Heterosexuals, homosexuals and pedophilia

[ABSTRUSE]

Molestation or sexual abuse does not have to be physical abuse. As an example, suppose the nice man next door befriends his neighbor's nine year old daughter and teaches her a new game. He gives her ice cream and plays with or licks her young pussy and she masturbates him. Nobody is PHYSICALLY injured and she might even really enjoy it. It is not a power trip on his part because she is a willing participant and may even come over to see him on her own volition. It is not physical abuse because nobody suffers any pain. By no means does that make it allright.

WRONG!!!!

It is a power trip when you bait someone with something they desire to fufill their own desires.......also that whole scenerio makes me want to rip the testicles off every man within my range right now.....I have a very very big problem with anyone touching a child in anyway...and to say a 9yr old may even enjoy it???
that sets my head on fire.....abuse isn't always painful.

You are correct that it does not make it alright, but your example just un-nerved me.
I apologize for my rant but.....

 

[ABSTRUSE]

My apologies to Box, I over reacted.

I understand what you mean.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

In one article I read once, paedophilians having their own club newsletter said something like: "...and this little girl cried and was shaking with desire for her friend to touch her..."

Me, I can think of another, perhaps more realistic, reason why the little girl cried when the old man rubbed himself all over her...

 

[Halo_n_horns]

I used Google to find the ones I put here....keep jumbling keywords, I find that works best.

Do you have the article he used?

His articles, well, quoted stats, are right at the beginning of his thread. My wife did searches on a good portion of the stuff that he posted and found that a good portion of the stats were somehow related to advocacy groups who are none too fond of homosexuals. At least one of the other stats that he gave was reported by someone more reputible as being "superficial" at best.

I tried searching out that court case with as many different combinations of the words as I could think up, and on several search engines. The best thing I found was a site that deals specifically in producing court transcripts, but we're not about to cough up $30 just to see if we can prove this one putz and his lackies wrong.

The weakness in his stats and claims are that the majority of them are tied to groups or entities that are already biased and just seeking answers that will favor their own narrow-sighted beliefs. The answers that my wife wants to use against him, and rightly so, should all come from as unbiased of sources as possible.

We believe we have found one inparticular that will pretty much dismantle this butthead's entire point of view, whether or not he wants admit it. But we're waiting for one e-mail from that source to really tie it together, or maybe tear our point of view apart. Hopefully we'll get that reply soon. I'm getting too interested in this feeble mind's mentality, and I'd like to see this end on a positive note.

Thanks everyone!

 

[Boxlicker101]

WRONG!!!!

It is a power trip when you bait someone with something they desire to fufill their own desires.......also that whole scenerio makes me want to rip the testicles off every man within my range right now.....I have a very very big problem with anyone touching a child in anyway...and to say a 9yr old may even enjoy it???
that sets my head on fire.....abuse isn't always painful.

You are correct that it does not make it alright, but your example just un-nerved me.
I apologize for my rant but.....

I'm sorry if I caused you any distress Abs. I was just responding to a question posed by elsol. I would never, under any circumstance do what I described, nor would I tolerate anybody else doing anything like it.

As for the child enjoying it: Children do play with themselves, you know, and they enjoy it. Might not they enjoy it if somebody else did so, gently and affectionately and with no coercion?

 

[elsol]

I'm sorry if I caused you any distress Abs. I was just responding to a question posed by elsol. I would never, under any circumstance do what I described, nor would I tolerate anybody else doing anything like it.

As for the child enjoying it: Children do play with themselves, you know, and they enjoy it. Might not they enjoy it if somebody else did so, gently and affectionately and with no coercion?

That's why I asked for a definition of abuse.

The most expansive but least pointed states that 'improper behavior' is abusive. I would consider your situation to be improper... thus abusive.

You've defined abuse as 'physical abuse', but in that situation then is a non-consentual sex act physical abuse towards the non-consenter.

Is a non-consentual sex act 'improper'?

I think the answer would be clear to many people, so the onus of removing the 'abuse' is based solely on consent... can the nine-year old truly consent...

At twelve, I was capable of loudly and vocally not consenting... but giving 'true' consent... not fucking hardly. So I'm looking for a definition of abuse/abusive that someone could hang their hat on that states sex between an adult and child is by it's very definition not abusive.

It's not an isolated question to just child abuse... because a child's understanding comes into play in other situations such as murder trials.

To answer of your question might a child enjoy it... I can make a woman enjoy sex even if I tied her down against her will and fucked her. An orgasm can be purely physiological response to stimuli.

Does the fact that she 'enjoyed' it make it not rape?


Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Would it be rape if you jerked off a dog?

Freedom is nice, but aren't there some things we could all agree on that you Just Shouldn't Do?

 

[BlackShanglan]

To call pedophilia a disease is pretty dangerous. They used to say that about homosexuals.

All it does is create pariahs and perpetuate ignorance.

I'll say it again, pedophilia is an abuse of power. That's the issue. Not what goes on in people's brains.

Self-mutilation can be viewed as a disease. But there's no debate about its criminal status. Why not?

Might one suggest that the same behavior can be created both by genetic and by behavioral influences - that is, with some it can be nature, and with others it can be nurture?

If nothing else, Joe's argument goes some distance to explaining why rates of physical and sexual abuse are much, much higher when a step-parent is involved. Opportunity and perceived relationship to the child do seem to shape behavior.

Shanglan

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

To disagree with Boxlicker, I don't think at pre-pubescent ages there can be healthy "consentual" sexual behavior, regardless of if the child seems to enjoy it because they are enjoying it for a reason untied to sexuality, and they are being taken advantage of distinctively for their naivety to the subject and their malleability. It is similar to taking the opportunity to say masturbate a passed out woman or penetrate her or using a severly mentally handicapped person for self gratification. Without consent to sexual practices and consent in my cultural definition relies on both knowledge of the action being undertaken and the willingness to go along with it, sexual practices become immoral abuses.

Can there be consent among people who are legal minors (16, 17 year olds) yes, to a degree. In postpubescent teens, especially ones who have been for a number of years, there can be reasonable assumption that the youth can know the context of their actions even if they make really bad choices. There can also be near non-consentual, where one older person may abuse the supposed knowledge of the minor and make them believe a fradulent theory of sexual practices in exchange for jailbait nookie. This is in the long grey area of "asshole practices".

But prepubescent is pretty much guaranteed to be non-consentual due to lack of knowledge on the kids part and pretty much guarantees to fuck them up. A number of works and real life figures are testaments to that basic truth. Even those least damaged like the frontman of Tool, carry scars of incurable rage that haunt them forever.

And statistics show as the earliest people pointed out that on unbiased study heterosexuals are to a small degree more likely to have sex with children and by an overwhelming majority fathers and new fathers are the greatest source of pedophiliac acts.

 

[Boxlicker101]

To disagree with Boxlicker, I don't think at pre-pubescent ages there can be healthy "consentual" sexual behavior, regardless of if the child seems to enjoy it because they are enjoying it for a reason untied to sexuality, and they are being taken advantage of distinctively for their naivety to the subject and their malleability. It is similar to taking the opportunity to say masturbate a passed out woman or penetrate her or using a severly mentally handicapped person for self gratification. Without consent to sexual practices and consent in my cultural definition relies on both knowledge of the action being undertaken and the willingness to go along with it, sexual practices become immoral abuses.

Can there be consent among people who are legal minors (16, 17 year olds) yes, to a degree. In postpubescent teens, especially ones who have been for a number of years, there can be reasonable assumption that the youth can know the context of their actions even if they make really bad choices. There can also be near non-consentual, where one older person may abuse the supposed knowledge of the minor and make them believe a fradulent theory of sexual practices in exchange for jailbait nookie. This is in the long grey area of "asshole practices".

But prepubescent is pretty much guaranteed to be non-consentual due to lack of knowledge on the kids part and pretty much guarantees to fuck them up. A number of works and real life figures are testaments to that basic truth. Even those least damaged like the frontman of Tool, carry scars of incurable rage that haunt them forever.

And statistics show as the earliest people pointed out that on unbiased study heterosexuals are to a small degree more likely to have sex with children and by an overwhelming majority fathers and new fathers are the greatest source of pedophiliac acts.

I readily agree that the hypothetical example I made up would not be genuine consensual sex but therE would also be no force or even any coercion involved. Without question, it would be sexual abuse, maybe even statutory rape although no penetration would occur. It would not be PHYSICAL abuse because no pain or PHYSICAL injury would occur. The child would probably even receive a certain amount of gratification from it.

Nevertheless, it would be a reprehensible act and I would gladly join in the tarring and feathering of the scum involved.

eV

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I readily agree that the hypothetical example I made up would not be genuine consensual sex but therE would also be no force or even any coercion involved. Without question, it would be sexual abuse, maybe even statutory rape although no penetration would occur. It would not be PHYSICAL abuse because no pain or PHYSICAL injury would occur. The child would probably even receive a certain amount of gratification from it.

Nevertheless, it would be a reprehensible act and I would gladly join in the tarring and feathering of the scum involved.

eV

In that case, the word disagree changes automagically to agree.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I wonder if children are capable of making choices about their sex lives as early as they're capable of making choices about other things? To be fair, at what age does a child's opinion about their religious affiliation mean they're free to exercise it? Or their opinion about their education? Their reading material?

How is sex different?

(and before people get their panties in a wad, this isn't an encouragement of pedophilia; it's a question of what is "consent" and how is it different than other forms of decision making)

 

[BlackShanglan]

I wonder if children are capable of making choices about their sex lives as early as they're capable of making choices about other things? To be fair, at what age does a child's opinion about their religious affiliation mean they're free to exercise it? Or their opinion about their education? Their reading material?

How is sex different?

(and before people get their panties in a wad, this isn't an encouragement of pedophilia; it's a question of what is "consent" and how is it different than other forms of decision making)

I think that's the difficulty with a flexible continuum. There's no clear line at a specific point when one moves from not comprehending to comprehending, and of course as many have mentioned, different people hit that point at different times.

Odd though it may sound, that's why I support a higher age of consent. Yes, many people younger will be ready. But humans have a high capacity for deciding that someone else is ready when they themselves are. Nothing encourages an optimistic assessment of maturity like a little self-interest. I think it better on the whole to let the young play with the young and keep the adults - the ones with power, money, and authority enough to skew developing judgements - on their own side of the fence. I understand that adoloscent experimentation happens, and I'm not suggesting that we tar and feather a couple of 17-year-olds for following their urges. But when a 45-year-old with a sportscar and hairplugs starts hanging around the high school, frankly I think it's better for everyone to send him packing.

Similarly, I think it very helpful that in some states in the United States, the legal age of consent coincides with the age for the end of compulsory education. If you're going to have to send your child to be under the care of other adults for the bulk of the day, it's nice if it's made very clear that they're not allowed to have sex with them. The authority and control issues there are, IMHO, much too powerful to leave ambiguous.

Shanglan

 

[elsol]

I wonder if children are capable of making choices about their sex lives as early as they're capable of making choices about other things? To be fair, at what age does a child's opinion about their religious affiliation mean they're free to exercise it? Or their opinion about their education? Their reading material?

How is sex different?

(and before people get their panties in a wad, this isn't an encouragement of pedophilia; it's a question of what is "consent" and how is it different than other forms of decision making)

It's an issue of other participants...

I would feel comfortable letting my child make a decision about their religion within certain limitations (not mutilating themselves or something like that), because they are making the decision about themselves and within their context.

The issue of a sex with another child... while I would seek to prevent it, if it happened (as it did with me) I would accept as being non-criminal in most cases because both participants are operating in the same psychological, emotional, physical and social contexes.

With a child and an adult... the participants don't share any of the contexes and it's hard to see them making an equal decision on the same issue.

My decision to have sex with someone at my age is completely different than my decision to have sex at 14.

So even with an eighteen year old, I would feel a bit skeeve... less so with an eighteen year that more close approached the contexes in which I made my decision.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think that's the difficulty with a flexible continuum. There's no clear line at a specific point when one moves from not comprehending to comprehending, and of course as many have mentioned, different people hit that point at different times.

Odd though it may sound, that's why I support a higher age of consent. Yes, many people younger will be ready. But humans have a high capacity for deciding that someone else is ready when they themselves are. Nothing encourages an optimistic assessment of maturity like a little self-interest. I think it better on the whole to let the young play with the young and keep the adults - the ones with power, money, and authority enough to skew developing judgements - on their own side of the fence. I understand that adoloscent experimentation happens, and I'm not suggesting that we tar and feather a couple of 17-year-olds for following their urges. But when a 45-year-old with a sportscar and hairplugs starts hanging around the high school, frankly I think it's better for everyone to send him packing.

Similarly, I think it very helpful that in some states in the United States, the legal age of consent coincides with the age for the end of compulsory education. If you're going to have to send your child to be under the care of other adults for the bulk of the day, it's nice if it's made very clear that they're not allowed to have sex with them. The authority and control issues there are, IMHO, much too powerful to leave ambiguous.

Shanglan

I've long been in favor of the idea that our statutes for what constitutes an adult doesn't take into account so many factors that have changed over the years. People live longer, but that doesn't mean they just have an extension onto the "elderly" portion of their life. We are children longer, we've been maturing slower and differently over time, as a whole.

I'm very much in favor of raising ages of consent, drinking ages, voting ages, service eligibility, to a slightly higher age... because I don't think enough people are maturing by the time they're eighteen in a world that demands FAR more of an adult than it used to.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I've long been in favor of the idea that our statutes for what constitutes an adult doesn't take into account so many factors that have changed over the years. People live longer, but that doesn't mean they just have an extension onto the "elderly" portion of their life. We are children longer, we've been maturing slower and differently over time, as a whole.

I'm very much in favor of raising ages of consent, drinking ages, voting ages, service eligibility, to a slightly higher age... because I don't think enough people are maturing by the time they're eighteen in a world that demands FAR more of an adult than it used to.

Intriguing ideas. I'm curious, however ... isn't this to some extent a question of knowledge rather than judgement and maturity? Or are you saying that informed consent requires more advanced knowledge than it used to?

Hmmm. I'll have to mull that one over. I wanted to say that I was happy with 18 for the age on sex and alcohol, but given some of the 19-year-olds I've met lately, I'm starting to have my doubts. Then again, I suppose that there is a difference between "informed choice" and "best choice"; I recognize that many might not make good choices, but if we wait for that the age of consent might be death.

Interesting. I like the questions you're provoking.

 

[elsol]

I'm very much in favor of raising ages of consent, drinking ages, voting ages, service eligibility, to a slightly higher age... because I don't think enough people are maturing by the time they're eighteen in a world that demands FAR more of an adult than it used to.

So what are you going to do with them... more compulsory education?

You're taking away rights from people at that point who pretty much have to work to make a living... in cases of voting, we're talking about 'taxation without representation'.

In cases of military service, you're taking away an option that can assist someone to pay for their college education; it's also at its basic point a job and one in many areas done best by someone young.

Consent is another one of those, i've left high school, I've got a full-time job, my own aparment, but I can't consent to sex?

Sorry, I can't buy into that... freedom at it's core means at some point you have to let the person make their own decisions and mistakes. If you're going to make some earn their keep then they should have the same rights as everyone else.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Intriguing ideas. I'm curious, however ... isn't this to some extent a question of knowledge rather than judgement and maturity? Or are you saying that informed consent requires more advanced knowledge than it used to?

Hmmm. I'll have to mull that one over. I wanted to say that I was happy with 18 for the age on sex and alcohol, but given some of the 19-year-olds I've met lately, I'm starting to have my doubts. Then again, I suppose that there is a difference between "informed choice" and "best choice"; I recognize that many might not make good choices, but if we wait for that the age of consent might be death.

Interesting. I like the questions you're provoking.

Well, short of a particularist system (which we just can't do while we believe in accountability), there has to be an objective standard. Maturity is not something we can judge... regardless of all the arguments out there of "well, I was mature for my age and hung out with adults and read thick books and new better than my peers on everything", we can't guage maturity in the same way we can guage knowledge.

As an example, driver's licenses. We don't concern ourselves with the maturity of drivers, just their knowledge of driving.

I think the standards for "what one must know" are much higher than they used to be. We live in a faster world.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

So what are you going to do with them... more compulsory education?

You're taking away rights from people at that point who pretty much have to work to make a living... in cases of voting, we're talking about 'taxation without representation'.

In cases of military service, you're taking away an option that can assist someone to pay for their college education; it's also at its basic point a job and one in many areas done best by someone young.

Consent is another one of those, i've left high school, I've got a full-time job, my own aparment, but I can't consent to sex?

Sorry, I can't buy into that... freedom at it's core means at some point you have to let the person make their own decisions and mistakes. If you're going to make some earn their keep then they should have the same rights as everyone else.

Sincerely,
ElSol

Never said anything about making anyone earn their keep. I'm saying that I'm curious and thus for in favor of making "minor" a higher age on a lot of fronts. I'd rather parents kept their children home just a bit longer.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Well, short of a particularist system (which we just can't do while we believe in accountability), there has to be an objective standard. Maturity is not something we can judge... regardless of all the arguments out there of "well, I was mature for my age and hung out with adults and read thick books and new better than my peers on everything", we can't guage maturity in the same way we can guage knowledge.

As an example, driver's licenses. We don't concern ourselves with the maturity of drivers, just their knowledge of driving.

I think the standards for "what one must know" are much higher than they used to be. We live in a faster world.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I do agree that we can't assess maturity person by person. My query was more whether raising the age of consent in reponse to the complexities of modern life would be more likely to raise the maturity of the people concerned, or merely their knowledge. That is, I agree that we need a great more knowledge to get by in modern society - hence the need for a longer training/education period - but I'm not sure that judgement and maturity are coming any more slowly.

(Apologies if that is as clear as mud.)

And El Sol's got good points there about liberty and responsibility going hand in hand. How would we address those? It's already a bit silly when we can send people out to be shot before we can give them a drink for courage.

(Edited - Ah, I see the above. Hmmm. Are we talking socially encouraged, legislated, or ... ? I think El Sol's probably right that about the only way to keep them at home longer would be to raise the requirements for compulsory education - and therefor the expenses in education and reduction of the workforce.)

Shanglan

 

[elsol]

Never said anything about making anyone earn their keep. I'm saying that I'm curious and thus for in favor of making "minor" a higher age on a lot of fronts. I'd rather parents kept their children home just a bit longer.

That would be fair...

Though I would prefer something like 'compulsory' service for two years... it doesn't necessarily have to be military service, but living with your parents doesn't guarantee more maturity or greater knowledge and it was a long time before my age-peers caught up to me when I returned from my tour of duty.

Then again, I always liked the Starship Troopers idea that voting had to be an earned privilige.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I do agree that we can't assess maturity person by person. My query was more whether raising the age of consent in reponse to the complexities of modern life would be more likely to raise the maturity of the people concerned, or merely their knowledge. That is, I agree that we need a great more knowledge to get by in modern society - hence the need for a longer training/education period - but I'm not sure that judgement and maturity are coming any more slowly.

(Apologies if that is as clear as mud.)

And El Sol's got good points there about liberty and responsibility going hand in hand. How would we address those? It's already a bit silly when we can send people out to be shot before we can give them a drink for courage.

(Edited - Ah, I see the above. Hmmm. Are we talking socially encouraged, legislated, or ... ? I think El Sol's probably right that about the only way to keep them at home longer would be to raise the requirements for compulsory education - and therefor the expenses in education and reduction of the workforce.)

Shanglan

Well, follow me for a bit on this, because this is really new territory...

I look at my Logic classes (when I teach). Freshman constitute the vast majority of the class (it's 100 level). These are eighteen and ninteen year olds and from ought that I can witness, so many of them are just not prepared for the world as they ought be. It's not just information, that's true. More information wouldn't necessarily correct everything.

But, as far as the gestation period for childhood, I'd be in favor of stretching it out. Instead of more intense rat-racing for school grades and advancement, I'd rather see a longer period of high school (as an example). Stop rushing these people to "Grow up" when we're not giving them time to do it.

Maybe it wouldn't solve anything, but I think it's worth a look, really.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Well, follow me for a bit on this, because this is really new territory...

I look at my Logic classes (when I teach). Freshman constitute the vast majority of the class (it's 100 level). These are eighteen and ninteen year olds and from ought that I can witness, so many of them are just not prepared for the world as they ought be. It's not just information, that's true. More information wouldn't necessarily correct everything.

But, as far as the gestation period for childhood, I'd be in favor of stretching it out. Instead of more intense rat-racing for school grades and advancement, I'd rather see a longer period of high school (as an example). Stop rushing these people to "Grow up" when we're not giving them time to do it.

Maybe it wouldn't solve anything, but I think it's worth a look, really.

I agree in the massive immaturity seen in even college level students...sometimes because they are college students, but the problem is that I don't think of it as a problem of time so much as individual maturity. I have seen many 40 year olds who act to such a disgusting degree that you wonder if puberty really happened to them. I have also seen middle-schoolers and high-schoolers who had already gone over the hump of normal maturity in total outright cynicism. The point at which interest in philosophy is transcended into a bleak pragmaticism. Maturity is difficult to tack onto an age and I think many do so fradulently. I am this age thus I must be mature or I have this job thus I must be mature or etc... Maturity is its own separate entity and instilling it is the job of hard-edged introspection and practice in the act of definite freely-made personal choices not the products of age or job.

This is of course only a free-thinking hypothesis based on personal experience and observation.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I rather like El Sol's idea of a controlled enviroment away from the home - something that lets them stretch the wings a little without a total removal of all barriers.

I like your point, Joe, about fostering greater maturity rather than knowledge; I was just wondering how we did that, as the continuance of a high school system that hasn't matured them seemed in some ways an unlikely way to mature them further. I think what I like about El Sol's idea is that it gradually extends both responsibilities and freedoms. It's always nice to be able to show that those two go hand in hand.

 

[yui]

As for the child enjoying it: Children do play with themselves, you know, and they enjoy it. Might not they enjoy it if somebody else did so, gently and affectionately and with no coercion?

The coercion is implicit. A child's "enjoyment" is completely irrelevant. "Enjoyment" is just one more way that pedophiles damage children. How do you think these kids feel when they're old enough to understand what's happened to them? How do you think they feel, knowing in some ways that they may have enjoyed what was happening? Do you have any concept of how crippling that kind of shame can be to a child's psyche?

I readily agree that the hypothetical example I made up would not be genuine consensual sex but therE would also be no force or even any coercion involved. Without question, it would be sexual abuse, maybe even statutory rape although no penetration would occur. It would not be PHYSICAL abuse because no pain or PHYSICAL injury would occur. The child would probably even receive a certain amount of gratification from it.

Nevertheless, it would be a reprehensible act and I would gladly join in the tarring and feathering of the scum involved.

eV

Again, the coercion is implicit.

Penetration doesn't have to occur for it to be sexual abuse or physical abuse. If you touch me, and I don’t consent to that touch, you are physically assaulting me. It doesn't have to hurt. If you are touching a nine-year-old girl in a sexual manner, she hasn't consented because she can't consent, and you are physically and sexually abusing her on every level.

And, as far as penetration goes, talk to any social worker who works with kids and they will tell you that they see girls every day who have been severely sexually abused and they still have the hymen intact (or mostly intact). Don't make the mistake of thinking "no penetration" or that the child "enjoyed it" makes the act of molesting a child less painful or reprehensible than it is.

In your example, Box, you have created a child that suddenly has sexual feelings without any emotional capacity to deal with those feelings. She is years away from the emotional development. Tell me again about the gratification she probably received.

/end rant

I've deleted the rest of what I typed. I feel very, very strongly about this. I used to work with these kids every day. They broke my heart. Children are not sexual objects. They should be allowed to be children. They should be safe.