Discussion: Is pedophilia pseudoscience?

[ancientregime]

Hmmmm... I keep seeing Ancient Regimes refusing to answer questions that would determine whether he is correct or not. I wonder why...

What question? See I answered yours.

Despite the poor grammar... this seems fairly straightforward.

If you are not willing, you are coerced.

If you are coerced, it is harmful.

Question...

Can a 1 month old baby consent?

Or would that be coercion?

IQ is a rating of how well you can figure things out. Despite my bad grammar is you IQ high enough to deal with the puzzle my grammar creates for you?

Consent to what? What exactly do you mean? Be specific. Please include all questions with neccessary information to answer them.

 

[ancientregime]

apparently ancient regime cannot prove that the collective will of the people is in error in regards to AOC.

therefor i submit he stop using the argument it is in error.

Informed Consent is being misused here as I have stated before. Some people have read the arguments me and James posted.

Let me repeat it. Informed Consent is intended for situations where a person has something at stake. They have to understand this before they are considered properly informed to make a decision.

Does a baby need to understand why they need crap cleaned out of their genitals to have a diaper change? Does a baby need to know that food is what they need to live before they are fed? Do they need to know what a feather feels like on their tiny feets before they are tickled? Do they need to know that suckling a breast will build their immunities? No. Because these actions don't harm them or put anything at stake. It's not a standard practice that a child must legaly know everything about Disneyland before they are allowed enter the gates.

Since consent is irrelevant on more than one grounds to your question, I think it would more appropriately to ask would they benefit from whatever behavior you have in question and if that behavior can be proven to harm them.

Consent is really irrelevant to the main topic. It's whether or not sexual acts cause mental illness at this point.

 

[scott3x]

Informed Consent is being misused here as I have stated before. Some people have read the arguments me and James posted.

Let me repeat it. Informed Consent is intended for situations where a person has something at stake. They have to understand this before they are considered properly informed to make a decision.

Does a baby need to understand why they need crap cleaned out of their genitals to have a diaper change? Does a baby need to know that food is what they need to live before they are fed? Do they need to know what a feather feels like on their tiny feets before they are tickled? Do they need to know that suckling a breast will build their immunities? No. Because these actions don't harm them or put anything at stake. It's not a standard practice that a child must legaly know everything about Disneyland before they are allowed enter the gates.

Since consent is irrelevant on more than one grounds to your question, I think it would more appropriately to ask would they benefit from whatever behavior you have in question and if that behavior can be proven to harm them.

Consent is really irrelevant to the main topic. It's whether or not sexual acts cause mental illness at this point.

You raise a lot of good points ancient. There is only -one- issue where we seem to continually lock heads: while I agree with you that the most important issue is if a sexual interaction would be beneficial for all involved, you seem to always favour the side of 'if there's no proof of harm, it should be allowed'. I, on the other hand, favour a more cautious approach. I think the argument that something is beneficial is strengthened enormously if all parties in a sexual interaction state that this was so. There must still be some work done to ascertain that the statements weren't made under any type of duress, ofcourse, but I'd think that if all parties involved in the sexual interaction state that it was beneficial, they're just one stop short of a home run to proving beneficiality.

 

[leopold]

Consent is really irrelevant to the main topic. It's whether or not sexual acts cause mental illness at this point.

actually antiregime the topic is whether the AOC is correct and that the collective will is in error in assessing it.

my opinion is that you are a troll.

formal debates forum indeed.

 

[theobserver]

Actually, since a 1 month old can not answer the question regarding consent I think it is fair to say that they can not consent!

So in that case, is it necessary for a 1 month old to consent regarding anything about his or her life? As long as there is no physical harm observed, can it be treated as a crime?

Can anyone be sure that when they were 1 month old they were not licked or sucked around their genetial area by one of their relatives/nurses/doctors or whoever. I guess not. So even if such an incident did happened, how can it become mental illness? Unless of course a member of the orthodox society witness it, blew it out of proportion, treat the other person as a pedophile, send them to jail, get media coverage, and later implant the same memories with an extra amount of guilt and shame on to the kid.


I wonder if anyone around here saw the movie Little Children.

 

[Bells]

So an adult who gains sexual gratification by performing oral sex on a newborn is normal in your opinion?

 

[ancientregime]

You raise a lot of good points ancient. There is only -one- issue where we seem to continually lock heads: while I agree with you that the most important issue is if a sexual interaction would be beneficial for all involved, you seem to always favour the side of 'if there's no proof of harm, it should be allowed'. I, on the other hand, favour a more cautious approach. I think the argument that something is beneficial is strengthened enormously if all parties in a sexual interaction state that this was so. There must still be some work done to ascertain that the statements weren't made under any type of duress, ofcourse, but I'd think that if all parties involved in the sexual interaction state that it was beneficial, they're just one stop short of a home run to proving beneficiality.

If both parties don't state it was beneficial, then this raises reasonable suspicion there may be harm. The cause of that harm should be investigated for manipulation, threat, physical force or iatrogenic type harm (culturally created or psychological treatment).

Crime in principle is whether or not injury has come to a person or not. Harm is necessary for an act to be a crime. Do you think every sexual act needs consent or it may cause harm?

I'm not concerned with something if doesn't cause harm to be considered a crime. If we are not careful, we may be stepping into an area where no evidence of harm is used to punish people.

I don't think the law should be used for a pulpit to push morality. This should be left to the decision of families and friends.

BTW, you may be one of the only people here who argues respectfully. Good man. Some people need to learn some manners around here. Although, there arguments tell us more about their culture than about the problems they are supposedly addressing.

 

[ancientregime]

actually antiregime the topic is whether the AOC is correct and that the collective will is in error in assessing it.

my opinion is that you are a troll.

formal debates forum indeed.

Age of Consent is based upon the idea of Informed Consent. It is irrelevant, because something must be a stake for it to be relevant. What is at stake that makes it necessary when over 99% of human sex is not done for procreative purposes?

 

[leopold]

Age of Consent is based upon the idea of Informed Consent. It is irrelevant, because something must be a stake for it to be relevant. What is at stake that makes it necessary when over 99% of human sex is not done for procreative purposes?

AOC is based on the collective will of the people. it's the law.

i submit that since ancient regime can not prove it isn't the law that he also defer from using this argument.

 

[ancientregime]

I'm still waiting for someone to write up a laymen case study that demonstrates how erotic kissing, Randwolfs example where the sexual act with a newborn causes mental illness :

"Someone licking her clitoris (or his penis),

It doesn't have to be real, but needs to be realistic. I already showed how to do it for verbal and physical abuse in this post. [1]

Many people here are seem to state that all sex between an adult and a child is harmful and creates a mental illness. So prove it by describing the process like I did with verbal and emotional abuse, but instead show how Randwolf's sexual example logically progresses, (the chain of cause and effect) into whatever mental illness you claim it evolves into.

If anyone here really understands what they've been claiming is science (the interpretation of those numerous sex abuse studies), they should be able to point it out easily.

If it no one chooses to serve up an example, I'm out, because it's not fair you claim a process exists but you refuse to describe it in laymen terms like I so easily did.

 

[theobserver]

So an adult who gains sexual gratification by performing oral sex on a newborn is normal in your opinion?

Is there something abnormal about seeking sexual gratification irrespective of the age of the parties involved? Were you religious at some point of time in your life? May be that explains the undertone in your question. It appears like you are still living with the idea that sex is a bad thing.

 

[theobserver]

AOC is based on the collective will of the people. it's the law.

With that same logic, i can argue that intelligence is mental illness since majority of people are below average.

 

[James R]

In post 231, theobserver, you answered a question with a question. Let me ask you again what Bells asked you:

Is an adult who gains sexual gratification by performing oral sex on a newborn normal in your opinion?

And I have an additional question:

Do you approve of adults performing oral sex on newborns?

 

[leopold]

With that same logic, i can argue that intelligence is mental illness since majority of people are below average.

and again the "i" in your example must be changed to "the collective will of the people".
apparently you aren't grasping the fact it doesn't matter what you say.
the best you can do is to prove the collective will of the people is in error in regards to AOC.

and to add to that collective will:
leave my children alone, they grow up fast enough. maybe a little too fast.

 

[John99]

Originally Posted by theobserver
i can argue that intelligence is mental illness since majority of people are below average.

and exactly how can the majority of people be below average?

 

[theobserver]

In post 231, theobserver, you answered a question with a question. Let me ask you again what Bells asked you:

Is an adult who gains sexual gratification by performing oral sex on a newborn normal in your opinion?

And I have an additional question:

Do you approve of adults performing oral sex on newborns?

Answer to bell's question was answered in the post 153 if you are still wondering. I particularly don't like a situation when the same question is being asked again and again expecting me to go around in circles. Judging her question from a current stand point, I realized that she haven't cared to analyze my explanations on normality or my explanation was difficult for her to comprehend. So I posted a question back which I hope might make her think on her own and reach a conclusion than me explaining the same thing for the second time.

Answer to second question: It depends on the kid. If the kid has no problem with it and seems to be enjoying, why should I interfere? Its none of my business to put my head between two individuals who seems to be mutually benefiting from an act. If the kid is screaming and crying and appears to be in pain from such an act, I would definitely interfere.

To add a bit, I personally don't like law and order based on non scientific principles. Ever since I was a kid, I had a hard time understanding the logic behind most laws. Its only designed to serve a sense of satisfaction in a so called civilized manner and keep humans under control by inflicting fear.

 

[theobserver]

and exactly how can the majority of people be below average?

Why do you even have to ask me that question??? Isn't it so obvious???

 

[John99]

no because you need to set the bar. this would be average and the majority would be average.

 

[James R]

Do you approve of adults performing oral sex on newborns?

It depends on the kid. If the kid has no problem with it and seems to be enjoying, why should I interfere?

That's something you might want to think about.

If somebody performs oral sex on a newborn child, clearly the child is not giving informed consent to the sex act.

Do you agree with the principle that a person ought to freely and knowingly consent to sexual activity with another person?

If so, why do you not apply this standard to infants?

If not, do you approve of rape?

Also, are you aware that an adult who has this kind of sexual activity with a newborn will most likely continue to abuse that child (and maybe others) sexually in future? Is this not a problem for you?

 

[scott3x]

If both parties don't state it was beneficial, then this raises reasonable suspicion there may be harm. The cause of that harm should be investigated for manipulation, threat, physical force or iatrogenic type harm (culturally created or psychological treatment).

Crime in principle is whether or not injury has come to a person or not. Harm is necessary for an act to be a crime. Do you think every sexual act needs consent or it may cause harm?

Yes, although people don't always need to consent with words...

I'm not concerned with something if doesn't cause harm to be considered a crime. If we are not careful, we may be stepping into an area where no evidence of harm is used to punish people.

We already exist in such an area . However, we have argued over one thing; if one person states that they were harmed by another and the other denies it, I do believe that, if it's a toss up as to what actually happened, a compromise solution, such as a restraining order (instead of jail time for the alleged perpetrator or complete freedom for same), may be best.

I don't think the law should be used for a pulpit to push morality. This should be left to the decision of families and friends.

I disagree. I think the law -should- be used as a pulpit to push morality. Ofcourse, I'd like the morality in question to make sense.

BTW, you may be one of the only people here who argues respectfully. Good man.

I think it's safe to say that I agree more with your positions then anyone else who has posted much here, but I think that virtually anyone here would have to admit that I'm fairly civil. I think it has served me fairly well, considering that I seem to have a knack for getting into controversial topics .

Some people need to learn some manners around here.

I'm still hoping that at some point in time, there will be a list of personal attacks that aren't allowed to be used in all of the formal debates forum.

Although, their arguments tell us more about their culture than about the problems they are supposedly addressing.

Sure, but then we talk about our culture or points of view as well. Anyway, I've discussed issues of this nature; this is by far the most civil discussion I've ever had of it in a place that isn't specifically focused on this particular topic.