Delete the paedophilia threads

[scott3x]

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...

Children are allowed, by law, to be sexual. Just not with adults.

Frequently that's only in theory. Come on Tiassa, surely you, a parent yourself, know the immense power you have to control the lives of your children. As a general rule, only an adult could challenge it (as in, not just be a sexual partner but actually provide for a minor) and they're conveniently prohibited from the playing field.

Conveniently? Conveniently?

Dude ... it's not a competition. Children are not prizes to be won.

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.

Children will frequently ignore this order anyway, and even resort to blackmail to get into the whole thing (to the detriment of the adults who made the foolish rules to begin with).

Now that is a testament to the emotional immaturity of children.

I'd say it's also a testament to the absurd rules.

No.

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

An anorexic whose behavior stems from guilt she feels about playing doctor with the neighbor boy when she was five is a testament to the absurdity of the rules.

Ok, we can agree there at any rate.

A fifteen year-old girl weeping on her boyfriend's shoulder, apologizing that she wasn't a virgin for their first time together—because her father raped her—is a testament to the absurdity of the rules.

Agreed.

Spending forty million dollars investigating a blowjob is a testament to the absurdity of the rules.

Again, agreed . 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.

 

[scott3x]

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.

So what exactly is your view, scott3x?

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.

In your opinion:

Is it ok for an adult to have sex with a minor?

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.

At what age of the child, if any, do you think that sex with an adult would be wrong?

Do you think an 8-year old, say, can give informed consent to sex with a 25 year-old?

Do you think a 4-year old can give informed consent to sex with a 25 year old?

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

Does informed consent matter anyway?

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.

At what age do you think children are sexually mature enough for sex with adults?

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.

 

[leopold]

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.

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.

 

[scott3x]

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.

it doesn't matter what you think scott,

I disagree.

it's the law. a law that was determined by a representative government with the collective will of the people as its guide.

Society's constantly changing, as are its laws.

 

[John99]

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.

 

[scott3x]

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 .

 

[John99]

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

quoting me know?

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

 

[scott3x]

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

It's illegal to blackmail someone into sex, not to succumb to it. If an adult blackmails another adult into sex, they can get into legal trouble. If a child does it, however, the results are not exactly the same.

Yeah, well, if an adult feels so much exposure that an eleven year-old can blackmail them into a sexual favor, one wonders what's up with the adult.

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, but it seems you've forgotten who was the one who blackmailed who.

No, my point is that even among adults, blackmailing for sex is indicative of emotional underdevelopment or imbalance.

I agree with you here.

And adults are the ones who are supposed to be emotionally mature, not children.

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.

 

[scott3x]

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 .

quoting me know?

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

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

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

 

[John99]

You mean 'quoting me now?'

what's the difference?

 

[scott3x]

quoting me know?

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

what's the difference?

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

 

[John99]

what the hell? i never made that mistake before.

 

[Enmos]

what the hell? i never made that mistake before.

Maybe you were distracted..

 

[leopold]

I disagree.
Society's constantly changing, as are its laws.

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.

 

[scott3x]

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...

In terms of punishing women by baring their breasts, the idea, I believe, is to shame them.

It's also symptomatic of repressive sexual mores in a culture. First, why is baring one's breasts shameful?

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

Secondly, if it's so sinful, why would the town gather to watch? There is an idea called "Puritan pornography". An example can be found in old Anti-Catholic League tracts from the early twentieth century. Some of these were pretty scandalous, including salacious details of what perverted Catholics were up to. Not only did this provide an opportunity to judge and condemn, but it also provided convenient titillation.

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

In terms of the sexual abuse that certain catholic priests engaged in, I think it speaks volumes of the long term effects of sexual repression.

Exactly.

Frequently, the more repressed, the more negatively it can emerge.

Yes. But there is a difference between being honest in the instruction of children and getting on an eleven year-old.

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

 

[scott3x]

what the hell? i never made that mistake before.

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

Maybe you were distracted..

Yep, definitely a possibility

 

[scott3x]

Society's constantly changing, as are its laws.

you can agree with or disagree with it all you want, it's still the law.

Sure. Laws can change, though...

until you prove that the collective will of the people wishes it to be changed it will remain a law.

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

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.

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.

 

[leopold]

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.

 

[John99]

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?

 

[scott3x]

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

While an adult certainly -can- prey on a child, how is it predatory by default, exactly?

It relies on the exploitation of emotional immaturity to achieve gratification.

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.

The words you use create a picture in the mind, but that doesn't mean that that picture is what MAAs (Minor Attracted Adults) generally do.

Wow. We now have a politically-correct phrase for pedophiles?

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.

It's certainly true that some adults are only attracted to minors, and some exlusively to the 11 and under crowd. -However-, the idea that they must therefore be 'trolling' for 11 year olds is, in my view, unfair.

What would you call it? Exploring all the options?

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.

When a guy goes to a community center hoping to meet some beautiful women, is he 'trolling' for them?

I don't know, is it singles night? Other than that, yes. If meeting a woman to sleep with is your purpose, then yes, you're trolling for tail.

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

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

Think of it this way: You go out with your friends, hit a couple bars, have a few drinks, and head over to a concert. Along the way, a woman asks you for a light. You strike up a conversation as you smoke, and romance blossoms.

To the other: You want to get laid, so you head out to a bar where you know there is a high female population and start offering to buy women drinks.

Yeah, there's a difference.

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

What's clear is that our -society- automatically thinks of an adult who wishes to flirt and frequently even talk with a minor (or even look too much at one) must be trolling because he's a troll.

An adult who wishes to flirt with a minor?

Yep.

What's clear is that our -society- automatically thinks of an adult who wishes to flirt and frequently even talk with a minor (or even look too much at one) must be trolling because he's a troll. But societal impressions aren't necessarily realistic.

Nonetheless, this is not a reasonable argument in and of itself.

What's not a reasonable argument?