Putting it like that, I might be tempted to agree with you. But the crucial problem is that it isn't possible to guarantee that hypothetical situation. There is no agreed test of emotional maturity; no way to guarantee informed consent; and no guarantee that the girl will not be harmed.
I already said that.
Good, so we're agreed on that crucial point.
So your dream scenario cannot occur in real life, Joe. Ii's a fantasy, and should remain so. Rational paedophiles understand this and refrain from acting on their desires.I made it pretty clear that it was a very rare case that I would consider it ok.
And that again is typical paedophile thinking. They say to themselves that sometimes
it's OK for a 30-year-old to have sex with an 11-year-old, even though it's rare. And in their minds, that's all they need to convince themselves that their
11-year-old is that rare child, and that their true love is special. And that's what they tell their psychiatrists when they're caught.
After all, Joe, in your scenario of reducing the age of consent to the onset of puberty, who is actually going to make the judgment call that the 11-year-old is suffficiently emotionally mature? Why, the paedophile, of course. Who is rather biased as a judge, don't you think?
That's why you want the Age of Consent reduced to the onset of puberty; then the final barrier to realizing the fantasy would be removed.Ain't gonna happen, in America you mean. Not all of us live in America. (And even in America, there is a state where the age of consent is currently 14.) Don't assume your opinions are universally held.
Ain't gonna happen, Joe.
A lot of people agree with me; no-one agrees with you. That's because you're a paedophile, and we're not.
Your friend took the risk of looking at child porn and ruined his life. People do stupid things.Looking at child porn did not ruin his life. Unjust thought crime ruined his life.
Possession of child pornography isn't a thought-crime. It's an objectively verifiable crime.
(Though I agree with you that possession shouldn't be punished severely. The important thing is that the child-pornography should be confiscated and given to the police as evidence of a crime. I'd be happy if the possessors were punished with a fine).
Should I also assume that you would be removing your hypothetical wife from the presence of other men? You didn't answer that question.
Do you really not understand the difference?
1. I am talking about removing my daughter only from your
presence, based on your admission of paedophilia and other statements on this thread.
2. I do not control my hypothetical wife's movements as I do my child's. She's a free agent, so I don't 'remove' her from situations. Also she's a karate black-belt and always carries a gun, so I'm not too concerned about her safety.
You are claiming that sexual attraction leads to rape, right?
Wrong. And by trying to use such a blatant strawman, you're really grasping at straws.
Give it up, Joe. Your fantasy isn't going to become reality. The Age of Consent isn't going to be reduced to puberty. Your dream has to stay a dream. All your arguments on a forum like this aren't going to change a thing.
If you don't accept that, I recommend you get professional help, else you may end up in prison like your friend.