do you see sex with children under the age of 12 as being 'the thing' in the future? A kind of sexual revolution?
No, Lucy, he doesn't see the difference. That's the amazing part.
Not to Scott evidently. Its just that the rest of society is 'hung up' and hasn't 'evolved' as yet don't you see tak?
Separate names with a comma.