whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Sexuality, Reproduction, & Abortion => Topic started by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 08:29:11 PM

Title: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 08:29:11 PM
my opinion NO !!!!!!!
whats yours and why ?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on May 22, 2012, 08:38:24 PM
Why don't you give your own "why" first?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 08:49:49 PM
ok i will do exactly that. firstly i was molested when i was young by two different people who i dony even know and secondly bc its just wrong to do that shit to kids.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jetson on May 22, 2012, 08:51:08 PM
Why don't you give your own "why" first?

Yes, give us your reasoning.  That's what a discussion is!

My thoughts, yes they should be allowed to live.  But perhaps once identified, they need to have limits on their freedoms in some form.  With modern technology, it should not be that hard to monitor humans via GPS and other forms of monitoring.  Or, therapy until deemed safe - which may not be possible in some cases.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jetson on May 22, 2012, 08:53:42 PM
ok i will do exactly that. firstly i was molested when i was young by two different people who i dony even know and secondly bc its just wrong to do that s**t to kids.

Fair enough.  Sorry to hear about your past - I'm sure it makes you less inclined to want to bother helping pedophiles, and I understand.  However, there are victims who find solace and forgiveness by providing others with help on the very thing that was used against them, such as child molestation.  If those victims help prevent future victims, how can we say they should all be killed?

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 09:03:38 PM
 the victims need not be killed or anything just the offenders themselves. the people who actually do it.
yeah i realise that ms such and such of whatever town was molested by her stepfather from age 6 up to 18 . but she has love for him bc hes family and her kids love him too. still. he did this horrible thing and perhaps deserves death. he fucked her up for life. like permanant. i would have no issue helping victims but would not waste my time "helping" a sexual predator due to the simple facts of 1 i dont care to do so..and 2 they need help i can not provide except the obvious advice of suicide.
yes my views on life are far from what most call "normal" and im most content with this. but seriosuly does anyone have bananna pudding recipe ??
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 09:04:34 PM
a child deserves a childhood and happiness.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on May 22, 2012, 09:29:11 PM
FYI it is possible for someone to be a pedophile without actually molesting children.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jetson on May 22, 2012, 09:30:51 PM
FYI it is possible for someone to be a pedophile without actually molesting children.

That's a great point. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 09:35:12 PM
what does that mean
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 09:36:03 PM
and you actually mispelled paedophile. silly rabbit.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jetson on May 22, 2012, 09:36:53 PM
what does that mean

There is a distinction between pedophilia and child sexual abuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 09:39:20 PM
wikipedia mispells it too. ok ill look it up now.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 09:40:59 PM
interesting article . i get it now . but  i still dont like child molesters
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 09:41:57 PM
any opinions out there ? hello ? yeah you !
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Chronos on May 22, 2012, 09:50:45 PM
a child deserves a childhood and happiness.

First, every child gets a childhood but whether that childhood is happy or not depends on many factors. If you think that pedophiles should be put to death because they rob children of happy childhoods, should anyone who robs a child of a happy childhood be put to death? Or, is death only reserved for pedophiles? If so, why?

Second, your initial approach to this subject is incomplete and immature. It doesn't indicate you have spent any time contemplating alternative viewpoints or solutions to your own question, but rather asked a question that gives you the opportunity to express an emotional viewpoint. How old are you?

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 10:09:14 PM
death should only be reserved for child molesters and those who beat women and children. thieves and addicts etc.. never really did anything wrong. yeah i believe its k to kill given correct circumstances.
first i really dont have to answer you but do anyways bc i have nothing better to do.

second my age matters not. i exist outside of time. i havent aged a single day since i was 15.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on May 22, 2012, 10:19:52 PM
and you actually mispelled paedophile. silly rabbit.

So does the Oxford English Dictionary, apparently:[1]

Quote
pedophile (pe·do·phile)
Pronunciation: /?ped??f?l/
(British paedophile)
noun
a person who is sexually attracted to children.

Origin:
from pedo- + -phile
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pedophile

Of course, your spelling of the word is correct as well.[2]  But rather than mistakenly accusing me, Jetson, and Wikipedia of having gotten the spelling wrong, you could have looked this up yourself.
 1. Edited for formatting in the copy-paste.
 2. Except for how you spelled it in the title of this thread...
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Chronos on May 22, 2012, 10:22:25 PM
death should only be reserved for child molesters and those who beat women and children. thieves and addicts etc..

This makes the water completely muddy. ETC = et cetera, which means to go on and on and ... on ...

never really did anything wrong. yeah i believe its k to kill given correct circumstances.

Fine, but that response is broader than the original question you asked to everyone else. Are you going to stick to your original question or do you wish to broaden it?

first i really dont have to answer you but do anyways bc i have nothing better to do.

second my age matters not. i exist outside of time. i havent aged a single day since i was 15.

First, if anyone moderating this forum asks a question, you should answer it or you may not be posting on this forum for much longer ... just to be clear, mmmkay?

Second, age does matter as it should indicate a level of maturity in the responses you provide, and I'm not seeing much mental maturity here. But, you are right in that you could be 38 going on 17. I asked a valid question and stated why I thought it was important to ask -- your vague response indicates what I can expect in the future, or am I wrong?

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 10:29:06 PM
ok chronos. i am legally 21 years of age . like i said before i no longer age so it matters not. i really appreciate your contribution to my most ridicoulous thread .
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 10:31:50 PM
chronos i will refer you to a wikipedia thingy k ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia
maybe you can understand after that article deal.
whatever lol.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Chronos on May 22, 2012, 10:34:57 PM
ok chronos. i am legally 21 years of age . like i said before i no longer age so it matters not. i really appreciate your contribution to my most ridicoulous thread .

Aging occurs regardless of what you may think, so I am not sure why you insist you don't age.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 10:37:27 PM
death should only be reserved for child molesters and those who beat women and children. thieves and addicts etc..




This makes the water completely muddy. ETC = et cetera, which means to go on and on and ... on ...

actually mr chronos you MISQOUTED .and if you would take the time to read..you would notcie that there is indeed a what? a what?? a period at the end of that sentence clearly and obviously indicating that the sentence was ended there. hmm. who knew ! but for real if u got a banannna pudding recipe id appreciate it . and btw i wish to stick with my original question which i see chronos has failed to answer or legitamtely write about. all i see is his mega speculation of my self. which is actually kinda cool. i like chronos and he or she gets ten points.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Chronos on May 22, 2012, 10:37:51 PM
chronos i will refer you to a wikipedia thingy k ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia
maybe you can understand after that article deal.
whatever lol.

What does that wiki article have to do with this thread about pedophiles?

Am I to assume that you have schizophrenia and you want me to understand it more? If so, that would be more valuable as part of the introduction thread. Or, are you saying pedophiles are schizophrenics?


Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 10:41:04 PM
do you not comprehend that i simply do not age ??? listen for a single moment. ok. i do not age anymore. doesnt happen. cant. theres no going back..everything around me will wither and die except those like me. time has lost its meaning. i dont age. CHRONOS> perhaps i should again make reference for you. whom which i am grateful for. i am schizophrenic and you would know this if you would have read my intro
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 10:42:46 PM
i would actually like to apologie openly to chronos because i think maybe i hurt his feelings but idk. im sorry if i upset you made you mad or anything of that nature : (
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Chronos on May 22, 2012, 10:43:02 PM
death should only be reserved for child molesters and those who beat women and children. thieves and addicts etc..




This makes the water completely muddy. ETC = et cetera, which means to go on and on and ... on ...

actually mr chronos you MISQOUTED .and if you would take the time to read..you would notcie that there is indeed a what? a what?? a period at the end of that sentence clearly and obviously indicating that the sentence was ended there. hmm. who knew ! but for real if u got a banannna pudding recipe id appreciate it . and btw i wish to stick with my original question which i see chronos has failed to answer or legitamtely write about. all i see is his mega speculation of my self. which is actually kinda cool. i like chronos and he or she gets ten points.

First, perhaps I did misread your reply, but your replies do not include capital letters at the beginning of sentences, you are placing either one, two or three periods at the ends of sentences, and often you type a space before the period which makes me wonder if it is a period or a sloppy ellipsis (...). Given the content of your posts, and the nature of your method of reply, it would appear that you are under the influence of some drug which may be contributing to sloppy posts. This is why you have received more than one suggestion to slow down your rate of posting in order to be more thoughtful and complete.

Second, you will need to use the actual [ quote ] tags when replying to other member's posts so that it is clear which words are theirs and which words are your responses. Is this your first time using an online forum?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: lotanddaughters on May 22, 2012, 10:43:56 PM
he fucked her up for life. like permanant.

You misspelled "permanent".
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 10:48:00 PM
hey thanks for pointing out my mispelling lotanddaugthers.

firstly i do not use any sort of mind alterring stuff and secondly thats just how i write. ive never used caps bc i simply dont want to waste time capping words so i can post faster inbetween reading books and other forums . thirdly this is my first time using a thread thing so yeah
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Chronos on May 22, 2012, 10:52:05 PM
do you not comprehend that i simply do not age ??? listen for a single moment. ok. i do not age anymore. doesnt happen. cant. theres no going back..everything around me will wither and die except those like me. time has lost its meaning. i dont age.

mmmmkay.


CHRONOS> perhaps i should again make reference for you. whom which i am grateful for. i am schizophrenic and you would know this if you would have read my intro

hey im meconopsilo. just a schizophrenic country girl who likes norweigan black metal ...

You inclusion of the word schizophrenic in this sentence makes it appear that you are using the term very casually, like many people do when they wish to connote they are very active, indecisive and/or eclectic. If you have been diagnosed with schizophrenia, then your mental status would have been more clear to us (at least me) if you had specifically stated such.

If the posts you are making right now are the best that you can do, you should reconsider your participation in this forum because your current posting style is not really contributing anything to this forum. So far all we have seen from you is a distinct demonstration of your mental condition. Perhaps a forum that discusses schizophrenia would be more appropriate for you at this time.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Chronos on May 22, 2012, 10:54:42 PM
ive never used caps bc i simply dont want to waste time capping words so i can post faster inbetween reading books and other forums . thirdly this is my first time using a thread thing so yeah

I strongly recommended that you type responses in a manner consistent with the education provided in an eight-grade English class. So, yes, please use appropriate capitalizations and punctuation (which also means appropriate use of the spacebar).

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 11:00:17 PM
you imply that i make attempts to fake that i have a mental disorder that i do have ?
or do i just post on different things. no i didnt really mean it bc i like you.
btw "you inclusion" i believe you meant "your inclusion" just saying. and wtf is with banana pudding. damn. im a were wolf..thats why i dont age anymore. i am schizophrenic and i have medicine for this that akes me feel weird so i dont take it.
i also play piano when it doesnt piss me off bc i cant open it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 11:01:59 PM
Ok this is my attempt at proper writing stuff ,and,what not . ok im seriously not good at punctuation its hard : (
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on May 22, 2012, 11:02:49 PM
No, I don't believe that a child sexual abuser should automatically be put to death.  That is not to dismiss the very real trauma that such children suffer from such treatment, but it's way too easy to demand the death penalty for something when it may not be best.  However, making it impossible for them to repeat the crime without killing them would be appropriate in my opinion.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 11:06:22 PM
i like your opinion and it really makes me think about things. maybe we shouldnt kill them all.
thank you for posting on this thread thingy jaimehlers !! you get 10 points
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Chronos on May 22, 2012, 11:35:54 PM
you imply that i make attempts to fake that i have a mental disorder that i do have ?

I didn't imply that you are lying. I directly stated that your casual use of the word schizophrenic did not make it obvious that you were telling us that you were diagnosed with the disorder.

or do i just post on different things. no i didnt really mean it bc i like you.

I'm not sure what that last part refers to ...

btw "you inclusion" i believe you meant "your inclusion" just saying.

You are correct. Even with the best of efforts, typos do occur. I am not immune.

and wtf is with banana pudding. damn. im a were wolf..thats why i dont age anymore. i am schizophrenic and i have medicine for this that akes me feel weird so i dont take it.

Trust me when I say that you are more weird when you don't take the meds. I have worked with many people who have mental/nervous disorders, and when they don't take their meds the problems get worse. They always respond that the meds make them feel weird, but they become much more functional while taking the meds.

i also play piano when it doesnt piss me off bc i cant open it.

Should I conclude that you have a grand piano? Otherwise, I do not know what you are talking about.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: ParkingPlaces on May 22, 2012, 11:38:38 PM
meconopsilo, you need to take a deep breathe and slow down. There is no way anyone here can keep up with the plethora of posts you are cranking out. Nor are there many who would want to bother because most of them either contain little useful information or are nothing but examples of how a frazzled mind communicates.

If you had joined the same day I did 2 1/2 years ago, and posted at your current rate, you would have 57,000 posts by now, while I, a fairly prolific poster by our forums standards, have something like 3,300. Not even all of mine get read.

The purpose of participating in a forum is to both give and receive. Give your point of view, contribute to the various discussions, etc. And receive, by reading and thinking about what others have written. A thought process is normally involved in both cases.

Right now you have us perplexed. You have very unusual points of view (such as on your aging situation) that you just assume we will accept at face value without further explanation. Your intro made it sound like we should be disappointed that you won't provide heroin recipes, etc., while I daresay we don't have a single member actually interested in such things.

We certainly have people your age and younger, plus many much older, such as myself. We vary in a lot of ways, but virtually all of our regular members can a)communicate clearly and b) control their urge to just say everything that pops into their head. Most of us try to be a bit discriminating, knowing that if we are going to put something online, it should have some redeeming social value, or at least be funny. We do banter about meaningless crap in our "Chatter" section from time to time, but most of us are here for the purpose of having serious discussions about issues that concern us. Related to religion and atheism.

This issue, however you spell it, relates slightly if you are a choirboy in the catholic church and a victim. Otherwise the subject has little relevance to the issues we want to discuss. And if all of us could decide in any haphazard way we wanted to kill every person who ever pissed us off, for whatever reason, the world population would get down to one real quick. And that last person may or may not be you.

Not everyone here is extraordinarily serious about everything, but none of the others are frivolous about everything. From the way you write and based on some of the things you've said, it is easy for us to dismiss you as either a current or recovering junky, or someone with a genuine mental illness. If we are wrong, it is not because we are bad guessers, but rather that you are not very good at behaving normally. At least by our standards.

We have all sorts of people here. We have a satanist or two. A few pagans. And music wise, we certainly have a few people into heavy metal. We also have folks who have no religious or other beliefs worth labeling, who love folk or classical or, and I hesitate to say this, even western. But whatever our personal tastes, we seldom let them take center stage as we discuss the issues of the day. The forum is about the huge problems we see with religion and our counter-argument of atheism. It is not about us as individuals. Though we as individuals certainly have our quirks, they seldom reveal themselves as we comment and argue and agree or disagree.

But until now, we haven't had a you. Especially with your posting style.

It is fine to use personal examples when such things are relevant to the discussion. It is useless to dwell on the self when that is all you want to talk about. None of us are required to read your posts. And if that is all you can discuss, most of us won't.

You are on the internet. If you want a banana pudding recipe, Google will give you almost 12 million hits to comb through. If you are an atheist and want to state your views in a public way, WWGHA is a good place to do it. But remember, the forum is about the discussion, not those doing the talking. And for that reason, your contributions to date have added very little. Your quantity/quality ratio is very low.

Chemicals aren't the only thing with unstable half-lives. If you don't calm yourself and make an effort to contribute to something besides discussions about yourself, this isn't going to work out well for you.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 11:42:09 PM
so..its actually better to take my medicine ? i dont enjoy being all floaty zombified but ok.
no rabbit no grand piano its a 1900s french made piano that mom keeps locked. much similar to a steangberer but less intricate and french. has blood stains on it but idk why.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: meconopsilo on May 22, 2012, 11:54:38 PM
thank you parkingplaces for your contribution to the thread you get 10 points.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Chronos on May 23, 2012, 12:11:36 AM
so..its actually better to take my medicine ? i dont enjoy being all floaty zombified but ok.

Yes, please. Do you have an active prescription handy? You never want to run out of the stuff.

no rabbit no grand piano its a 1900s french made piano that mom keeps locked.

Does your mom keep it locked because she knows you might have the urge to play the piano at 1am?

much similar to a steangberer but less intricate and french. has blood stains on it but idk why.

Just ask your mother -- there may be an interesting story to hear.

Or, might you have played the piano aggresively for hours until your fingers bled?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on May 23, 2012, 12:54:26 AM
do you not comprehend that i simply do not age ???

And next you'll ask us to believe you're a vampire, personally spawned by Edward himself.   :o

---

On topic: I personally consider death to be an invalid response to any crime. The only justifiable time it can be used is in self-defense[1] during the act. To kill someone in response to a crime neither provides a fix for what was done, nor does it properly address the act itself[2].

Besides, if you're looking to punish[3] the pedophile, causing his/her cessation of all thoughts and feelings (ie killing them) means that they no longer have to deal with it. Why would you give them the easy way out?
 1. The exact specifics of which should be discussed their own thread.
 2. This isn't even getting into how ineffective it is as a deterrent, but that's yet another thread.
 3. I would prefer rehabilitation, but again - that's another thread... in fact, this particular question seems too limiting to really build a discussion on, but we'll see where it goes.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: justthegirl on May 23, 2012, 12:57:40 AM
Hi everyone i am new to the forum thing. i cant make an intro, but its ok. However i will place my input on this thread and whats with this meconopsilo ? Oh well. I personally believe that pedophiles shouldn't be killed off because of there wrong doings. This is like saying forks made you fat. I can not pass judgement on people.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Tinyal on May 23, 2012, 01:13:18 AM
Why can't you make an intro?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: justthegirl on May 23, 2012, 01:19:51 AM
Because I am new and have to make three significant post before making a thread of my own or an intro.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: 1 on May 23, 2012, 02:00:21 AM
I am not a new member here (left the forum)so don't bother seeking an introduction. But  I am concerned with these issues(pedophilia & schizophrenia & victims)so I made a new ID just to reveal a bit of my background(without revealing myself). I also feel it might help the thread starter cope with her/his issues.

First, I think I can relate to a person who has been a victim of childhood sexual abuse. Being a victim myself(sexually, physically,mentally abused at 4yrs age)I think childhood abuse could be a horrible thing to happen to anybody.

Second, I understand how a sexually abused victim could eventually become a victim of bullying and being scared of all people can become a schizophrenic.

So dear thread starter, you are not alone here. You have my empathy. :)

Anyway, going back to the question, I think it's a highly subjective matter.
Because who knows  whether the person who sexually abused you as a child was also a victim of sexual abuse as a child? Then?

Childhood for me was Hell. But thankfully I have grown out of it. I am an adult now, and instead of remaining a schizophrenic, I decided to face my fears(people) and cure myself(without taking medication.) I don't know whether the best option for a schizophrenic is to take medications or to cure the disease naturally by facing the fear. For me facing the fear worked. But I won't advise anyone to stop taking medications because what worked for me might not work for someone else.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: EV on May 23, 2012, 02:07:34 AM
hey thanks for pointing out my mispelling lotanddaugthers.

firstly i do not use any sort of mind alterring stuff and secondly thats just how i write. ive never used caps bc i simply dont want to waste time capping words so i can post faster inbetween reading books and other forums . thirdly this is my first time using a thread thing so yeah

It really is not that much effort, and it does make reading these sort of posts much easier...

Plus we've already covered that you do not need to post at near-light speed. You should slow down and consider your responses more carefully.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: justthegirl on May 23, 2012, 02:09:38 AM
I have and i am. Also working on my grammar and people skills
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: 1 on May 23, 2012, 02:27:01 AM
Here's how I coped up with my sexual abuse. Hopefully it might help you too.

One thing to do could be to forgive that anything bad happened to you. Going back to the same horrible things of my childhood only made me weaker.  So forgetting about my horrible childhood helped. You can't change your past, can you? So just forget it. But you can change your future. :)
 In my case my teacher who abused me has died(of natural causes), so I can't even plot my revenge on him. I can only forgive/forget him.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: justthegirl on May 23, 2012, 02:30:45 AM
thank you 1. i will try this because its new to me and nothing else works.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: 1 on May 23, 2012, 02:33:19 AM
thank you 1. i will try this because its new to me and nothing else works.

Welcome :)
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: justthegirl on May 23, 2012, 02:37:59 AM
im for real yall i want to cry. Im not going too bc im strong .
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: oogabooga on May 23, 2012, 03:29:14 AM
The simple answer to the original question of this topic on my part would be no. Killing people for a) doing something wrong or b) having a specific disorder that makes them act compulsively in a way that's harmful to others is something I find quite unacceptable.

Humans are social creatures and most of us instinctively act in a way that's productive for our society. Some people don't, more often than not because they can't due to one form of disorder or other. Such members must be dealt with (for lack of a better word) appropriately for the society to function. By that I mean that they should be removed from the general population, but intentional murder is not and can not be an answer. They are people, just like everyone else, and they need the same opportunities as anyone else. If rehabilitation proves ineffective or impossible, incarceration is the appropriate answer (preferably in a mental institution, preferably indefinitely).

Killing child molesters is also counter-productive. By studying people with various potentially harmful disorders we can develop an early warning system and prevent abuse and protect the general public by starting rehabilitation early enough so the disorder doesn't manifest in a harmful way. By studying such cases (and trust me, corpses are quite unresponsive and therefore useless for research) we can eventually even develop treatment for it.

But try to look at it from another perspective - yours. You said you have a very specific mental disorder that can, in some cases, cause people to lash out and harm others. Should they be put to death as well if they for instance kill someone as a direct result of their disorder? Should delusions of people with schizophrenia be regarded differently than delusions of people with disorders you dislike?

Of course I'm not saying that the victims should just forget about abuse and leave their abusers alone. In such cases therapy is the way out. Someone else's death isn't. It never is.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: 1 on May 23, 2012, 11:46:09 PM
Quote
I am an adult now, and instead of remaining a schizophrenic, I decided to face my fears(people) and cure myself(without taking medication.)

I think I made a big mistake in making that statement. I was diagnosed with only early stages of schizophrenia as also wasn't into drugs or alcohol and there was one bigger fear(fear of hypnosis )that forced me to try and cure myself.
But for someone who is highly schizophrenic and a drug addict,  a better option  should be to consult some proper doctor(who is well known for treating such cases) and take proper meds.
Note that some doctors may be incompetent and may prescribe wrong medications(which might prove to be  more harmful than good). So please consult a proper and reputed doctor and take proper meds.



Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: 1 on May 24, 2012, 12:41:08 AM
I would like to add one thing though. Schizophrenic does not mean violence. I have met people with moderate to high levels of schizophrenia and in all cases they were not violent but instead were victims of bullying and violence.

But I think drug and alcohol abuse might make some schizophrenics violent. But drug and alcohols can and does make normal people violent. So in my opinion the blame for violence should be on drugs and alcohol and not schizophrenia itself.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Samothec on May 24, 2012, 07:04:48 PM
It is best to take your medication. If it causes problems for you, talk to your doctor about using a different dosage or even a different medication.

I have had medications & dosages that were wrong for me but I discussed those with my doctor and got things corrected. It's no fun being on a medication that makes it difficult to eat meals & watch TV - those being the only things I could manage to do in a day when on the wrong meds.

As for pedophiles - many were abused themselves so I can't see it as a simple situation. Your abuse makes you a potential abuser especially with your schizophrenia unchecked. Your medication will help you deal with the world better and help prevent you from becoming what you hate.

You seem to take being a werewolf in stride but are concerned with hurting people. Again, the medication (once you and your doctor have figured out the best one and the correct dosage) will help keep you from hurting people.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on May 24, 2012, 08:12:06 PM
To the original topic. For me, what's important is that the child molester be prevented from harming children ever again. I hesitate to say they should be killed, because killing is permanent. If we somehow were to come up with a cure (or whatever you'd call it) for molesters, we may have wasted a potentially productive member of society. I do not know the percentages, but the molester whom I know best (an uncle who molested his sons, grandsons, and children in his church) was also molested himself as a child. A victim and a predator. How do we understand such a person? If I understand the things he said, he felt that it was a special bond, a special love, between a man and child. That's what he was taught. His victims all disowned him, but none agreed to testify, so he was never jailed for it. How can we kill him if there's no legal proof of what he did? A truly awful situation, and quite frankly, I'm delighted that he's gone now (dead of old age).
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: oogabooga on May 25, 2012, 12:44:20 AM
I would like to add one thing though. Schizophrenic does not mean violence. I have met people with moderate to high levels of schizophrenia and in all cases they were not violent but instead were victims of bullying and violence.

But I think drug and alcohol abuse might make some schizophrenics violent. But drug and alcohols can and does make normal people violent. So in my opinion the blame for violence should be on drugs and alcohol and not schizophrenia itself.
Stereotypes about people with schizophrenia being violent are of course wrong, as most stereotypes are. But drugs and alcohol are not the necessary precursor to violence in people with schizophrenia. Fear, however, can be. Some types of schizophrenia are defined by extreme fear and there are no known mechanisms that would make afflicted people react in any other way than the rest of us - in extreme situations an attack can provide the best defense. Hell, people without any kind of psychological of psychiatric disorder could and actually often do answer violently to abuse, fear, danger. You can scare anyone to the point where they'd be capable of killing someone whom they see as a potential threat. Suitably horrible hallucinations can speed up and intensify that process - which only means that people with schizophrenia have to be helped, because their condition causes them distress and suffering, not incarcerated, killed or abused even more.

Which brings us to the subject of this debate - pedophilia (and the resulting child abuse) is a mental (psychological and/or physiological) disorder that, in my opinion, needs to be researched and treated, not solved by murder. I used schizophrenia to illustrate my point, not to accuse people with this type of disorder of being dangerous. The OP claims she has schizophrenia which makes her erratic (and a werewolf, among other things), which is the reason I even mentioned it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 08, 2012, 05:04:02 AM
I'm a pedophile.[1] I'm sexually attracted to young teenagers especially but sometimes even younger if they've developed a bit. Budding breasts, long legs. What's not to like? Some people are attracted to even younger children, and though I'm not I don't think anyone is in any position to judge them for it. Nobody chooses their sexual orientation, be it heterosexual, homosexual, or pedophile.

Why would I admit to this? Just like homosexuals and atheists, pedophiles are shunned and persecuted unfairly. Society likes to vilify people like me but I don't buy into the propaganda and neither should you. I'm not a bad person. It's perfectly natural to be attracted to females of breeding age.

In the US, children as young as 9 have been tried as adults in criminal court. 11 and 12 year olds regularly. It's hypocritical to say that a 9 year old is capable of making rational decisions that they must be held responsible for but a 17 year old isn't. Until of course suddenly they receive a magical clarity of thought on their 18th birthday.

I don't think 9 year olds should be tried as adults for the same reason that I wouldn't have sex with a 9 year old girl.  I'm a big fan of informed consent.  I would never have sex with someone who I didn't feel knew full well what they were doing, and understood the physical and emotional ramifications of their actions, and was participating completely of their own free will.

Someone who is attracted to very young children but does not act on that attraction is harmless. Persecuting that person would be thought crime.

I also think that possession of child porn should be legalized, but I don't have time right now to write about it. Feel free to post all of your disagreements and I'll come back in a couple of hours to explain how you're wrong. Do your research before you say something stupid though. You should know that several federal judges as well as many prominent intellectuals share my thoughts on this.
 1. Don't bother to correct my spelling. This is the correct spelling in common modern English.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on June 08, 2012, 05:54:43 AM
my opinion NO !!!!!!!
whats yours and why ?

Are you talking about the desire, or the behavior?[1]  You do realize, don't you, that most pedophiles never act on their feelings because they know it would be wrong?
 1. I don't think either should be punishable by death, but even so, this is an important distinction to be aware of.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Seppuku on June 08, 2012, 05:59:54 AM
I know what kind of reaction you might normally get Joe, not referring to reactions this forum might give but in general.

The main reason I disagree with paedophilia is because it's taking advantage of children who are not old enough to consent and having sex with somebody who does not/cannot give their consent is rape and that's a form of abuse and I find that sick. Also, the age of 'consent' varies country to country. I know in the UK it's 16 if both are under the age of 18.

I think after bearing that in mind it's down to it being 'icky' as they're too young and regardless of all the negative feelings associated with it, I commend you for being able to admit it. You've never actually abused a child (as far as I can tell from reading your post), so I am happy to leave those 'negative feelings' at the door.

I'm sure the attraction is natural as any other attraction is and I think the issue is a question of what you do about it. If people can have a natural attraction to people who are much older than them (like a MILF or even GILF fetish) then it must be natural for it to go the other way. You may never ever touch a child and still feel that attraction. I'm sure many out there do not wish to harm a child and choose not to. I think our social perception of paedophilia does make it a topic very difficult to talk about and I think maybe if it were an easier issue to discuss, maybe those who would never admit to be being a paedophile may not get help in controlling their emotions[1] before it's too late and then take advantage of a child.

I don't believe in the death penalty, I think it's really a last resort, for extreme situations - that doesn't translate as 'for extreme crimes' but in cases where execution may be the only option available, so it'd have to be where imprisonment is not a viable option and I'd argue that's rare. E.G. One could argue that sticking Saddam in jail would have been a bad idea.

If somebody abuses a child, be it sexually or in any other way, I think their punishment should be harsh because you've taken advantage of somebody who is vulnerable and it's likely there will be scars for life that the person will have to deal with and it isn't an easy road for them, so it shouldn't be easy for the criminal. I'd say anybody who rapes somebody should also be harshly punished and those who abuse somebody (husband or wife for example) should also be harshly punished. It's not right to take advantage of anybody like that, it's sick and it's effed up. I'd suggest kids are more vulnerable, therefore it's more effed up.
 1. at least those who are struggling to do so
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: eye over you on June 08, 2012, 09:30:48 AM


I also think that possession of child porn should be legalized, but I don't have time right now to write about it.

     What age would you like to see it become legal for children to start becoming porn stars? There is plenty of porn out that has over 18 females that could pass for a lot younger. Where do you draw the line???
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Seppuku on June 08, 2012, 09:45:24 AM
I don't think there should be a child porn industry, it would be taking advantage of children and even if possession is legalised, it just means they're legalising the market for it.

I think if we were to legalise anything here, it would be animated pornography, I think that'd be the only way of doing it without kids being hurt in the process. It's a grey area.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: eye over you on June 08, 2012, 09:58:35 AM
I don't think there should be a child porn industry, it would be taking advantage of children and even if possession is legalised, it just means they're legalising the market for it.



    I agree 100%.
     
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on June 08, 2012, 10:05:32 AM
I don't think there should be a child porn industry, it would be taking advantage of children and even if possession is legalised, it just means they're legalising the market for it.

    I agree 100%.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, how do you feel about films that are created purely with CGI (no human actors)?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 08, 2012, 10:19:06 AM
I'm a pedophile.
No, you're not.

One problem here is that paedophilia may be variably defined by doctors, or by criminal lawyers, or by the media/general public.

If we use the current medical definition (as defined in DSM-4), the feelings you describe don't qualify as paedophilia. Wiki correctly uses that definition:
Quote
As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia, or paedophilia, is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The prepubescent child must be at least five years younger than the adolescent before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.
You clearly state several times that you're not attracted to prepubescent children. So no psychiatrist would diagnose you as a paedophile.

This definition is going to be clarified in the next edition of DSM-4, by the way; it's going to incorporate the conditions of hebephilia (primary sexual attraction to early-pubescent children), and ephebophila (primary sexual attraction to late-pubescent children). Possibly you qualify as one of those, but note that such attractions must be primary.
Quote
Some people are attracted to even younger children, and though I'm not I don't think anyone is in any position to judge them for it. Nobody chooses their sexual orientation, be it heterosexual, homosexual, or pedophile.
People should be judged on their actions, not their orientation; and paedophilic actions are demonstrably harmful and therefore rightly criminal.

Quote
I'm a big fan of informed consent.
Good. The problem here is that there is no objective test to measure whether an individual is old enough to consent to a particular action, be it getting married, or having sex, or receiving medical treatment. But societies have to draw these lines somewhere, so they do, and these lines are therefore somewhat arbitrary.

As individuals, it makes sense for us to operate within the law of whatever country we're in. 

Quote
I also think that possession of child porn should be legalized,
Possibly; but the production of child porn should be illegal. Do you agree?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 08, 2012, 10:47:26 AM
I've already heard most of the arguments against child pornography, and frankly I don't find any of them any more convincing than the arguments against gay marriage.

Possession of child pornography creates demand and encourages more abuse.
Purchasing it would, which is why it should be illegal. Anonymous download without purchase would not. I'm in favor of legalizing the simple possession of child pornography, not the production, sale, or purchase.

Watching child porn victimizes the child all over again.
This is one of the most common arguments, and one of the weakest. How can someone be hurt by something that happens without their knowledge that will never affect them?

Have you ever fantasized about someone while masturbating, or even thought about someone else while having sex with your partner? A classmate? A co-worker? An ex-lover? A stranger? Maybe you've watched a hidden-camera sex tape or seen someone's home sex videos that they've uploaded to the internet without their lover's knowledge. Consider this. They did not consent to being a part of your sexual fantasy.

You used that person as an unwilling participant for your own sexual gratification. How do you feel about that? Do you think the person was hurt by your actions? Do you feel you should be put in prison for it? Of course not. They have no idea you did it and they were not harmed by it in any way.

Watching child porn will lead to the rape of more children.
Actually, it has been proven that greater access to pornography leads to a decrease in sexual crime. As everyone knows, pornography is an outlet for sexual energy. Since the advent of the internet (and subsequent proliferation of online porn) sex crimes have dropped nationwide. The biggest drops are in states that have the highest percentage of internet access per capita. Prisons which allow inmates to keep pornographic magazines in their cells have lower rates of sexual assaults.

Pedophiles are dangerous and will eventually rape a child.
The thinking here is that sexual attraction leads to rape. That's true. But that's true across all sexual orientations, not limited to pedophiles. Men rape adult women, men rape other men, men rape animals, and men rape children. Rape is present anywhere there are men. That's a fact.

The problem is assuming that all pedophiles will commit rape because they are sexually attracted to children. If you apply that same logic in other situations you immediately see the flaw in it. If that were true, all men who are attracted to women, men, or animals would also eventually commit rape. We simply know this is not the case.

The truth is that the vast majority of pedophiles will never commit rape for the same reason that the vast majority of men will never commit rape. They know it's wrong.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: eye over you on June 08, 2012, 11:09:54 AM
I don't think there should be a child porn industry, it would be taking advantage of children and even if possession is legalised, it just means they're legalising the market for it.

    I agree 100%.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, how do you feel about films that are created purely with CGI (no human actors)?

    I think people should be able to do whatever they want or enjoy whatever they want in fantasy or with consenting adults. I realize that not everyone who is turned on by kids is going to actually victimize an actual child. But taking pictures or making movies with children is watching someone actually being victimized! They are underage, should still be in school, and should not have to deal with people taking pictures of them so some adult has something to jack off to. I can't believe anybody could see it any different.

   Just to add, I'm not judging your sexual preference. I think there is a BIG difference between seeing a 14 yr old girl (or whatever) in your mind, and actually watching a 14 yr old girl in a pornographic situation.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 08, 2012, 11:27:44 AM
I'm a pedophile.
No, you're not.

I get what you're trying to do, but that's just playing word-games. Society and the law do not agree with Wikipedia. In 2008 I was returning home from an international flight when I was singled out for a 'random' inspection at border control. I have kind of dark skin and I hadn't shaved in a couple of weeks, I was looking pretty middle-eastern. I knew I would get picked. They took my laptop, my camera, my phone, all of my memory cards and hard drives, then told me I was free to go, and that someone would contact me about getting my stuff back.

I heard nothing from them for almost a year. Finally I got a call telling me they had found child porn on my computer and that I wouldn't be getting it back. I had a lot of porn on that computer, the vast majority of it was (adult and legal) Japanese porn. I also had a lot of homemade videos of my girlfriends, all of whom would have appeared to be obviously at least 18. Whatever they found would have been a tiny fraction of the overall drive and was mostly Russian teens.

Yes despite knowing that I wasn't primarily attracted to pre-pubescent children, and with absolutely nothing to suggest that I had ever actually harmed a real child, they contacted my friends, my family, and many of my former colleagues and acquaintances to warn them that I was a pedophile and that they should not let me anywhere near their children.

People should be judged on their actions, not their orientation; and paedophilic actions are demonstrably harmful and therefore rightly criminal.

As long as you're agreeing that the thoughts themselves shouldn't be illegal. What would you think about simulated child pornography such as animations, stories, etc., that do not use real children? Under GW Bush, those were made illegal too, making it truly the only thought crime in US law.

The problem here is that there is no objective test to measure whether an individual is old enough to consent to a particular action, be it getting married, or having sex, or receiving medical treatment. But societies have to draw these lines somewhere, so they do, and these lines are therefore somewhat arbitrary.

I agree, there should be a line, but I think the age of consent should be lowered to the same age that a juvenile could be tried as an adult. Otherwise, it's just hypocrisy.

As individuals, it makes sense for us to operate within the law of whatever country we're in. 

I'm not a big fan of the appeal to authority. I don't think laws are always right or should be blindly followed.

Possibly; but the production of child porn should be illegal. Do you agree?
Yes.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 08, 2012, 11:34:27 AM
Just for fun... what do you think of this woman? Purely based on her appearance, honestly, do you find her sexually attractive? (Assuming you are a heterosexual, straight male.)

(http://serenity.delhii.net/files/2007/03/saaya.jpg)
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 08, 2012, 11:36:34 AM
Joe:
Quote
Watching child porn victimizes the child all over again.

This is one of the most common arguments, and one of the weakest. How can someone be hurt by something that happens without their knowledge that will never affect them?
But what if they do know about it? What if the child grows up and becomes a celebrity actress/popstar, and it becomes known that she is the child being abused in the pornography? Do you think that that woman, as an adult, would consent to those pictures being published and available to anyone who wants to look at them?

I really don't think they would.

She couldn't consent to their publication as a child; and it's highly likely that she wouldn't consent as an adult. So the obvious conclusion is that she should be regarded as owning the copyright of the material, and unauthorized publication would be illegal on those grounds.

The same logic applies to non-celebrities as well. So ownership of all child pornography should be illegal.

Gnu.

PS I'm OK with computer-generated material or cartoons. No human beings are harmed in the making of it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on June 08, 2012, 11:48:10 AM
Just for fun... what do you think of this woman? Purely based on her appearance, honestly, do you find her sexually attractive? (Assuming you are a heterosexual, straight male.)

Yes, I do.  And I have a hunch that you're now going to tell me how old she is...?  (Which is OK.  I'm mostly in agreement with your views on this.)
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 08, 2012, 11:52:41 AM
But what if they do know about it? What if the child grows up and becomes a celebrity actress/popstar, and it becomes known that she is the child being abused in the pornography? Do you think that that woman, as an adult, would consent to to those pictures being published and available to anyone who wants to look at them?

She may know it was produced and published, but how does she know you're watching it?

The same logic applies to non-celebrities as well. So ownership of all child pornography should be illegal.

Should all pornography be illegal if the participants did not consent to it's publication or distribution? It isn't now. Hidden camera sex tapes are legal as long as one person knows it's being recorded. Can you demonstrate that those who anonymously downloaded the videos harmed the victim, and not only the individuals who produced and distributed it?

This also ignores the fact that the availability of child porn serves as an outlet for sexual energy of pedophiles and that it's strict ban only leads to more incidences of real world sexual assaults.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Quesi on June 08, 2012, 11:55:41 AM
Just for fun... what do you think of this woman? Purely based on her appearance, honestly, do you find her sexually attractive? (Assuming you are a heterosexual, straight male.)


I am not a "heterosexual, straight male" but I have an opinion nonetheless.

I think that she is a very pretty young girl, who is intentionally posed in an unnatural position that contorts her and makes her look powerless.   The pose is designed to make it unclear if she is wearing bathing suit bottoms or not.  She was instructed to part her lips (so as to appear longing) and to lower her face and raise her eyes in a submissive pose.  She is wearing a wet bathing white bathing suit top (which looks suspiciously like a wet training bra) in spite of the fact that her long hair surrounding the suit is dry, adding to the false and contrived nature of the photo.

I think it is a photo that would appeal to the kind of man who wants control over a submissive woman, (or girl, and that is very telling in itself) and has no interest in knowing anything about who she is and what she thinks and what she longs for. 

Her desires (and her real sexuality) are painfully absent from the photo. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Bad Pear on June 08, 2012, 12:02:18 PM
It isn't now. Hidden camera sex tapes are legal as long as one person knows it's being recorded.

FYI: This is highly dependent on the jurisdiction. If we're talking about America, some states require the consent of all parties involved. Also, whether or not the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy can come into play.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 08, 2012, 12:14:41 PM
I am not a "heterosexual, straight male" but I have an opinion nonetheless.

And what a predictably anti-man rant it was. Just what I was trying to avoid by qualifying my intended audience.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 08, 2012, 12:16:03 PM
FYI: This is highly dependent on the jurisdiction. If we're talking about America, some states require the consent of all parties involved. Also, whether or not the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy can come into play.

Yet either way, it's the producers and the distributors who are held accountable, not the downloaders.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Quesi on June 08, 2012, 12:19:12 PM
Thank you Joe, for smiting me, and reminding me that I was out of place.  I understand that you were not soliciting opinions from women.  I will sit quietly from now on, unless you ask for a woman's opinion on women's sexuality. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Bad Pear on June 08, 2012, 12:22:03 PM
One other thing: the distinction between the actual definition of pedophilia[1] and Joe's version[2] is largely based in public ignorance of the term. It's not all that dissimilar to the distinction between a scientific theory and a colloquial "theory".

In my hometown back in the States a year or so ago two men were arrested for engaging in sexual activity with a minor[3]. I knew all of them through the local theater that they and my wife were active in at the time. These men were not pedophiles. The law did not label them as such. The public did, albeit ignorantly. The law in such a case only went to age of consent, which is a separate issue.
 1. regarding prepubescent children
 2. regarding anyone under the local legal age of consent
 3. A young boy, somewhere between 14 and 16, I can't recall atm
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Bad Pear on June 08, 2012, 12:26:12 PM
I am not a "heterosexual, straight male" but I have an opinion nonetheless.

And what a predictably anti-man rant it was. Just what I was trying to avoid by qualifying my intended audience.

I am a heterosexual, straight male and I do not find Quesi's post to be the least bit misandrous.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 08, 2012, 12:27:56 PM
I'm a pedophile.
No, you're not.
I get what you're trying to do, but that's just playing word-games.
I wasn't trying to do anything except give and apply the medical definition, which is appropriate to this subject. I admitted that other definitions are far wider, particularly in the media.

Quote
Quote
As individuals, it makes sense for us to operate within the law of whatever country we're in. 
I'm not a big fan of the appeal to authority. I don't think laws are always right or should be blindly followed.
Neither do I. I merely meant that as general rule, it's sensible to modify one's behaviour according to whatever society you're in. Particularly where the consequences of breaking a specific law are severe. Case in point:
Quote
In 2008 I was returning home from an international flight when I was singled out for a 'random' inspection at border control... etc etc
That's an unfortunate episode, as you didn't actually break a law; the only thing you can do in future is not take dubious material through customs. (Was that Vietnam, by the way?) 

Quote
As long as you're agreeing that the thoughts themselves shouldn't be illegal.
Yes, I am.

Quote
I agree, there should be a line, but I think the age of consent should be lowered to the same age that a juvenile could be tried as an adult. Otherwise, it's just hypocrisy.
I wouldn't call it hypocrisy, merely illogical.

She may know it was produced and published, but how does she know you're watching it?
I don't see how that's relevant.

Quote
Should all pornography be illegal if the participants did not consent to it's publication or distribution? It isn't now.
As Bad Pear said, those situations should be covered by invasion of privacy laws.

Quote
This also ignores the fact that the availability of child porn serves as an outlet for sexual energy of pedophiles and that it's strict ban only leads to more incidences of real world sexual assaults.
That doesn't justify it, in my opinion.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Bad Pear on June 08, 2012, 12:32:06 PM
FYI: This is highly dependent on the jurisdiction. If we're talking about America, some states require the consent of all parties involved. Also, whether or not the individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy can come into play.

Yet either way, it's the producers and the distributors who are held accountable, not the downloaders.

Could you please describe for the court precisely how one downloads a file in the absence of a distributor of some kind? I am not saying that there cannot be exceptions, but does not the illegality of possession generally logically follow from the illegality of the distribution?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on June 08, 2012, 12:32:56 PM
One other thing: the distinction between the actual definition of pedophilia[1] and Joe's version[2] is largely based in public ignorance of the term. It's not all that dissimilar to the distinction between a scientific theory and a colloquial "theory".
 1. regarding prepubescent children
 2. regarding anyone under the local legal age of consent

And the media doesn't help at all with this, either.  For example, I remember seeing an ep of "Law & Order: SVU" some time back that featured a middle-aged man married to a 17-year-old girl.  The captain of the SVU called this "legalized pedophilia".  Umm, no... the "child" is seventeen.  A typical seventeen-year-old girl is fully sexually developed.  (Anyone familiar with the Tanner scale?)  That's not pedophilia, but the media typically portrays it as though it is.

I regard this as rather seriously problematic, at least in our own society.  When you have an atmosphere in which everyone is overtly "agreed" that being sexually attracted to anyone under the age of majority constitutes "pedophilila", you have an environment that is ripe for giving men neurotic complexes over their having perfectly normal desires and feelings.  I don't have the smallest doubt but that there are probably, quite literally, millions of men in America who go thru their day-to-day lives quietly thinking to themselves that they must be sick, twisted, or depraved, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 08, 2012, 12:36:55 PM
That's an unfortunate episode, as you didn't actually break a law; the only thing you can do is not take dubious material through customs in future. (Was that Vietnam, by the way?) 

Nope, there are lots of other things I can do. Like encrypt my entire hard drive for example.

It was China.

She may know it was produced and published, but how does she know you're watching it?
I don't see how that's relevant.
It's relevant because you said merely watching it anonymously causes her harm.

Quote
This also ignores the fact that the availability of child porn serves as an outlet for sexual energy of pedophiles and that it's strict ban only leads to more incidences of real world sexual assaults.
That doesn't justify it, in my opinion.

Which proves that the real reason it's illegal has nothing to do with protecting children.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 08, 2012, 12:43:10 PM
And the media doesn't help at all with this, either.
And neither does Joe by defining himself as a paedophile when he's not.


And Joe, I would seriously reconsider the wisdom of you announcing on a public forum under your real name that you are a paedophile.

Why are you doing this?

Considering that you are a professional photographer, is this a wise career move?

Seriously. What the f**k are you doing?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 08, 2012, 12:45:20 PM
Could you please describe for the court precisely how one downloads a file in the absence of a distributor of some kind?

Don't pretend to be dense. When does that ever win an argument? I never said there were no distributors, in fact I've specifically mentioned them several times, and I said I think they should face punishment. I'm referring to the top level distributors, who get the files directly from the abusers who produced them. I consider these people complicit in the abuse as they are in a position to stop it or report it.

I am not saying that there cannot be exceptions, but does not the illegality of possession generally logically follow from the illegality of the distribution?

A small amount of marijuana for personal use is legal (or at least decriminalized) in many countries, but the growers and the dealers still get busted. And again, more relevantly, leaked unauthorized sex tapes. Remember that female ESPN announcer who got photographed nude through her hotel door spyhole?[1] The guy who shot it got in trouble, but did any of the downloaders?
 1. With a spyhole reverser that you can buy online, in case you wondered.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 08, 2012, 12:49:05 PM
And Joe, I would seriously reconsider the wisdom of you announcing on a public forum under your real name that you are a paedophile.
Why are you doing this?
Considering that you are a professional photographer, is this a wise career move?
Seriously. What the f**k are you doing?

I live in China.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 08, 2012, 01:03:41 PM
Quote
I live in China.
Well, it's your life.

But you complained about to the Chinese customs treating you as a paedophile over your pornography, and now you're happily announcing to the world (including the Chinese authorities, who are already aware of you) that in fact you are a paedophile.

That doesn't seem very clever to me...
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 08, 2012, 03:46:19 PM
I am not a "heterosexual, straight male" but I have an opinion nonetheless.

And what a predictably anti-man rant it was. Just what I was trying to avoid by qualifying my intended audience.

How was that an anti-man rant?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Quesi on June 08, 2012, 06:46:38 PM
I am not a "heterosexual, straight male" but I have an opinion nonetheless.

And what a predictably anti-man rant it was. Just what I was trying to avoid by qualifying my intended audience.

I am a heterosexual, straight male and I do not find Quesi's post to be the least bit misandrous.

Thank you Bad Pear.  My post was certainly not written with misandrous intent. 

Timo, I think you will find what joebowers considers to be my “anti-man” rant in response #72. 

Joe had “qualified” his “audience” and stated in no uncertain terms that he was eliciting responses from “heterosexual straight males.”

When I replied, I violated the boundaries that he had set.  He made it very clear that he was not interested in the opinions of women.  Or gay men, for that matter.   He subsequently smited me and labeled me a “man hater.”  I have no intentions of even addressing that claim.  I think my posting history on this forum speaks for itself.  Just as joebowers posting history speaks for itself. 

But I would like to take a moment to address the op and subsequent posts on the topic of pedophilia. 

Pedophilia is about a power imbalance.  It is about a sexuality that resides in the realm of the adult/child relationship, in which the child has no option but to submit to the authority of the adult.  It is about an adult wanting a level of sexual control that he (and sometimes she) cannot obtain with an adult peer.  Pedophiles often exploit their real or perceived authority as respected uncles, priests, teachers, coaches, casting agents, or just simply as adults, who children who have been taught to trust and obey.

Pedophilia is a recognized psychiatric disorder.  Wikipedia says “Several researchers have reported correlations between pedophilia and certain psychological characteristics, such as low self-esteem[53][54] and poor social skills.[55] Cohen et al. (2002), studying child sex offenders, states that pedophiles have impaired interpersonal functioning and elevated passive-aggressiveness, as well as impaired self-concept. Regarding disinhibitory traits, pedophiles demonstrate elevated psychopathy and propensity for cognitive distortions. According to the authors, pathologic personality traits in pedophiles lend support to a hypothesis that such pathology is related to both motivation for and failure to inhibit pedophilic behavior.[56]”  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

Although it is important to note that not all victims of childhood sexual abuse become pedophiles, there is significant evidence that a disproportionate number of pedophiles were themselves victimized as children.  As so often happens, the abused becomes the abuser. 

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Graybeard on June 08, 2012, 07:25:20 PM
ive never used caps bc i simply dont want to waste time capping words so i can post faster
Unless you are using a mobile/cell phone to post, there is no difference in speed because you use one hand for the caps and the other for the letter... ; )

But to your question: Should we execute paedophiles?

At one time smallpox, the plague, TB, etc., were incurable and spread quickly, killing and disfiguring millions. Had our solution been to kill those who showed symptoms, those diseases could have been halted, but never quite eradicated and there would not really have been much incentive to find a cure.

If we kill the abnormal, why look for a cure?

Next point: Someone who suffers from schizophrenia imagines that another person is a monster. The schizophrenic kills that person because he believes that he is about to be eaten by a monster. Should we execute him? Or was the judicial decision in [wiki]M'Naghten[/wiki] correct and, if you are insane, you are not responsible for your crimes?

Next point: Why not just lock up the offender for a long time? I hear your experiences and an genuinely disturbed that such a thing should happen to someone. Has the perpetrator been convicted?

Next point: What happens if a child accuses an adult of assault, the adult is executed and then the child says, "I'm sorry, I made it all up."?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 08, 2012, 09:25:16 PM
Well, it's your life.

But you complained about to the Chinese customs treating you as a paedophile over your pornography, and now you're happily announcing to the world (including the Chinese authorities, who are already aware of you) that in fact you are a paedophile.

That doesn't seem very clever to me...

Uh, no. I said it was US border control who seized my equipment. It was the DHS that told everyone I was a pedophile. I was returning from China.

I didn't have time to fully answer your "Why are you doing this?" question last night, my wife was dragging me to bed. Now that I have a minute I should explain.

First, I'm not ashamed of something I had no choice in and can't change. That would be just a stupid waste of time.
Second, I haven't admitted to any illegal activity.
Third, regarding my career, nobody does background checks before hiring a photographer, and I doubt my clients (foreign editions of men's fashion magazines mostly) read this website and even if they did, I doubt they would care. The fashion industry is kind of built around guys who like young girls. And guys who like young guys for that matter.
Finally, the same reason that I use my real name and real photo on an atheism forum: hiding behind the veil of anonymity on the internet only serves to marginalize us. Nobody takes anyone in a mask seriously.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 08, 2012, 09:51:48 PM
He subsequently smited me and labeled me a “man hater.”

You are using quotation marks, but who are you quoting? You've attributed that to me, but I never said you were a "man hater". Please don't put words in my mouth. I said your comments were anti-man, that does not mean I believe you hate men. If you are going to quote me, do it accurately, or do it without quotation marks so people know you're using your words and not mine.

I never said I didn't value the opinion of women, but I was specifically asking the heterosexual males if they found the woman in the photo attractive. If I had uploaded the photo in another thread and told you it was my daughter at the pool you would probably have said it was cute, but knowing the context of this thread you attacked it. Your rant intimidated the men and tainted the results of my impromptu survey. Who could admit to finding the girl sexually attractive with your guilt trip hanging over their heads?

Pedophilia is about a power imbalance.

For me it certainly isn't, this is an over-generalization. I like strong, intelligent, independent girls. I don't find weakness attractive and I don't take pleasure in forcing anyone to do anything.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 08, 2012, 10:54:00 PM
Your rant intimidated the men and tainted the results of my impromptu survey. Who could admit to finding the girl sexually attractive with your guilt trip hanging over their heads?

So to clarify, if a woman offers up an opinion that might make a man feel guilty in some way, she is being "anti-man"?  I really don't understand your point.

What was it that she said that was against men?

For me it certainly isn't, this is an over-generalization. I like strong, intelligent, independent girls. I don't find weakness attractive and I don't take pleasure in forcing anyone to do anything.

I think we've already established that, technically speaking, you're not a pedophile.  You're not primarily attracted to prepubescent children.  As such, any medical research that relates to pedophiles is not research that pertains to you.  You're right that society at large doesn't often understand that distinction, just as they don't often understand the distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.   But to bring that confusion into a discussion of medical research is unhelpful.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 08, 2012, 11:00:23 PM
This is not a discussion of medical research. Perhaps the OP should clarify his definition of "peadohpiles", but regardless, I'm using the definition most commonly accepted by society, not one I had to look up and copy from a technical resource.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 08, 2012, 11:05:29 PM
What are you talking about?  Quesi's post just cited a wikipedia post, which itself cited medical research.  Did you read what it was you were responding to?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 08, 2012, 11:16:17 PM
So to clarify, if a woman offers up an opinion that might make a man feel guilty in some way, she is being "anti-man"?  I really don't understand your point.

This is not clarification, it is obfuscation. You are intentionally twisting my words. You know full well that I didn't say "if a woman offers up an opinion that might make a man feel guilty in some way, she is being 'anti-man'".

Her comments could be extended to almost any photo of an attractive woman in a sexy pose or sexy outfit. She is saying that this type of photo objectifies women and that it was intended to demean and dehumanize the model. Knowing full well that men are the target audience of this type of photo, she is implying that any man who likes the photo is a misogynist and does not respect women.

Frankly it's a very tame photo and she is exploiting the context of the conversation to put a guilt trip on men. If she came across the same photo in a post about our family trip to Disneyland, do you honestly think it would have provoked the same diatribe?

And this is precisely when I directed the question of the woman's sexual attractiveness to straight men, as I knew someone would try to derail the topic and taint the results.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 08, 2012, 11:19:28 PM
What are you talking about?  Quesi's post just cited a wikipedia post, which itself cited medical research.  Did you read what it was you were responding to?

Quesi is not the OP. Judging by the lack of correct spelling and grammar displayed by the OP, I'm going to assume we are using the laymen's definition of pedophile, not that of the mental health community.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on June 08, 2012, 11:29:41 PM
The photo was not strictly "anti-man".  It was, however, "anti-any-man-who-finds-this-photo-attractive".

That's not you, is it Timo?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 08, 2012, 11:48:41 PM
Her comments could be extended to almost any photo of an attractive woman in a sexy pose or sexy outfit. She is saying that this type of photo objectifies women and that it was intended to demean and dehumanize the model. Knowing full well that men are the target audience of this type of photo, she is implying that any man who likes the photo is a misogynist and does not respect women.

A couple of things.

1.) Claiming that a given photograph objectifies women and is therefore misogynist isn't "anti-man" per se, unless you want to also claim that all men objectify women and are therefore misogynists.  Or something.  And I'm not even sure that it's always misogynistic to objectify a woman.  But maybe I'm a bad feminist.  I don't know.
2.) Quesi never claimed that the photo was misogynistic outright.  To be sure, there's a judgmental tone in her post that I can't completely co-sign.  (Age of consent questions aside, I'm not here to judge anyone that likes sexually submissive women or the sexually submissive women that like to be dominated.)  Though, in this case, I did find the photo to be a little off-putting for some of the reasons she articulated.  So, to go back to this question:

If she came across the same photo in a post about our family trip to Disneyland, do you honestly think it would have provoked the same diatribe?

Maybe.  Maybe not.  I don't know.  Like I said, I found the photo a little off-putting..  That said, I'm not sure that would even pop into my head were it not for you posting this photo in this context.  I'm not sure what the problem with this is supposed to be.

Quesi is not the OP. Judging by the lack of correct spelling and grammar displayed by the OP, I'm going to assume we are using the laymen's definition of pedophile, not that of the mental health community.

If you're responding to the OP, then why are you quoting Quesi?  Am I weird for assuming that you are responding to the person that you're quoting?

The photo was not strictly "anti-man".  It was, however, "anti-any-man-who-finds-this-photo-attractive".

That's not you, is it Timo?

Nah, but I'd rather not get too deep into why exactly that is, or the ins and outs of my sexual preferences.  The long and short of it is that I didn't find that girl sexually attractive and probably wouldn't have even if she were a few years older.  So yeah...
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Bad Pear on June 08, 2012, 11:55:08 PM
So Joe, do you tie the definition of pedophilia to the age of consent in a particular country? If the cut-off is not puberty, then what is it? At what age (of your object) do you stop considering yourself a pedophile?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on June 09, 2012, 02:44:45 AM
Nah, but I'd rather not get too deep into why exactly that is, or the ins and outs of my sexual preferences.  The long and short of it is that I didn't find that girl sexually attractive and probably wouldn't have even if she were a few years older.  So yeah...

Apologies for bringing it up; whether or not you, yourself, are attracted to that image is beside the point anyway.  The troublesome part of Quesi's post is this (emphasis mine):

Quote from: Quesi
I think it is a photo that would appeal to the kind of man who wants control over a submissive woman, (or girl, and that is very telling in itself) and has no interest in knowing anything about who she is and what she thinks and what she longs for

Quesi is suggesting that those of us who experience a sexual attraction to such an image likely fit the description she gave.  Very teling about whom?  Well, about the audience who's attracted, of course.

As a man who experienced involuntary sexual arousal upon viewing that image, I take Quesi's post to mean that I am a dominating, shallow partner who doesn't give a rat's ass about how his partner feels.

This all may not have been Quesi's intent.  But that's how it came across, and I don't think I'm totally out to lunch for having read it that way.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 09, 2012, 03:36:31 AM
As a man who experienced involuntary sexual arousal upon viewing that image, I take Quesi's post to mean that I am a dominating, shallow partner who doesn't give a rat's ass about how his partner feels.

This all may not have been Quesi's intent.  But that's how it came across, and I don't think I'm totally out to lunch for having read it that way.

Considering that's exactly what she wrote, as plain as day, in her own words, I'm a little dissapointed at those who are choosing to interpret it otherwise.

I was trying to use the photo to demonstrate that most heterosexual men would be labeled as pedophiles, but after her rant, people will look at the photo through the filter of her negative assessment of it. Basically what she's done is poisoned the well.

It would be like if she showed up to a child's birthday party just as the kids were about to hit the piñata and launched into a tirade about how the piñata was made by some child laborers in a Mexican sweatshop and how the candy inside it will rot their teeth and lead to a lifetime of obesity and diabetes.

How are the kids supposed to enjoy the piñata after that? The truth is she doesn't know anything about the piñata, where it was made, or what kind of candy was inside it. She's just made some wild guesses and accusations and ruined the party.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 09, 2012, 03:51:14 AM
So Joe, do you tie the definition of pedophilia to the age of consent in a particular country? If the cut-off is not puberty, then what is it? At what age (of your object) do you stop considering yourself a pedophile?

I think an attraction to girls who have reached puberty and begun to develop secondary sex characteristics (breasts, pubic hair, etc.) is normal and healthy. However, society in general would still label these men pedophiles, throw them in jail, ruin their lives, take away their careers and families, and make them register as a sex offender simply for VIEWING sexual depictions of these pubescent young girls, even drawings or stories, even when there is no real victim.

There is simply no sense is throwing out the medical definition when it's the societal definition that is putting people behind bars.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Aerial on June 09, 2012, 06:27:11 AM
Ok so viewing these girls is one thing.^ Should these men who enjoy viewing, say, a 17 yr old with buxom features, should these men be aware that girls that age are still children at heart? (many of them are)....does that matter?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Quesi on June 09, 2012, 06:44:30 AM
First of all, I cannot verbalize how offended I am by a discussion of female sexuality (on a mixed gender forum), in which women are informed by a forum member, that we are prohibited from participating.  And that is probably why I responded as harshly as I did.  I usually use more diplomatic language.

And joe, I understand that you are angry that I did not submit to your demand that I (and other people of my gender, and gay men, and perhaps bisexual men) refrain from commenting on your photo. 

And I also understand that you are insulted that I did not give you the positive feedback about your work that you were clearly soliciting.  Perhaps I should have held my tongue, as I have done on other occasions in which you presented photos of women in submissive, contorted poses on this forum.  But I am afraid that I really do not like you photos of women, and this time I just didn’t hold back.

I must say that you do have an excellent eye for lighting, and clearly strong technical skills.  But I find your photos to be caricatures of women that are meant to capture women’s sexuality, but which, in my subjective opinion, miss the mark.  When I look at this photo, it feels contrived and false.  I cannot imagine any woman who, in a sexy moment, would want to be the young woman in that picture.    And on a certain level, I suspect that you know that.  Which is, I suspect, why you choose to specifically exclude women’s feedback on the photo.

You wrote “Her comments could be extended to almost any photo of an attractive woman in a sexy pose or sexy outfit.”  No.  Trust me.  I’m sure most women, at various times in our lives, have looked at photos of sexy women, and wanted to “be” that sexy woman.  The whole fashion industry is based on the premise that women study photos of sexy women and extract and adapt components of what they consider to be sexy in the photo and incorporate them into their lives. 

**************************************************

In spite of the fact that I have recently been smited for offering “unsolicited” feedback on this thread, I would like to offer some somewhat off-topic, unsolicited female words of wisdom to the heterosexual men (especially the young men) who are not getting laid as much as you would like. 

You have been conditioned to misread women’s sexual cues.  Remember that woman on the barstool a while back?  It seemed to be going really well.  And then you said something “really hot” and she parted her lips and lowered her face just a little and looked up at you?  Maybe she tilted her head a little bit.  Her facial expression and pose was not unlike that of the woman in this photo.  You see, she wasn’t submitting to your awesome manliness.  She was recoiling.  But you didn’t catch it.  You reached over to her or said something even “hotter” and the next thing you know, she was off to the bathroom and then clustered with her girlfriends and avoiding you the rest of the evening.  You’re confused and disappointed and pissed. 

It isn’t really all your fault.  Your whole life you have been bombarded by images of “sexy” women, usually really young women, with a specific set of facial expressions and body language that represent male misconceptions of female sexuality. 

**************************************************

When I have more time to focus, I’ll come back and write a little more about my understanding of pedophilia and innate power imbalances. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on June 09, 2012, 07:26:41 AM
Ok so viewing these girls is one thing.^ Should these men who enjoy viewing, say, a 17 yr old with buxom features, should these men be aware that girls that age are still children at heart? (many of them are)....does that matter?

Yes, they should, and absolutely, it does matter.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Aerial on June 09, 2012, 07:40:36 AM
Ok ^Thank you because I think that is the point with some of this. People have sexual reactions sure. They also have responsibility to act with maturity if they are mature.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 09, 2012, 08:07:28 AM
...prohibited from participating...
...submit to your demand...

Aah, always the flare for the dramatic. Hyperbole, exaggeration, stretching the truth. You were not prohibited, nor did I make any demands. I asked a question that wasn't directed at you, and politely pointed out that the question was directed at a specific group of people to avoid someone tainting the results and derailing the thread, which you've done.

It would be like standing by while a food vendor was conducting a taste test for a new product specifically engineered to appeal to men and louding proclaiming to everyone in line "it tastes like shit." While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and they would have no right to demand your silence[1], I think you could see how they would be upset. While it may indeed taste like shit to you, others may have liked it, but the results of the survey are now invalid because of your outburst.
 1. As nobody did, despite your claim.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 09, 2012, 08:33:31 AM
By that logic you shouldn't have asked anyone to post their opinions, but rather send them by PM, or vote in an anonymous poll.
EDIT: Secret BM.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Quesi on June 09, 2012, 08:34:18 AM


I think an attraction to girls who have reached puberty and begun to develop secondary sex characteristics (breasts, pubic hair, etc.) is normal and healthy.

I would like to point out that parents of young girls are painfully aware of the fact that puberty (in the US) is setting in younger and younger.  There is concern (perhaps valid, perhaps not) that chemicals in soaps and shampoos and lotions, and perhaps even hormones in milk are contributing factors.  But many attentive moms of little girls read ingredients carefully and perhaps overspend on "organic" products in hopes of protecting our little ones from the prospects of a childhood cut short.

This is an article which  addresses the realities and some of the current theories.   http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/21/health/he-puberty21 

And here is a pediatric advice piece assuring the mom of a 9 year old that it is perfectly normal for her child to undergoing the changes associated with puberty.  http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/conditions/a/early_puberty.htm

8 and 9 year olds are most certainly not ready to negotiate the world of adult sexual interactions, in spite of the fact that they might have budding breasts and a little public hair and perhaps even menstruation.  Nor are 13 year olds.  Or 15 year olds.  While experimentation with peers might be disconcerting to parents, I don't think it is necessarily unhealthy if the participants share trust and are able control the actions, set limits, and have ultimate control over their own bodies.  Obviously, strong sexual education is important.  But just because a 15 year old kid has had sex ed (and thinks she knows much more about sex than any generation preceeding her) and has been menstruating for more than a third of her life, that does not mean that she has the social or emotional tools to have a healthy sexual interaction with a 35 year old man. 

And I maintain that the 35 year old man who seeks out the 15 year old girl is doing so because he knows that he has emotional control over her that he probably could never have with a peer. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 09, 2012, 08:50:21 AM
I think it would be much less harmful for a teenage girl to experiment with an older man than with her teenage male peers.

Teenage boys are going to lie, cheat, and steal their way into the girls' panties, rush her into sex before she's ready, have sex without a condom, get the girl pregnant and be unable to care for the baby, that is if they even stick around long enough to see it born.

A 30-something man is much more responsible and grounded. He is emotionally secure enough that he doesn't need to lie his way into her bed. He is patient, willing to take it slow. He is much more likely to use a condom or other form of contraception. He isn't going to leave her right after sex, because he wants a relationship. If he does get her pregnant he is in a better position to be a father, both emotionally and financially.

These are broad generalizations, but I would certainly say the average 30-something man is more stable, patient, caring, and mature than the average 15 year old boy.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 09, 2012, 08:51:26 AM
EDIT: Secret BM.

Every time you type BM I read it as 'bowel movement' and giggle. This made me laugh out loud.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Aerial on June 09, 2012, 09:00:51 AM
Oh dear jb...you say a 30 something will treat a 15 yr old better than another 15yr old? Thing is that in our society 15yr olds are supposed to learn from each other...not elders.
I see your point, I really do, I had a best friend who thought the same way. But he was gay and thought it about 15yr old boys. Better to be treated gently by an older wiser dude. well the sentiment might be nice, but it is not really considering the teenager. Even though you might think it is.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Aerial on June 09, 2012, 09:07:06 AM
Another thing I want to say on this topic. My son is friends with a convicted sex offender. My son is 20, his friend is 24 and was found with underage porn on his computer. My son has told me of his friend's desires...not for children but for just underage...like 14 15.
Now this boy...I consider 24 to be a boy...is getting no help whatsoever. My son tells me how this boy self harms to get into hospital, they let him out the next day. No follow up.
I am appalled that society just ignores these people. My son has more care for this boy than any health services...it is wrong wrong wrong.
kill these people? Ok such a quick fix. I understand that pedophiles severely hurt people. I also understand that if they got help a bit younger...they might be able to overcome their issues.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 09, 2012, 10:11:48 AM
kill these people? Ok such a quick fix.

How is this a quick fix? It's not like if you rounded up and killed all the pedophiles that there would never be any more in the future. That's not how it works. Just as there have always and will always be gays, there have always and will always be pedophiles.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 09, 2012, 10:16:18 AM
Oh dear jb...you say a 30 something will treat a 15 yr old better than another 15yr old? Thing is that in our society 15yr olds are supposed to learn from each other...not elders.
I see your point, I really do, I had a best friend who thought the same way. But he was gay and thought it about 15yr old boys. Better to be treated gently by an older wiser dude. well the sentiment might be nice, but it is not really considering the teenager. Even though you might think it is.

I posted a detailed explanation of why I believed it, and you simply state that I'm wrong without demonstrating why.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Aerial on June 09, 2012, 10:19:42 AM
Oh dear jb...you say a 30 something will treat a 15 yr old better than another 15yr old? Thing is that in our society 15yr olds are supposed to learn from each other...not elders.
I see your point, I really do, I had a best friend who thought the same way. But he was gay and thought it about 15yr old boys. Better to be treated gently by an older wiser dude. well the sentiment might be nice, but it is not really considering the teenager. Even though you might think it is.

I posted a detailed explanation of why I believed it, and you simply state that I'm wrong without demonstrating why.
Did I state you were wrong?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Aerial on June 09, 2012, 10:20:57 AM
kill these people? Ok such a quick fix.

How is this a quick fix? It's not like if you rounded up and killed all the pedophiles that there would never be any more in the future. That's not how it works. Just as there have always and will always be gays, there have always and will always be pedophiles.

I was not being serious...I dunno what you are talking bout
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 09, 2012, 10:24:37 AM
Another thing I want to say on this topic. My son is friends with a convicted sex offender. My son is 20, his friend is 24 and was found with underage porn on his computer. My son has told me of his friend's desires...not for children but for just underage...like 14 15.
Now this boy...I consider 24 to be a boy...is getting no help whatsoever. My son tells me how this boy self harms to get into hospital, they let him out the next day. No follow up.
I am appalled that society just ignores these people. My son has more care for this boy than any health services...it is wrong wrong wrong.
kill these people? Ok such a quick fix. I understand that pedophiles severely hurt people. I also understand that if they got help a bit younger...they might be able to overcome their issues.

The government doesn't want to help them, it doesn't care about protecting children. The government wants to put them in prison to make money. Private prisons charge the taxpayers more than twice what the state-run facilities do, and the profits go into the pockets of the shareholders. Who are the biggest shareholders? Why, the retirement funds of our lawmakers of course! Why do you think the US has more people in prison per capita than any other country, including China or North Korea? Why do you think the government is still fighting a war on drugs? And yes, why do you think they put people in jail for sexual drawings or stories about children, even when there is no actual child victim? Putting people behind bars puts money in the pockets of our leaders.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 09, 2012, 10:26:21 AM
Congrats on your 666th post, you baby eating atheist!
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 09, 2012, 10:29:04 AM
Quesi is suggesting that those of us who experience a sexual attraction to such an image likely fit the description she gave.  Very teling about whom?  Well, about the audience who's attracted, of course.

As a man who experienced involuntary sexual arousal upon viewing that image, I take Quesi's post to mean that I am a dominating, shallow partner who doesn't give a rat's ass about how his partner feels.

No shots but that photo is on some Sports Illustrated for Kids Swimsuit Edition shit though.

He is much more likely to use a condom or other form of contraception. He isn't going to leave her right after sex, because he wants a relationship. If he does get her pregnant he is in a better position to be a father, both emotionally and financially.

Wait, what?

How many thirty something year old men are actually interested in actually pursuing a serious relationship with a 15 year old though?  And even if they actually were interested in that, wouldn't they have more incentive to hide or to minimize the relationship than a younger man?  After all, no one's going to say that two fifteen year olds aren't age appropriate partners.  And they probably (but not always) will keep law enforcement out of that.

These are broad generalizations, but I would certainly say the average 30-something man is more stable, patient, caring, and mature than the average 15 year old boy.

But would that be true of the average thirty something that's actually interested in pursuing a 15 year old?  I mean, honestly I think I understand why men might be physically attracted to very young girls.  But dude, I know 15 year old girls.  And honestly, my take is that if you're trying to be with one of them on some boyfriend shit, as a grown man, you're probably pretty damn immature....or you're trying to exploit the sort of power dynamic that Quesi was alluding to.  Or both.

I mean, I guess I can almost understand where you're coming from in that young men can be kind of terrible.  And I speak from experience, being one of those formerly terrible young men.  So there's that.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on June 09, 2012, 10:47:40 AM
Quesi, you never addressed my own post.  How am I to take your comment on my own sexuality and attitudes toward my female partners?  Should I give you my girlfriend's E-mail, so that you might better inform her of what kind of partner I am?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 09, 2012, 10:49:58 AM
No shots but that photo is on some Sports Illustrated for Kids Swimsuit Edition shit though.

What does "no shots" mean?

How many thirty something year old men are actually interested in actually pursuing a serious relationship with a 15 year old though?

How common was this type of age disparity before modern marriage age of consent laws? How many would pursue it if it weren't illegal?

After all, no one's going to say that two fifteen year olds aren't age appropriate partners.

I just said that I don't think they are. For the same reason that children should have an adult with them in the car while they're learning to drive, I think teenagers shouldn't be experimenting with sex with each other.  That's like the blind leading the blind.

These are broad generalizations, but I would certainly say the average 30-something man is more stable, patient, caring, and mature than the average 15 year old boy.

But would that be true of the average thirty something that's actually interested in pursuing a 15 year old?  I mean, honestly I think I understand why men might be physically attracted to very young girls.  But dude, I know 15 year old girls.  And honestly, my take is that if you're trying to be with one of them on some boyfriend shit, as a grown man, you're probably pretty damn immature....or you're trying to exploit the sort of power dynamic that Quesi was alluding to.  Or both.

Not every teenager is an immature idiot. Especially the farther you get from the United States and England. I know some very grown up teenagers and I know some very childish adults. The youngest girl I ever dated (16) was far more mature and responsible than my current 27 year old wife.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Quesi on June 09, 2012, 11:13:08 AM
Quesi, you never addressed my own post.  How am I to take your comment on my own sexuality and attitudes toward my female partners?  Should I give you my girlfriend's E-mail, so that you might better inform her of what kind of partner I am?

As I stated in my post this morning, I think that many men are socialized to misread women's cues, and I consider images like the one in the photo the joe posted to be an example of the sorts of images that lead to that socialization.  I personally would not be interested in a man who was turned on by that sort of image, because I think that it is a sign of that type of socialization.  But perhaps I put more emphasis than most on issues of power equity.

But I think your gf would be better served by joining the forum! 

I have a little girl who desperately wants to go to the Hall of Science, and I apologize for a quick and sloppy response.  I will be back to this thread later. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on June 09, 2012, 11:22:19 AM
So you stand by your insulting and inaccurate characterization of what I'm like in real life.  Now I know.

(you said more than you say you said; you made comments on things other than how I've been socialized to read cues)
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Seppuku on June 09, 2012, 11:22:27 AM
Quote from: Joebbowers
Teenage boys are going to lie, cheat, and steal their way into the girls' panties, rush her into sex before she's ready, have sex without a condom, get the girl pregnant and be unable to care for the baby, that is if they even stick around long enough to see it born.

A 30-something man is much more responsible and grounded. He is emotionally secure enough that he doesn't need to lie his way into her bed. He is patient, willing to take it slow. He is much more likely to use a condom or other form of contraception. He isn't going to leave her right after sex, because he wants a relationship. If he does get her pregnant he is in a better position to be a father, both emotionally and financially.

Not necessarily true. A 30-something man can be exactly like that 15 year old boy. A 30-something man might with to take advantage of a young girl in a vulnerable position and may even lie, cheat and steal his way in, he might not be interested in her consent, he might just want to manipulate her sexuality so he can have sex with her. 30-something men can be horrible people. 15 year old boys can be a lot more respectful, kind hearted and mature than you give them credit for.

I wouldn't try and stroke people with the same brush. As I'm sure you don't like it that paedophiles are all painted with the same brush - people who take advantage of innocent kids.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timtheskeptic on June 09, 2012, 11:36:39 AM
I don't think there should be a child porn industry, it would be taking advantage of children and even if possession is legalised, it just means they're legalising the market for it.

    I agree 100%.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, how do you feel about films that are created purely with CGI (no human actors)?

Well i personally have no problem with that as kids aren't being used. I personally am disgusted at the idea of kids being sexually assualted or used as sexual gradification. CGI does not do harm i think.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 09, 2012, 11:38:49 AM
What does "no shots" mean?

It's basically "no disrespect," which will obviously preface something that's disrespectful.  I thought the meaning of my hippity hop (c)rap music slang was pretty clear from the context though.

How common was this type of age disparity before modern marriage age of consent laws? How many would pursue it if it weren't illegal?

Exceedingly common.  Though I'm not sure that I want to take my cues on sexuality or gender roles more broadly based on what dudes were doing prior to the sexual revolution in this country.  As a man, I'm not trying to dominate my woman like that, regardless of her age.  Patriarchy is not what's really good.

I just said that I don't think they are. For the same reason that children should have an adult with them in the car while they're learning to drive, I think teenagers shouldn't be experimenting with sex with each other.  That's like the blind leading the blind.

Wait, what?

I think you just articulated why a relationship between an adult and a child of that sort is a terrible, no good, very bad idea.  Children look to adults as authority figures, as experts in the world that they are just begining to learn to find their place in.  Just as a child learning to drive would assume that they are being taught the norms of driving, a child learning about sex from an adult would assume that they are being taught the norms of sexuality and of sexual relationships.  I just find it hard to conceive of such a relationship being non-exploitative.  But maybe that's my issue?

Not every teenager is an immature idiot. Especially the farther you get from the United States and England. I know some very grown up teenagers and I know some very childish adults. The youngest girl I ever dated (16) was far more mature and responsible than my current 27 year old wife.

I never said that teenagers were immature idiots.  I said that they're immature.  They are.  They're teenagers.  They're by definition immature.  I think I should also note that I find it hilarious that you are very quick to appeal to US standards or to the feelings or behavior "average" US citizen when it suits you, but you are just as quick to throw them aside when it contradicts your argument. 


Peace to intellectual honesty
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timtheskeptic on June 09, 2012, 11:42:32 AM
Just for fun... what do you think of this woman? Purely based on her appearance, honestly, do you find her sexually attractive? (Assuming you are a heterosexual, straight male.)


I would say she is beautiful, but i'm guessing she's not of age, but i can be wrong.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 09, 2012, 11:52:41 AM
Well, it's your life.

But you complained about to the Chinese customs treating you as a paedophile over your pornography, and now you're happily announcing to the world (including the Chinese authorities, who are already aware of you) that in fact you are a paedophile.

That doesn't seem very clever to me...

Uh, no. I said it was US border control who seized my equipment. It was the DHS that told everyone I was a pedophile. I was returning from China.
Ah right; you said it happened when you went "home", and I thought your home was somewhere in SE Asia. Further confusion when you I asked you whether you were referring to Vietnam as your home, and you replied no, you were referring to China.

Anyway, you meant the US. OK. So I'm amazed at the behaviour of the DHS. If they didn't have any evidence to charge you with a crime, then how can they justify contacting your friends and acquaintances and spreading serious allegations about you? Isn't that a law against that?

Quote
I didn't have time to fully answer your "Why are you doing this?" question last night, my wife was dragging me to bed. Now that I have a minute I should explain.

First, I'm not ashamed of something I had no choice in and can't change. That would be just a stupid waste of time.
i'm not saying you should be ashamed.
Quote
Second, I haven't admitted to any illegal activity.
Hmm... which immediately suggests the question of whether you've committed any illegal activity. You have said that you don't think that "laws are always right or should be blindly followed".

Quote
Third, regarding my career, nobody does background checks before hiring a photographer, and I doubt my clients (foreign editions of men's fashion magazines mostly) read this website and even if they did, I doubt they would care.
Well, why don't you look at it from the perspective of a young model's parents?

If I had a 13-year-old daughter taking her first steps in a modelling career, I wouldn't want her to spend any time with a self-confessed 'paedophile' photographer who would be happy to seduce her if he could. And I wouldn't want her to sign with any agency which knowingly employed such a photographer.

I'm guessing that most parents would share my feelings on that.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 09, 2012, 12:05:37 PM
I never said I'd seduce a 13 year old if I could. Find her attractive? Sure. Fantasize about it? Sure. But I wouldn't do anything that I felt would harm her or that I thought she couldn't fully comprehend and consent to.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 09, 2012, 12:18:14 PM
Quote
I never said I'd seduce a 13 year old if I could.
You haven't said that you wouldn't.

And you've certainly implied that you would, if the circumstances were right i.e. if, in your opinion, the girl was emotionally mature enough to consent.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timtheskeptic on June 09, 2012, 12:19:55 PM
the problem i find about pedophilia is that it makes it unlikely to have a good, decent relationship. What about those who goes for this one child or preteen and then later goes to another after they grew up? Also, i feel that the sexual act between a child and an adult would mess the child's mind. What pisses me off is those who use pedophilia in comparison to homosexuality or to say that they, gays and lesbians, are pedophiles. As i've made a post about it before, homosexuality is between the same sex couples who are of age and can develope a loving relationship. The only harms that can come from it is no different from that of heterosexual couples. I'm not sure how an adult can develop a Romantic or sexual relationship with a preteen or a child.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 09, 2012, 12:51:58 PM
8 and 9 year olds are most certainly not ready to negotiate the world of adult sexual interactions, in spite of the fact that they might have budding breasts and a little public hair and perhaps even menstruation.  Nor are 13 year olds.  Or 15 year olds. 
I think this is cultural bias on your part, Quesi.

The age of consent in Sweden, Denmark and France is 15.
In Germany, Austria and Italy, 14.
Spain, 13.

Are you saying that all these countries have got it wrong?

I'd also point out that in Denmark and Sweden 15-year-olds can marry (with parental or court consent). And become parents, if they want to. Are the authorities wrong to allow this?

So there are many people who disagree with your assertions - unless of course you were referring to Americans only.

Gnu.

PS I'd also like to say that I agree with the point that Azdgari is making. Your deconstruction of Joe's photo drew various conclusions about anyone who found that girl sexually attractive. That's what Azd is complaining about, and you haven't really addressed his point (actually, you don't seem to understand his point).
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 09, 2012, 12:58:23 PM
@Tim

Nah, the comparison is there.  The similarity is that, whatever the prevailing view of society is, they feel the way that they feel regardless.  We're talking about sexual orientation and not some decision that one can make consciously.  I think that the difference is that there is a good reason for pedophiles not to act on their impulses, reasons that most pedophiles would acknowledge as valid, while there isn't a good reason for homosexuals not act on their impulses...unless they also like younger boys.

Also, it's important to recognize that the definition of child is not one that has been hard and fast over the course of human history.  I mean, am I the only one that was watching Game of Thrones and feeling bad for Sansa because it was discovered that she was menstruating?  She's a woman now!  I don't know where you people are getting your history from.

But yeah...
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 09, 2012, 02:22:55 PM
ok i will do exactly that. firstly i was molested when i was young by two different people who i dony even know and secondly bc its just wrong to do that shit to kids.

Well first,you have to distinguish the people involved by what they do:

1) a person "attracted to children" who has never done anything illegal

2) A person who obtains child porn but has never direct,y hsrmed a kid

3) a person who actively seeks and pays for child porn.

4) a person who molests a child by touching

5) a rapist

6) a person ho produces child porn and or profits from it

6) a rapist/murderer of children

In my opinion, level 6 deserves the death penalty.

Other than that, the more severe the crime, the worse the punishment. I would want a way where all of the classes except class 1 were denied jobs with access to children.

Class 1, amounts to thought crime.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 09, 2012, 02:29:00 PM
I don't think there should be a child porn industry, it would be taking advantage of children and even if possession is legalised, it just means they're legalising the market for it.

    I agree 100%.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here, how do you feel about films that are created purely with CGI (no human actors)?

This sounds dicey to me. one can argue it encourages child rape and thus say it should be illegal but i dont know.

In canada we had nonerotic art depicting child rape that had an intent to express the exytence of the problem.

I think, the person who produced the srt was sincere or i assume so.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on June 09, 2012, 02:33:22 PM
PS I'd also like to say that I agree with the point that Azdgari is making. Your deconstruction of Joe's photo drew various conclusions about anyone who found that girl sexually attractive. That's what Azd is complaining about, and you haven't really addressed his point (actually, you don't seem to understand his point).

Thanks, Gnu.  The irony is that I'm strongly feminist, politically, and that the characterization Quesi gave would draw reactions ranging from puzzled stares to outright laughter from those I know, especially among those who are a part of the womens' issues groups at my university.

Then again, I suppose Quesi knows best...
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 09, 2012, 02:46:00 PM
I think that she is a very pretty young girl, who is intentionally posed in an unnatural position that contorts her and makes her look powerless.   The pose is designed to make it unclear if she is wearing bathing suit bottoms or not.  She was instructed to part her lips (so as to appear longing) and to lower her face and raise her eyes in a submissive pose.  She is wearing a wet bathing white bathing suit top (which looks suspiciously like a wet training bra) in spite of the fact that her long hair surrounding the suit is dry, adding to the false and contrived nature of the photo.

I can understand wby the photo in question disturbs you.

The photogrspher in question sounds unethical at the very least and the parents must be nuts.

That said, it doesnt sound like child porn. The fact that a pedophile might get off on it doesnt make it porn.

I have no clue how the laws can deal with casesnlike this withiut also labeling non sexual things that others sexualize as being porn too.


Several of your assertions were a bit excessive, "she was acting submissive, parting her lips, etc, etc". People do these things and it is up to the beholder whether or not to sexualize them.

By your views, a show aimed at teens like Degrassi, discussing issues lke teen aged pregnancy would also be child porn. A swim meet could be child porn
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 09, 2012, 02:59:03 PM
A 30-something man is much more responsible and grounded. He is emotionally secure enough that he doesn't need to lie his way into her bed. He is patient, willing to take it slow. He is much more likely to use a condom or other form of contraception. He isn't going to leave her right after sex, because he wants a relationship. If he does get her pregnant he is in a better position to be a father, both emotionally and financially.

These are broad generalizations, but I would certainly say the average 30-something man is more stable, patient, caring, and mature than the average 15 year old boy.

The average 30 year old man doesnt seduce 15 year olds. It is not like one cannot find "young lookiing" adults who are actually legal. I mean, if there are 15 year olds who "look 18", probably the converse is true.

If the 30 old had self control, was mature, responsible, he woujld be chasing somebody who is legal.

It is not ok for another 15 year old to seduce a 15 year old, it is just that you casnt really stop it without becoming draconian.

In our society, a 15 year old is best focused on education
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 09, 2012, 03:04:11 PM
If the 30 old had self control, was mature, responsible, he woujld be chasing somebody who is legal.

rickymooston, I want you to really think about what pedophilia is, and why "self-control" or "maturity" or "responsibility" would allow/force someone to be sexually attracted to someone else.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Quesi on June 09, 2012, 08:37:36 PM
First of all, I would like to apologize to anyone who was offended by the content of the third paragraph in my original post on this thread.  Human sexuality is a complex reality, and I believe that my profile of “who” the photo would appeal to was an over simplification.  It was not my intention to offend the heterosexual men on this forum who were simply aroused by the pretty girl in the photo.   

I stand by every other word in the post. (which was reply #72) and I challenge anyone to find any inaccuracies in my observations.  Other than one small typo. 

I also stand by my statements in post number #88.

Like to look at sexy pictures of beautiful women?  Do you think that the pictures that you like to look at represent real, beautiful female sexuality? 

Here is a little test that you can conduct yourself if you are unsure if the pose is really sexy, or some contrived male misconception of a woman’s sexuality.  Imagine yourself in that pose. (Make appropriate adjustments for male anatomy.)  Then ask yourself, would you, could you, feel sexy in that physical position?  If the answer is no, it is pretty safe to assume that the woman doesn’t feel sexy in that position either, and that this is not an accurate portrait of female sexuality. You’ve probably been duped. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 10, 2012, 12:07:03 AM
I can understand wby the photo in question disturbs you.

The photogrspher in question sounds unethical at the very least and the parents must be nuts.

You're only saying that because of her comments. If you had seen the same photo on a coworkers Facebook page with the title "our daughter by the pool in Disneyland" you would have thought nothing bad about it.

I think that she is a very pretty young girl, who is intentionally posed in an unnatural position that contorts her and makes her look powerless. The pose is designed to make it unclear if she is wearing bathing suit bottoms or not.  She was instructed to part her lips (so as to appear longing) and to lower her face and raise her eyes in a submissive pose.  She is wearing a wet bathing white bathing suit top (which looks suspiciously like a wet training bra) in spite of the fact that her long hair surrounding the suit is dry, adding to the false and contrived nature of the photo.

(http://serenity.delhii.net/files/2007/03/saaya.jpg)

Notice the harsh highlights in her hair and shoulders? Where is the sun? Almost directly overhead and to her left. Her head is dipped down and slightly to the right to shade her eyes, not to 'make her look powerless'.

Her bathing suit bottoms are clearly visible. If the photographer didn't want them to be seen you wouldn't see them.

Instructed to part her lips? Yes, her lips are parted, and slightly raised at the corners, and her teeth are showing. I think there's a word for it. Oh yes, a 'smile'. And what kind of sick bastard would ask someone to smile before taking her picture? Oh yeah, everybody.

Her eyebrows are not raised. She is Asian, her eyelid lacks a double fold and her eyes are not set as deep in their sockets as other races, this gives the appearance of a greater distance between the eye and the eyebrow.

She is wearing a white bikini which looks no more like a bra than it should.

Her suit and legs are wet because she has been in the pool. Her hair is not wet because she didn't want it to get wet, as many girls wouldn't for various reasons including not wanting to get water in their ears, eyes, or mouth, or not wanting to have to wash their hair or not wanting to damage their hair with the harsh chemicals in the pool.

You saw what you wanted to see because of the context, and you also completely missed the point. You're focusing on the pose, but that's irrelevant. I wasn't asking for a critique of the photo. I was asking the straight men if they found the girl sexually attractive. But you shamed the men into submission and now they won't admit it.

You said any man who liked it "wants control over a submissive woman and has no interest in knowing anything about who she is and what she thinks and what she longs for." Do you understand that almost every straight man would find her sexually attractive? That was my point in posting the photo.

I'm sure you find Penthouse and Playboy offensive too, but you should realize that those magazines aren't made for you. While you're certainly welcome to have an opinion, have the good sense to understand that there are times when yours isn't the opinion being asked for.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 10, 2012, 04:37:59 AM
You're only saying that because of her comments. If you had seen the same photo on a coworkers Facebook page with the title "our daughter by the pool in Disneyland" you would have thought nothing bad about it.

Why do you keep saying this?  The context in which this photo was posted was never "our daughter by the pool."  Whether or not Quesi put her two cents in, the context in which this photo was posted was you asking whether or not we men folk found that girl to be sexually attractive.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Seppuku on June 10, 2012, 07:09:45 AM
I think you make some fair points Quesi, though I'm not sure I agree with all of them. I think the girl in the photo is good-looking, I don't think her pose or position would matter or what she was wearing, just for the simple case that I can tell from the image that she's a looking girl. Would I have a sexual fantasy about her? I wouldn't. Would I want sex with her? Well, she looks like she might be a mature 14 year old, so in that respect, that's a no, if that didn't matter, it would still be a no, even if she was begging for it. The reason, because I am not attracted to women simply for sex, I'm more interesting in companionship. Yes, I would refuse a one-night stand. ;) I don't think badly of anybody who has one night stands, because usually it's what both parties want, sex with somebody they think is attractive.

Does the image represent her sexuality? Probably not. We don't know this girl and we don't know what she's like. Does it represent the sexuality of those who think she looks attractive? I think only as far as finding women, like her, attractive is the extent it shows their sexuality, for what you've read into the photo, I don't think we could use the photo to determine that about a person. I reckon if she was completely clothed and didn't look as submissive I'd still she looks good. Those things you mentioned might appeal to some people who view the photo. If the photography purposefully captured her in that way, then you might be able to draw some information on his sexuality.

Whilst the girl on the surface is attractive and would have appealed to 14 year old Sepp, but we can only see what she's like on the surface and of course, as you rightly say, we know nothing about her sexuality. The way in which she has been presented may fuel somebody' sexual fantasy, where the fantasise about her sexuality, but I don't think every man who thinks she 'looks' attractive means they've done exactly that. One can find somebody looks attractive without being attracted.

I should also mention the type of women I'm most attracted to. Strong independent women, those with a bit of wit, are kind hearted and interesting, being a geek is a bonus. In terms of appearance, I would not say it's the most important thing, but it is a factor, whilst I wouldn't be seeking for the 'sexiest' person I can find, I'll be honest and say that I wouldn't go out on a date with Susan Boyle. I don't know what she's like as a person, but I don't think I would be attracted to her. I am sure there are men out there who would, probably men in her age group.

And I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder, in fact, many women men say are really attractive I think look horrible, I might even use the phrase 'grotesque', I simply would not find them attractive. Usually it's women who tart themselves up and try to make themselves attractive for the attention of men. If a woman has had a boob job, I doubt I'd be attracted to her either.

Also, on your note about the signals of women, I think you are quite right. I've spent a lot of time around women and not as some sort of uber-pimp, I just get along with them easily. Generally these things people are taking to be signals - even things I might at first see as being a signal are not, it's just them being nice, friendly or polite. I have a friend who is constantly bothered by guys, asking her out and even doing some rather creepy things and all she's ever doing is trying to be friendly and make friends, she doesn't want to go out with any of them.  But usually when a woman is interested in you, people tend to take it as being more than a 'friendly' interest, when it's just friend making.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 10, 2012, 07:39:56 AM
EDIT: I second examination, maybe I can see why somebody might see it sexually. :O WHat strikes me more than anything is her face, eyes and hair. WHen I step away from the photo, that is what I remember. Her expression is a confident one. Her expression isn't sexual to me. She doesn't appear to be flirtng. She is basically smiling at the camera and she has lip stick on.

A woman posing so her figure is sort of visible can certainly be taken sexually.

She looks about 20 to me but sometimes age is hard to know, especially from a photo. I'd not be shocked if she were in fact 15.

I can understand wby the photo in question disturbs you.

The photogrspher in question sounds unethical at the very least and the parents must be nuts.
:)You're only saying that because of her comments. If you had seen the same photo on a coworkers Facebook page with the title "our daughter by the pool in Disneyland" you would have thought nothing bad about it.

Remember, i didnt see the photo but if you read my post carefully, you will see i suggested lots of innocent photos could be interpreted sexually. Her comments suggested that thhotigrapher used sexual language
In directing the model and she suggested an eye witness account. I have some issues with that.




(http://serenity.delhii.net/files/2007/03/saaya.jpg)

I do not have issues with this photo and I would not say the model looks "powerless" but confident in herself. If this is the photo in question, I am surprised.

I would be surprised if the model here turned out to be 15 but it is not a sexual photo in my opinion. The fact that a guy may interpret it that way is not my concern. In Ottawa, a rapist targeted a woman in a hijab working in a chemical lab.

Now to me, some women in hijab's have very sexy eyes and smiles but the intent of the hihab is to desexualize the woman. The rapist in qustion likely saw her as an object of hate but some men have hijab fetishes.

My point was, partly agreeing with you Joe, is some of this is in the eye of the beholder. None the less, an ethical photographer or teacher or parent working with teens, should respect certain boundries in the name
Of common decency.

Quote
Notice the harsh highlights in her hair and shoulders? Where is the sun? Almost directly overhead and to her left. Her head is dipped down and slightly to the right to shade her eyes, not to 'make her look powerless'.

My God, Joe, you guys notic e too much.

Quote
Her bathing suit bottoms are clearly visible. If the photographer didn't want them to be seen you wouldn't see them.

I didn't noitice this. My first thought was radiant smile, nice eyes. Nice outfit.

Quote
Her eyebrows are not raised. She is Asian, her eyelid lacks a double fold and her eyes are not set as deep in their sockets as other races, this gives the appearance of a greater distance between the eye and the eyebrow.

The photo must have been taken by a westerner. It is my pet peeve that Asians models are forced to get eye surgery to artificially introduce a double fold in many cases.

P.S. As to the straight man qusetion, i would say the girl in the photo is rather attracive. I don't think the photo is one that is "arousing". If I was aroused by this photo, I would be aroused by almost anything.

The girl in this photo is NOT submissive, imo.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 10, 2012, 08:08:54 AM
.
Like to look at sexy pictures of beautiful women?  Do you think that the pictures that you like to look at represent real, beautiful female sexuality? 

Yes. I get turned on by women who are intensionally flirting with me and who are in full control. Angelina Joile for example, could seduce me with a smile. She has also be in states of undress in poses I found arosing. It is often more sexuy to imply rather than to show explicitly but in an "inviting" way.

It is true, that sometimes women "send signals" to my brain that they don't intend to; e.g, it turns me on when a woman I am attracted to plays with her hair.

Quote
Here is a little test that you can conduct yourself if you are unsure if the pose is really sexy, or some contrived male misconception of a woman’s sexuality.  Imagine yourself in that pose. (Make appropriate adjustments for male anatomy.)  Then ask yourself, would you, could you, feel sexy in that physical position?

Well, I don't consider the pose by this model to be particularly sexy. However, she is clearly comfortable in
that pose and you can see that from her unforced smile.

As a guy, for me to feel sexy, I would have to emphasive a trait that women find attrative in me. Since I don't have an athletic body, that would not likely be posing in "sexy positions" or in states of undress.

Now, if I was a physically attractive guy, I could potentially feel differently. Its hard to know. It might also depend on the type of women I want to attract.

Me feeling sexy is related to how I think others view me and not how I view myself per say.

Quote
  If the answer is no, it is pretty safe to assume that the woman doesn’t feel sexy in that position either, and that this is not an accurate portrait of female sexuality. You’ve probably been duped.

I disagree with this statement.

It is based on a feminist idea that you have women objectified and that men are not in some way objectified.. Sex is a very natural and both sexs have fantasies of the other. I think, women are less visual than men and that sexy may be more mental for them.

My ex-g for example, used to joke about being turned on by "v-shaped chests", v-shaped wallets, square jaws, confidence and handi-men. The fact that the man was "useful" was attractve to her. I have found most women I dated wanted a man who was in some way "useful". This sexual selection criterion is also a form of objectification. I'm ok with it lol.

By the way, I personally don't find women who are vulnerable sexy, except in a way that provokes me to be "protective"

Every human is different. THe above is just an off the cuff description of what turns me on.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on June 10, 2012, 08:53:42 AM
Quote
Notice the harsh highlights in her hair and shoulders? Where is the sun? Almost directly overhead and to her left. Her head is dipped down and slightly to the right to shade her eyes, not to 'make her look powerless'.

My God, Joe, you guys notic e too much.

If I could just point out, by the way: Joe is a professional photographer.  Lighting is something that he's going to notice, probably sometimes without really even thinking about it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 10, 2012, 09:31:49 AM
Quote
Notice the harsh highlights in her hair and shoulders? Where is the sun? Almost directly overhead and to her left. Her head is dipped down and slightly to the right to shade her eyes, not to 'make her look powerless'.

My God, Joe, you guys notic e too much.

If I could just point out, by the way: Joe is a professional photographer.  Lighting is something that he's going to notice, probably sometimes without really even thinking about it.

True
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Quesi on June 10, 2012, 10:03:50 AM
The NY Times Magazine just published a 13 page article about rampant sexual abuse of children at an elite Manhattan school in the 1970’s and 80’s.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/magazine/the-horace-mann-schools-secret-history-of-sexual-abuse.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 

Most of people interviewed for this article didn’t protest their introduction to sexuality at the hands of their much older teachers.   Many of them continued to willing meet privately with these teachers, and for some, the sexual relations sometimes continued for years. 

Here is a very short exert from the very long article. 

Thirty or even 40 years later, many students who have talked about surviving their teachers’ abuse say they still live in its shadow. “I spent decades feeling unlovable,” said E. B., the creator of the anti-Somary Web site. “I drank and drugged for many years, because I just couldn’t face all the anger it brought up.”

Andrew, my friend from the camping trip, said: “You spend a lot of your life feeling like an outsider — it shatters you. These people who were supposed to be the good guys were actually the bad guys, and nobody would talk about it.”

M., the one who says Somary abused him for years, also feels the effects. “I have had so many issues that I think I can trace back to this,” he said, including drug abuse and broken marriages. “I have been running from this thing most of my life.”

Stories like theirs point to why sexual abuse by teachers — or religious leaders or relatives, for that matter — is so especially damaging. As Mones said: “It’s counterintuitive, but sexual abuse emotionally binds the child closer to the person who has harmed him, setting him up for a life plagued by suspicion and confusion, because he will never be sure who he can really trust. And in my experience, this is by far the worst consequence of sexual abuse.” That’s one reason, he said, why those few victims who ever speak out at all tend to do so only after the abuser is dead or dying: telling the truth while the other person is still strong enough to deny it, or to blame the accuser, is just too terrifying.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 10, 2012, 10:47:10 AM
First of all, I would like to apologize to anyone who was offended by the content of the third paragraph in my original post on this thread.  Human sexuality is a complex reality, and I believe that my profile of “who” the photo would appeal to was an over simplification.  It was not my intention to offend the heterosexual men on this forum who were simply aroused by the pretty girl in the photo.
I don't think anyone was offended, Quesi. The problem was that you were drawing definite conclusions on the basis of reactions to a single photo.   

Quote
I stand by every other word in the post. (which was reply #72) and I challenge anyone to find any inaccuracies in my observations.
I disgreed with your perception of the photo and your deconstruction of it.

First of all, we don't know the circumstances and purpose of the photo. You've assumed that the girl was trying to look sexy, but as Joe has pointed out the photo could be easily be a family snapshot taken by her mother on holiday. There's no overt sexual theme; sure, she's wearing a biklini, but she's by a pool so that's appropriate. (If she was wearing lingerie by the pool, that would have been more sexual; or if she'd been wearing the bikini on a bed, likewise). She isn't "parting her lips to appear longing" - she's merely smiling. And lots of women like to keep their hair dry when swimming.

As for the pose (as you describe it - contorted, head-down, eyes up, submissive) it's entirely possible that she is in fact sitting naturally with her feet in the pool, and holding a book in her hands. Mom on a chair says, Look up, sweetie, and takes the snap. No sexual element to the photo at all.

That deconstruction makes just as much sense as yours.

Quote
Like to look at sexy pictures of beautiful women?
Most men do.

Quote
Do you think that the pictures that you like to look at represent real, beautiful female sexuality?
They represent the visual aspect of their sexuality. Other aspects of sexuality such as intelligence, passion and a good sense of humour are rather difficult to photograph.

Quote
Imagine yourself in that pose. (Make appropriate adjustments for male anatomy.)  Then ask yourself, would you, could you, feel sexy in that physical position?  If the answer is no, it is pretty safe to assume that the woman doesn’t feel sexy in that position either, and that this is not an accurate portrait of female sexuality. You’ve probably been duped.
As I said, there is no evidence that she was feeling sexy - or that the photographer was trying to make her look sexy.

But if we assume that she was, your test still fails, because there are lots of men out there who like to be sexually dominated by women. If you want to see photos of men in submissive postures, google femdom. And presumably these men do indeed feel sexy while being submissive.



PS Ricky, you really should get up to speed on this thread; you making comments on the photo before even seeing it was highly confusing. Note also that the original point of the thread appears to have been been abandoned, and the original poster has gone. We are now discussing Joe's desire to label himself a paedophile, as well as Quesi's views on pornography.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Quesi on June 10, 2012, 03:20:22 PM

First of all, we don't know the circumstances and purpose of the photo. You've assumed that the girl was trying to look sexy, but as Joe has pointed out the photo could be easily be a family snapshot taken by her mother on holiday.

I don't think so.  I think it has joe's signature all over it.  It looks just like every photo he has ever posted on this forum, and it looks like every photo on links to his work that he has provided in other threads.  They are ALL young, beautiful Asian women, in contorted, submissive, slightly suggestive positions. They all have expressions on their faces that feel contrived.  And he is really skilled with lighting effects and shadows.     

I have been tempted to comment on his work in the past, but I didn't because it usually had nothing to do with the thread. But this time, while posting his work and promoting himself as a pedophile, I could not help but verbalize the relationship.

BTW Gnu Ordure, I did not respond to your questions about age of consent here yesterday, but Tim started a new thread on the topic this morning, and I tried to address your questions there. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 10, 2012, 06:53:09 PM
I never said I'd seduce a 13 year old if I could. Find her attractive? Sure. Fantasize about it? Sure. But I wouldn't do anything that I felt would harm her or that I thought she couldn't fully comprehend and consent to.

It is good to know that you wouldnt

In terms of fantasizing actively, dont you feel a bit guilty there?

Are you attracted to women in their 20s? I mean, china has a lot of pretty nice women who are actually of age.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 10, 2012, 08:31:40 PM
First of all, we don't know the circumstances and purpose of the photo. You've assumed that the girl was trying to look sexy, but as Joe has pointed out the photo could be easily be a family snapshot taken by her mother on holiday.

I don't think so.
I do, for the reasons I've given. In my opinion, that photo would not be out of place in a family snapshot album.

And please bear in mind, I'm making that judgment on that photo in isolation, ignorant of who took it and or why it was taken.

Quote
I think it has joe's signature all over it.  It looks just like ... <snip>

I have been tempted to comment on his work in the past, but I didn't because it usually had nothing to do with the thread.
Ah, OK, Quesi. So when you said in your first post:
Quote
I think it is a photo that would appeal to the kind of man who wants control over a submissive woman, (or girl, and that is very telling in itself)
... that was kind of aimed at Joe particularly? Based on your previous knowledge of his own photos (which I'm not familiar with)?

And so Azdgari and I got tarred with the same brush; on request, we said we found a single image sexy, and suddenly we're labelled dominants. To which we objected, because we're not.

Quote
BTW Gnu Ordure,
Du call me Gnu.

Quote
I did not respond to your questions about age of consent here yesterday, but Tim started a new thread on the topic this morning, and I tried to address your questions there.
Cool, I'll check it out.

Quesi, I was trying to think of images of women I like, opposite to Joe's photo. In my teens, this picture was memorable:

(http://www.bondgirls.org.uk/bondgirls_pics/honey_rider_ursula_andress_02.jpg)

Interesting to compare the two photos. They're both wearing exactly the same clothes, in appropriate circumstances. Neither of them are in a sexual situation. Neither of them are wearing obvious make-up. Ursula is alarmed (she's just met Bond, unexpectedly), Joe's girl is friendly. Ursula's posture is upright and assertive, Joe's girl is contorted and submissive. The camera looks up at Ursula, down at Joe's girl. Ursula is a woman, Joe's girl is a girl.

And Ursula's got a great big knife, and looks like she knows how to use it.  :)

So I'd like to know what you think about Ursula's photo. Do you approve or disapprove of it?

And that scene was apparently voted one of the sexiest scenes in movie history, so I'm not alone in my perception that strong assertive women can be attractive.

Looking at it again, I love her retort to Bond's reassurance:

Bond: I promise I won't steal your shells.
Honey: I promise you you won't either. - draws knife.

Remind yourselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3lAjyUUS1g

And the thing is, Quesi, I think they're both beautiful. And I'm guessing that many straight men, lesbians and bisexuals feel the same.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Nam on June 10, 2012, 08:37:12 PM
y
the victims need not be killed or anything just the offenders themselves. the people who actually do it.
yeah i realise that ms such and such of whatever town was molested by her stepfather from age 6 up to 18 . but she has love for him bc hes family and her kids love him too. still. he did this horrible thing and perhaps deserves death. he fucked her up for life. like permanant. i would have no issue helping victims but would not waste my time "helping" a sexual predator due to the simple facts of 1 i dont care to do so..and 2 they need help i can not provide except the obvious advice of suicide.
yes my views on life are far from what most call "normal" and im most content with this. but seriosuly does anyone have bananna pudding recipe ??


Perhaps it's been stated already, I don't know but you do realize that many child molesters are the way they are, mentally, 'cause they too were molested as children. So, they are both "victim" and "criminal".

-Nam
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Nam on June 10, 2012, 09:02:41 PM
I'm a pedophile.[1] I'm sexually attracted to young teenagers especially but sometimes even younger if they've developed a bit. Budding breasts, long legs. What's not to like? Some people are attracted to even younger children, and though I'm not I don't think anyone is in any position to judge them for it. Nobody chooses their sexual orientation, be it heterosexual, homosexual, or pedophile.

Why would I admit to this? Just like homosexuals and atheists, pedophiles are shunned and persecuted unfairly. Society likes to vilify people like me but I don't buy into the propaganda and neither should you. I'm not a bad person. It's perfectly natural to be attracted to females of breeding age.

In the US, children as young as 9 have been tried as adults in criminal court. 11 and 12 year olds regularly. It's hypocritical to say that a 9 year old is capable of making rational decisions that they must be held responsible for but a 17 year old isn't. Until of course suddenly they receive a magical clarity of thought on their 18th birthday.

I don't think 9 year olds should be tried as adults for the same reason that I wouldn't have sex with a 9 year old girl.  I'm a big fan of informed consent.  I would never have sex with someone who I didn't feel knew full well what they were doing, and understood the physical and emotional ramifications of their actions, and was participating completely of their own free will.

Someone who is attracted to very young children but does not act on that attraction is harmless. Persecuting that person would be thought crime.

I also think that possession of child porn should be legalized, but I don't have time right now to write about it. Feel free to post all of your disagreements and I'll come back in a couple of hours to explain how you're wrong. Do your research before you say something stupid though. You should know that several federal judges as well as many prominent intellectuals share my thoughts on this.
 1. Don't bother to correct my spelling. This is the correct spelling in common modern English.

Child porn would be children committing sexual acts on each other and/or adults. And, you think that that should be legalized? You're an idiot.

Why are you an idiot? 'Cause you said it yourself: a child isn't mentally developed to understand what they are doing, but, also: they aren't even physically mature. But since you think sexually explicit pictures and/or film of children performing felatio, intercourse, and the like, yeah: we shouldn't judge you.

Or did you mean by "child porn" just naked pictures of children? 'Cause that's not what most people think of when the word "porn" is used.

-Nam
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Nam on June 10, 2012, 09:30:51 PM
I am a heterosexual male, joebbowers picture of a young female, in a bikini: first thought: and? I've seen many girls half naked. I have seen many girls naked, in person, and in pictures. She's pretty. I am not sexually attracted to her, and it has nothing to do with whether she's sexy or not. I'm not attracted to every girl I see, sexually, or otherwise.

-Nam
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 10, 2012, 11:16:49 PM
I'm not a bad person. It's perfectly natural to be attracted to females of breeding age.

...I also think that possession of child porn should be legalized, but I don't have time right now to write about it. Feel free to post all of your disagreements and I'll come back in a couple of hours to explain how you're wrong. Do your research before you say something stupid though. You should know that several federal judges as well as many prominent intellectuals share my thoughts on this.

I dont care if some rare legal "expert" agrees with you. And btw, i dont thi k it is appropriate to use srxua,ized language in admitti g your attraction. Sure yiu are sttracted. You dont need to describe "budding breasts" or whatever.

Willful posession of child porn is wrong because it encourages those who produce it in the first place. I have no clue whether the existence of child porn increases the number of child rapes or not.

I agree, based on your posts, you may not be a bad person. That is, to my understanding you have not commited rape or expressed a desire to commit rape.

It is true that at one time in human histroy that the real logical age was mch younger. In our society, its not beneficial for children to have sex at age of 11 or even 14.  Sure, the age of 18 is somewhat arbitrary.

As for your point about people being tried in adult court; that is tyoically because they milled somebody
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on June 10, 2012, 11:42:52 PM
... And btw, i dont thi k it is appropriate to use srxua,ized language in admitti g your attraction. Sure yiu are sttracted. ...

Just as an aside, Ricky - did you type this on some sort of mobile device?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 11, 2012, 06:10:54 AM
Yes, i hate touch screens. On my playbook, some websites are really slow. This is another problem
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 11, 2012, 06:13:01 AM
If the 30 old had self control, was mature, responsible, he woujld be chasing somebody who is legal.

rickymooston, I want you to really think about what pedophilia is, and why "self-control" or "maturity" or "responsibility" would allow/force someone to be sexually attracted to someone else.

I'm assuming you didn't read this, so here it is.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 11, 2012, 08:32:46 AM
Sexual attraction to a minor (whether it is a prepubescent child or a pubescent adolescent is irrelevant for this statement) is not a crime in its own right.  Acting on it is what makes it a crime.

As for child porn, this is not having pictures of children in suggestive positions.  It's having pictures of children engaged in sexual activity.  The latter is unquestionably wrong if it involved actual children; the former is a grey area.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 12, 2012, 07:22:03 AM
I dont care if some rare legal "expert" agrees with you.

From an Associated Press article...[1]

Quote
In a 2010 survey of federal judges by the Sentencing Commission, about 70 percent said the proposed ranges of sentences for possession and receipt of child pornography were too high. Demonstrating their displeasure, federal judges issued child porn sentences below the guidelines 45 percent of the time in 2010, more than double the rate for all other crimes.

70% of federal judges are in favor of reducing sentences, and many are in favor of decriminalization. They aren't rare and your use of quotation marks suggests you don't believe they're experts. These are people who deal with the offenders regularly. They know more about them than you do, they know their criminal histories, they know what other offenses they've committed. These are the people who would know if possession of child porn leads to more abuse, and yet these people are clamoring for leniency for people caught with it. I'd like you know what makes you more qualified than they are to determine whether or not these people should be punished?

Quote
Willful posession of child porn is wrong because it encourages those who produce it in the first place.

How? It's usually downloaded anonymously and without paying for it.

Quote
I have no clue whether the existence of child porn increases the number of child rapes or not.

Study after study has proven that access to pornography leads to a decrease in sexual crime.[2][3][4] I find it quite disturbing that even after being made aware of this fact, most people still advocate the complete ban of child pornography. But since even pornographic drawings and stories are also illegal, it's obvious that it's not really about protecting kids, but really about banning things that make them you uncomfortable. It's the same reason there are still so many anti-homosexuality laws on the books.
 1. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/29/debate-rages-over-severity-child-porn-sentences/
 2. http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf
 3. http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/porn.pdf
 4. Sexual Science and the Law, Richard Green, Harvard University Press, 1992
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 12, 2012, 07:56:18 AM
As for child porn, this is not having pictures of children in suggestive positions.  It's having pictures of children engaged in sexual activity.  The latter is unquestionably wrong if it involved actual children; the former is a grey area.

It's not "unquestionably" wrong as it is widely questioned. Did you know that it is legal to possess child pornography in many countries, including Japan and Denmark? And these countries have seen a significant decrease in child sex abuse cases since it's legalization.

Did you know that the ACLU often represents people caught with child pornography, and that the organization's official stance is in support of legalization of it's possession?

According to a study headed by Professor Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, in countries where child porn has been legalized the rate of child sex abuse has fallen significantly.

Researchers focused on the Czech Republic, which went from having a strict ban on sexually explicit materials to a fairly relaxed environment when owning pornographic material became decriminalized in 1989. The study then looked at the number of rape, attempted rape, sexual assault and child sex abuse for 15 years during the ban and 18 years after it was lifted. They found a significant decrease in the number of reported cases of child sex abuse. The press release notes similar findings in Denmark and Japan when child pornography was no longer restricted.[1]

Why is it wrong to possess? Can you explain how the anonymous possession of it harms anyone?

It has been clearly demonstrated by the results of multiple studies conducted by multiple independent sources in multiple countries that the legalization of possession of child pornography would lead to fewer incidences of child sexual assault.

I want to ask everyone, in light of this fact, why do you still oppose it's legalization?

If you disagree with the methods or the results of the studies I mentioned in this post and in my last post, please explain why, and please also explain how you are more qualified than the authors of the studies to make such statements.
 1. Diamond M et al (2010). Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 12, 2012, 07:58:45 AM
I don't think anyone was offended, Quesi. The problem was that you were drawing definite conclusions on the basis of reactions to a single photo.

I was offended, I believe Adzgari was as well.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Quesi on June 12, 2012, 08:19:48 AM
You know Joe, we spend a lot of time on this forum discussing the differences between facts and theories and beliefs.  Beliefs are easy.  Anyone can find someone on the internet who agrees with their beliefs.

I really expected you to cite studies (or opinions) stating that there was no causal relationship between the consumption of child pornography and child abuse.   I can actually find some folks who argue that, and I’m surprised that you didn’t.  What you cited was a Fox News article expressing concerns that the current trends for sentencing consumers of child pornography sometimes exceeded the sentences for those convicted of child abuse.  And a book by a guy from Harvard who writes primarily about transgendered youth, with no indication of anything he has written about child pornography or pedophilia. 

If you want to find strong advocates for your position, you should cite NAMBLA.  http://www.nambla.org/

I don’t think you have presented irrefutable truth here.  There are certainly those who agree with you.  And there are those who disagree with you. 

Among those who offer differing opinions are

The Harvard Medical Journal, http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/references-for-the-evolving-understanding-of-stigma 

The Mayo Clinic http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=53036  and the

American Federal Bureau of Prisons.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse

And we have not addressed the harm done to children in the creation of child porn. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 12, 2012, 08:26:56 AM
Quote from: Quesi
I don't think so.  I think it has joe's signature all over it.  It looks just like every photo he has ever posted on this forum, and it looks like every photo on links to his work that he has provided in other threads.  They are ALL young, beautiful Asian women, in contorted, submissive, slightly suggestive positions. They all have expressions on their faces that feel contrived.  And he is really skilled with lighting effects and shadows.     

I have been tempted to comment on his work in the past, but I didn't because it usually had nothing to do with the thread. But this time, while posting his work and promoting himself as a pedophile, I could not help but verbalize the relationship.

On the one hand, I'm flattered by your opinion of the technical aspects of my photography, on the other hand, I'm insulted. I'm not insulted at your opinion of the content of the photography, as you're not my target audience. I'm insulted because the photographer of this particular shot made a mistake that I wouldn't have made. He cut off her hands. This is an amateur mistake by photographers too focused on the model's face that they tend to forget about the hands. To be fair, this may not have been the photographer's fault, it may have been cut off by whoever cropped the photo down.

My point is, it isn't my photo.

For everyone...

I'd like to reiterate yet again that I never asked for opinions on the photo itself, the pose, her clothing, or the photographer's intentions. I did not ask you whether or not you wanted to have a one night stand with her, as someone seemed to think I was. I asked whether or not you thought she was sexually attractive. You can imagine her in any scenario and outfit you wish, they are irrelevant to the question.

Also, I do not want you to say no simply because you think I'm tricking you with a photo of a young girl. Obviously that's what I'm doing, it's not a trick, it's to prove a point. If you deny her attractiveness for this reason then you're not being honest.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 12, 2012, 08:34:29 AM
joebbowers, you really need to stop poisoning the well[1]. People who disagree with you aren't lying. They just disagree with you. You are not always right.
 1. Not sure if that's grammatically accurate, but you get the point.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 12, 2012, 09:00:47 AM
I really expected you to cite studies (or opinions) stating that there was no causal relationship between the consumption of child pornography and child abuse.   I can actually find some folks who argue that, and I’m surprised that you didn’t.  What you cited was a Fox News article expressing concerns that the current trends for sentencing consumers of child pornography sometimes exceeded the sentences for those convicted of child abuse.  And a book by a guy from Harvard who writes primarily about transgendered youth, with no indication of anything he has written about child pornography or pedophilia. 

The article was written by the Associated Press, and Fox News printed it on their website. It includes sources. I've also linked to other studies, what specific disagreements do you have with them? There are plenty more I can link if you want. What makes you qualified to dispute them?

If you want to find strong advocates for your position, you should cite NAMBLA.  http://www.nambla.org/

Lucifer will probably smite me for this[1], but you've just used a strawman. You see, NAMBLA is advocating sex with children, whereas I've specifically explained why I think sex with children is wrong. NAMBLA is for legalizing the production of child pornography. I have specifically explained that I am only in favor of legalizing the possession, not the production. But you already knew all of that, and you think that be equating me with NAMBLA you will shame me or vilify me somehow.

Among those who offer differing opinions are

The Harvard Medical Journal, http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/references-for-the-evolving-understanding-of-stigma 

Behind a paywall. Can't read it.

Quote
The Mayo Clinic http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=53036

There is no mention in that article that consumption of child pornography leads to rape, nor is there any refutation of the claim that it's availability lessens the likelihood of occurrence.

Quote
American Federal Bureau of Prisons.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse

Ditto here. In fact, their statement "many Internet child pornography offenders may be undetected child molesters" not only does not imply a causal relationship between pornography and molestation, but the same could be said of non-child rapists. "Many [adult] pornography consumers may be undetected [adult] molesters." I'll let you in on a little secret. Most men watch porn. Some of them are rapists. While most rapists (regardless of the age, sex, or species of their victim) watch porn, I should point out the obvious fact that most porn watchers do not commit rape.

Quote
And we have not addressed the harm done to children in the creation of child porn.

Haven't we? I've stated several times that the production should remain illegal.
 1. He never seems to recognize them.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 12, 2012, 09:02:20 AM
joebbowers, you really need to stop poisoning the well[1]. People who disagree with you aren't lying. They just disagree with you. You are not always right.
 1. Not sure if that's grammatically accurate, but you get the point.

I didn't accuse anyone of doing it, I just hope nobody is. And that is not the correct use of poisoning the well.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 12, 2012, 09:05:14 AM
I didn't accuse anyone of doing it, I just hope nobody is.

I was specifically referring to your claim that anyone who doesn't think that girl in the picture is attractive must be lying. This may surprise you, but different people find different things attractive. For example, some might think she's too skinny. Others might think she's too fat. And so on ad nauseam.

And that is not the correct use of poisoning the well.

You used that fallacy by claiming that anyone who disagrees with you must be lying. Is that a better way of putting it?

EDIT: Just a couple more (relevant) things.
1 - I go by "One Above All" now. Get with the program.
2 - I can recognize strawmen just fine, thank you.

On an unrelated note, you kinda remind me of myself when I was younger. I'll leave it up to you to determine whether that's good or bad. I'm 18, BTW. About a month away from 19. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 12, 2012, 11:03:49 AM
I didn't stipulate that finding her attractive means you must think she's the most beautiful girl who ever lived. I also don't ask anyone if they fell in love with her at first sight. I simply mean sexually viable, as in, based purely on her physical appearance, assuming everything else about her met your standards, (you're a dog person, she's a dog person, whatever floats your boat) would you have sex with her?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 12, 2012, 11:07:27 AM
I simply mean sexually viable, as in, based purely on her physical appearance, assuming everything else about her met your standards, (you're a dog person, she's a dog person, whatever floats your boat) would you have sex with her?

Then the answer would be no. It takes months, maybe years, to become attached to someone on the level required by me to have sex with someone.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on June 12, 2012, 11:12:08 AM
I didn't stipulate that finding her attractive means you must think she's the most beautiful girl who ever lived. I also don't ask anyone if they fell in love with her at first sight. I simply mean sexually viable, as in, based purely on her physical appearance, assuming everything else about her met your standards, (whatever they may be) would you have sex with her?

This isn't entirely an academic question.

One time when I was gift shopping, I went into a Santa Fe-type place and was greeted by one of the most beautiful women I'd ever seen in my life.  Apart from being gorgeous, she was also very warm and friendly -- when I came in, she looked at me and beamed this huge smile at me and said "Hi!  It's great to see you!" as though I were her best friend that she hadn't seen in a year.

I don't normally do the pickup thing, but in this case, I decided to make an exception, so I started chatting with her.  The end of the conversation went something like this:

Me:  So is this a Summer job for you, then?
Her:  Yeah, enough to cover expenses and stuff, you know.
Me:  Definitely, I'm doing the same thing.  So what are you, a junior?
Her:  No, I'm a freshman.
Me:  Ah.  Have you decided on a major yet?
Her:  No, not yet, I've got a little while to think about that.
Me:  Yeah, that's true.  So where do you go, George Mason University?
Her:  No, Springfield High.

At this point, our eyes locked.  Silence for several seconds, and then:

Me:  You're a... freshman in, high school...?
Her, looking like she was about to bust a gut laughing because she knew perfectly well what I was up to: Mm--hmm!!!

Blink blink.  Look around.  Look at watch.  "Wow, look at that.  No wonder I'm so hungry, it's almost two o'clock.  I'm going to go get something to eat.  Bye!"  I somehow managed not to leave skidmarks.

I was absolutely mortified at the time, although now that ten or fifteen million years have passed, I can see the humor in it.  Now, though, I also see that it's informative and telling.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 12, 2012, 04:41:33 PM
Why is it wrong to possess? Can you explain how the anonymous possession of it harms anyone?
What exactly is 'anonymous possession' ?

Do you mean that the child concerned doesn't know who is invading her privacy? Or do you mean that the invader doesn't know whose privacy he is invading?

Either way, it's wrong.




A five-year-old child cannot consent to photos of its abuse being published. So publication of such photos should be prohibited, on grounds of invasion of privacy, at the very least.

And as I said, it is highly unlikely that an adult survivor of sexual abuse would consent to such photos being released into the public domain.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that all publications of images of child sexual abuse are non-consensual, and therefore they should be confiscated and removed from the public domain.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: shnozzola on June 12, 2012, 06:59:59 PM
In this discussion we can’t forget the evolutionary roots that drive everything.  I believe most men would also be attracted to the girl in the photo because she is probably old enough to reproduce.  While societies have rightly changed the rules about age, monogamy, etc. for all kinds of reasons, including the maturity and other social working norms needed to have a family, etc., we males are evolutionarily programmed to “spread our seed.”  I would say we are normally attracted to a teenager more than a 50 year old just because of the chances of successful reproduction – society fights that  urge, but I believe the urge is there for that reason.  Pedophilia involving children incapable of reproduction is obviously something else.

Even beauty, for men and women, simply helps the chance for reproduction.  Even for women – (if I may, as the romantic novel covers show) -  the beauty of the man, looking strong, fierce, and intelligent enough to protect the woman and children – is what drives the basic urge, no matter how many morals and taboos society has placed into things. 

Understand, I agree with civilized society’s rules that have changed how all this is viewed, but we all may be somewhat more basic than we like to believe.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 12, 2012, 09:41:20 PM
I simply mean sexually viable, as in, based purely on her physical appearance, assuming everything else about her met your standards, (you're a dog person, she's a dog person, whatever floats your boat) would you have sex with her?

Then the answer would be no. It takes months, maybe years, to become attached to someone on the level required by me to have sex with someone.

Then the answer is not no, you're saying you would not have sex with her right now, which is a non-answer that deflects the question. I very very clearly stated repeatedly that I was not asking if you wanted to have a one night stand with her. Are you intentionally confusing the issue or do you really not understand this simple question? Also Lucifer, aren't you gay? Or are you bi-sexual? I mean, it seems dishonest of you to omit that when offering your opinion of a female's sexual attractiveness.

Do you think she's sexually attractive?
Well, I think the photographer blah blah blah.
Ignore the photographer and think about the girl. Do you think she's sexually attractive?
Well, I don't know anything about her personality.
Imagine she has a great personality. Do you think she's sexually attractive?
Well, I need to get to know her for a while.
Imagine you've known her for long enough (And you can decide how long that is.) Do you think she's sexually attractive?
Random excuse #4....

I am amazed that so many people seem to have trouble understanding this, but I don't doubt that some people are intentionally complicating the question to avoid answering truthfully.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: lotanddaughters on June 12, 2012, 09:55:06 PM
Do you think she's sexually attractive?
Well, I think the photographer blah blah blah.
Ignore the photographer and think about the girl. Do you think she's sexually attractive?
Well, I don't know anything about her personality.
Imagine she has a great personality. Do you think she's sexually attractive?
Well, I need to get to know her for a while.
Imagine you've known her for long enough (And you can decide how long that is.) Do you think she's sexually attractive?
Random excuse #4....

I am amazed that so many people seem to have trouble understanding this, but I don't doubt that some people are intentionally complicating the question to avoid answering truthfully.

+1 for this. We need to remember this sort of summary-layout for recapping and picking apart Christian question-dodgers. Thanks, Lucifer, for playing the role of the Christian.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 12, 2012, 10:13:40 PM
Do you mean that the child concerned doesn't know who is invading her privacy? Or do you mean that the invader doesn't know whose privacy he is invading?

Both. The child doesn't know who or really if anyone is looking at the photos. The viewer doesn't know who the child in the photos is. Completely anonymous from both ends.

Quote
A five-year-old child cannot consent to photos of its abuse being published. So publication of such photos should be prohibited, on grounds of invasion of privacy, at the very least.

And as I said, it is highly unlikely that an adult survivor of sexual abuse would consent to such photos being released into the public domain.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that all publications of images of child sexual abuse are non-consensual, and therefore they should be confiscated and removed from the public domain.

As I've already said, the production and distribution of child pornography should be illegal. You aren't making a compelling case against possession unless you can apply the same logic to all cases non-consensual publication. Would you say that any non-consensual images of anyone should be removed from the public domain? Paparazzi photos, hidden-camera and ex-girlfriend sex tapes, people photographed in public places?

Should the people who produced the material be punished? Should the people who viewed it be punished equally?

And, with the knowledge that the war on pornography only leads to more victims, how can you justify this position?

Quesi has posted links to articles which she says contradict this claim. In fact they do not. They simply state that most rapists use porn. It can obviously be stated that most porn users are not rapists.

The consensus among experts is that increased access to pornography reduces the number of sexual crimes. I will read any scientific paper that says otherwise, but I believe that the only articles you will find that claim the opposite are the sole opinions of the authors, and not based on solid research.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: lotanddaughters on June 12, 2012, 10:38:45 PM
Should the people who produced the material be punished? Should the people who viewed it be punished equally?

He's not available to answer that right now. He's too busy watching the John F. Kennedy assassination that John F. Kennedy never gave him permission to watch.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: lotanddaughters on June 12, 2012, 10:52:20 PM
Would you rather have your head blown off, or would you rather have been a child involved in one porn film with one other child of the opposite sex?

As a matter of fact, I would be willing to go back in time and be involved in a child porn film as a child, if, immediately after, I was given an atheist mentor to kick-start my atheism at whatever age I was for the filming of the porn. I became an atheist at around age 20, but the damage of my theism lasted for another 10 years or so. That's how fucked up Christian bullshit is.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on June 12, 2012, 11:11:01 PM
Just for fun... what do you think of this woman? Purely based on her appearance, honestly, do you find her sexually attractive? (Assuming you are a heterosexual, straight male.)

As a 37 year old straight male with 3 daughters, yes...based solely on the appearance of the girl in the picture, I find her sexually attractive. But, even though her breasts are developed or developing, she is too young for me.

Adult bull males who seek underdeveloped or immature females are the lowest of the low. I have 0 respect or tolerance for men or women who prey on adolescence. It's like taking candy from a baby. Regardless of sexual attraction, adults who seek out children for sexual pleasure are insecure, lecherous cowards.

And if I had my way, I'd have all of them shot.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on June 12, 2012, 11:47:20 PM
Both. The child doesn't know who or really if anyone is looking at the photos. The viewer doesn't know who the child in the photos is. Completely anonymous from both ends.

Whoever took the photo knows who the child is. The photographer has friends. These things are connected.

It is not "completely" anonymous.

Child pornography should not be tolerated because tolerance leads to acceptance.

Children are not equipped, mentally or physically, to accept the sexual advances of an adult.


Decriminalizing the possession of or "free" distribution of sexually explicit photographs/videos of  children in sexually suggestive poses or explicit sexual acts only encourages adults who are sexually attracted to minors.

It tells them that their behavior/desires are "normal".

Do you, joebbowers, think it's "normal" for an adult to be sexually attracted to a pre-pubescent child?

 

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 12, 2012, 11:51:04 PM
If you knew she were 18, you wouldn't hesitate. It's only her age that gives you pause, is that correct? Your social conditioning makes you resist because of her age, and that's good, but the point is, you find her sexually attractive based on her physical development, as I believe most straight men would.

Now, before I tell you all how old she is, would you like to guess? Posting the photo one last time so you can take a good look.

(http://serenity.delhii.net/files/2007/03/saaya.jpg)

By the way, if you know who she is, please don't announce her age before others have had a chance to guess and spoil the fun.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on June 12, 2012, 11:59:39 PM
If you knew she were 18, you wouldn't hesitate. It's only her age that gives you pause, is that correct?

Not so much. I forgot to mention that I am happily married.

18 or 40, makes no difference to me because I am in love with my wife but even if I were single I would hesitate because she looks so young.

I would guess that she is between 13 and 23. It's so hard to tell with asian chicks.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: pingnak on June 13, 2012, 01:01:47 AM
Hard to tell from a picture.  She's older than that, now.  Actually, I can tell for sure that she's 18 now, but probably not whenever that picture was taken.  I was able to look her up from your image link.

Sort of like online dating sites.  How recent is 'recent' for a photo?  They can post a picture like that, and look like Jaba the Hut.

It's one of those things that ruins 'old' movies for me.  I always subconsciously add the years onto the actresses.  I watch a movie from the 1930's and realize, "Holy crap, most of these people are dead!"

Ginger or Mary Ann?  Heck, they're both old ladies.  'Mary Ann' is like 74 years old.  'Ginger' is 78.  If you were stuck on Gilligan's Island with them today, you'd be building bamboo walkers for them.

Is it normal to be attracted to pre-pubescents?  No. 

Unfortunately, puberty comes pretty young, and there can be a lot of years between puberty and 'legal' adulthood. 

As it was crudely put to me, once upon a time, "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed."

Would I tap a girl that young?  Nah.  Given the "(0.5*age)+7" formula for 'creepy', I'd have to draw the line at 30.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 13, 2012, 01:20:45 AM
Whoever took the photo knows who the child is. The photographer has friends. These things are connected.

It is not "completely" anonymous.

And yet again, sadly, I am forced to explain that I am against the production and distribution of child pornography, but in favor of legalizing the simple possession. I will not respond to any more comments like this one. I've made my position clear.

Child pornography should not be tolerated because tolerance leads to acceptance.
Yes, accepting people for their sexual orientation is difficult for many people.

Children are not equipped, mentally or physically, to accept the sexual advances of an adult.
Agreed, as I've stated.

Decriminalizing the possession of or "free" distribution of sexually explicit photographs/videos of  children in sexually suggestive poses or explicit sexual acts only encourages adults who are sexually attracted to minors.

What is your source for that claim?

Multiple studies by multiple organizations in multiple countries have demonstrated the opposite. In fact, pornography use serves as an outlet for sexual energy and decreases instances of rape and molestation. Strict control or the ban of pornography leads to an increase in sexual assaults.

If you disagree with the results of the studies, please explain how their methods were flawed and what academic qualifications you possess to give credence to your statement over the opinions of trained experts.

It tells them that their behavior/desires are "normal".

Do you, joebbowers, think it's "normal" for an adult to be sexually attracted to a pre-pubescent child?

I've explained that for the purposes of this discussion I'm using the most widely accepted definition of pedophile, not the clinical one. The age of consent is far over the age of puberty. Sexually explicit photos of a 17 year old will land you in jail, and you will be labeled a pedophile by the media regardless of the fact that you do not meet the clinical definition.

Having said that, I will answer your question on your terms. Even if you limit the discussion to those who are primarily attracted to pre-pubescent children (ie. the clinical definition of pedophile), pedophiles represent approximately 3-9% of the population, making them roughly equal a percentage of the population as homosexuals.[1][2] Would you consider homosexuality normal?

Do you understand that "normal" is meaningless when discussing sexual orientation, a factor that an individual has no control over? Is left-handedness normal? Is red hair?
 1. Ahlers, C. J., Schaefer, G. A., Mundt, I. A., Roll, S., Englert, H., Willich, S. N. and Beier, K. M. , How Unusual are the Contents of Paraphilias? Paraphilia-Associated Sexual Arousal Patterns in a Community-Based Sample of Men. The Journal of Sexual Medicine
 2. Seto MC.(2009) Pedophilia. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 5:391-407.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 13, 2012, 01:23:18 AM
If you knew she were 18, you wouldn't hesitate. It's only her age that gives you pause, is that correct?

Not so much. I forgot to mention that I am happily married.

Sigh. So we're still playing this avoidance game?

Imagine you were not married. Do you find her sexually attractive?

You already admitted that you do, that it is her age that gives you concern.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 13, 2012, 01:37:04 AM
Would you rather have your head blown off, or would you rather have been a child involved in one porn film with one other child of the opposite sex?

Man I wish I could have gotten some attention from older women as a child. I had a crush on my babysitter, my teacher, my neighbor... I had very sexual fantasies about them and I certainly wouldn't have been a victim of any kind if I had somehow figured out how to get my 20 year old babysitter to have sex with 10 year old me. Legend is a better word.

Society likes to pretend that children aren't sexual but they are. Most begin masturbating years before puberty. We like to forget that historically women girls were married as soon as they could menstruate. Not rarely, not just sometimes, but this was the norm.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Van Persie on June 13, 2012, 01:37:20 AM
And yet again, sadly, I am forced to explain that I am against the production and distribution of child pornography, but in favor of legalizing the simple possession. I will not respond to any more comments like this one. I've made my position clear.


Yo. Magicmiles here. Sigh. I....just couldn't resist responding to this. ( I also note with happiness that Jay is back )

Joe, how can you possess it without someone producing and distributing it?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 13, 2012, 01:38:51 AM
Hard to tell from a picture.  She's older than that, now.  Actually, I can tell for sure that she's 18 now, but probably not whenever that picture was taken.  I was able to look her up from your image link.

Awe, Pingnak cheated. You were supposed to guess.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 13, 2012, 01:40:21 AM
Yo. Magicmiles here. Sigh. I....just couldn't resist responding to this. ( I also note with happiness that Jay is back )

Joe, how can you possess it without someone producing and distributing it?

You can't, obviously.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Van Persie on June 13, 2012, 01:44:28 AM
then your position appears rather ridiculous.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 13, 2012, 01:47:16 AM
Do you think that if all future child porn production were halted, that all currently existing child porn already in circulation would suddenly cease to exist?

Do you think that banning the production of child porn effectively prevents 100% of it's production?

If you believe either of those things, then I believe your position is rather ridiculous.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Van Persie on June 13, 2012, 01:55:59 AM
Do you think that if all future child porn production were halted, that all currently existing child porn already in circulation would suddenly cease to exist?

no.



Do you think that banning the production of child porn effectively prevents 100% of it's production?

No

If you believe either of those things, then I believe your position is rather ridiculous.

I haven't stated any position. But your position remains ridiculous, because the only thing that can prevent it's production is to have everyone agree that it's existence is intolerable. Making possession of it legal hardly helps in that (admitettedly nigh impossible) goal.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 13, 2012, 02:32:07 AM
And yet again, sadly, I am forced to explain that I am against the production and distribution of child pornography, but in favor of legalizing the simple possession. I will not respond to any more comments like this one. I've made my position clear.

Indeed.

I'd also add that it's not impossible to have child pornography on your computer without even knowing it.  We live in a world where pornography is often produced by amateurs and delivered for popular consumption by aggregators, which in some cases is just a fancy word for dudes on tumblr, dudes who might not bother to or even have the means to verify the age of all of the young men and/or women pictured in the images or videos they upload.  And guess what?  If you've visited a site like that you might therefore have child pornography on your hard drive at this very moment if you haven't cleared out your cache since your last visit.

I also think that the discussion of distribution could use a little reality check.  In the US, something like 70 or 80 percent of teenagers have cell phones, most of which come equipped with digital cameras and the means to send any images or video captured to other mobile devices or to image or video hosting sites.  In other words, any one of them can become a producer and distributor of child pornography if they are so inclined.  There doesn't always need to be some creepy dude with a camera for child pornography to be produced and distributed.

So there's that.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 13, 2012, 02:45:35 AM
Man I wish I could have gotten some attention from older women as a child. I had a crush on my babysitter, my teacher, my neighbor... I had very sexual fantasies about them and I certainly wouldn't have been a victim of any kind if I had somehow figured out how to get my 20 year old babysitter to have sex with 10 year old me. Legend is a better word.

Isn't this mostly you projecting your adult self onto your ten year old self though?  I mean, if you're keen on studies, what do the studies say about young boys who had some sort of sexual contact with older women?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 13, 2012, 03:02:57 AM
Isn't this mostly you projecting your adult self onto your ten year old self though?

Absolutely not. I clearly remember having vivid sexual thoughts and desires at that age, and I wasn't alone. Lots of the boys in my class would try to sneak a peek into the girls' locker room, look down the teacher's shirt, etc. One of the girls got pregnant at 13, the boy who did it was 2 or 3 grades ahead of her.

Try to remember how old you were when you first started masturbating, or when you first watched porn or tried to look down a girls shirt. Probably before puberty.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 13, 2012, 03:23:18 AM
I haven't stated any position. But your position remains ridiculous, because the only thing that can prevent it's production is to have everyone agree that it's existence is intolerable. Making possession of it legal hardly helps in that (admitettedly nigh impossible) goal.

It's intolerable to you. It isn't intolerable to others. Are you aware that possession is legal in 129 of 187 countries, and that even the production is not illegal is 93 of them?[1] What you have brought up to believe are universal codes of morality simply aren't so.

(http://i.imgur.com/jM3rs.jpg)

Also, you're ignoring another important point. As I repeatedly stated, with sources, access to pornography decreases instances of sexual crime. It's continued ban and restriction only serves to create more victims.
 1. "Child Pornography Not a Crime in Most Countries (http://www.icmec.org/en_X1/pdf/SummerNewsletter2006formatted.pdf)" (PDF). International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children. 2006.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Van Persie on June 13, 2012, 03:37:00 AM

It's intolerable to you. 


Child pornography, be it production of, distribution of or possession of, is intolerable to anyone who isn't a depraved, sick puppy. Are there any decent vets in China Joe?

Also, you're ignoring another important point. As I repeatedly stated, with sources, access to pornography decreases instances of sexual crime. It's continued ban and restriction only serves to create more victims.

I am rather dubious on that point. But I'll go back and look at your sources.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 13, 2012, 03:43:23 AM
Absolutely not. I clearly remember having vivid sexual thoughts and desires at that age, and I wasn't alone. Lots of the boys in my class would try to sneak a peek into the girls' locker room, look down the teacher's shirt, etc. One of the girls got pregnant at 13, the boy who did it was 2 or 3 grades ahead of her.

Try to remember how old you were when you first started masturbating, or when you first watched porn or tried to look down a girls shirt. Probably before puberty.

If I'm being honest, I'd rather not bring my own sexual development into this discussion.  It's kind of all over the place and in a way that has little to do with this conversation.

Still, I don't think that your recollections are helping your point.  I mean, I knew girls that were pregnant by the time they were in 8th grade too.  But didn't their pregnancy itself kind of demonstrate that they probably weren't ready to be having sex in the first place?  I mean, I remember dudes begging girls to have abortions.

In any case, I think you're confusing two different things.  Being sexually curious and being sexually mature.  And I just don't think that being sexually curious isn't the same thing as being prepared to actually have sex with a much older woman, let alone a woman that is ostensibly acting as your guardian, or deal with whatever issues one might have surrounding that experience.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 13, 2012, 03:45:24 AM
Child pornography, be it production of, distribution of or possession of, is intolerable to anyone who isn't a depraved, sick puppy. Are there any decent vets in China Joe?

What if it's produced, distributed and consumed by children, as is often the case when our young people have access to a cell phone or a web cam and some alone time?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 13, 2012, 03:48:06 AM
Child pornography, be it production of, distribution of or possession of, is intolerable to anyone who isn't a depraved, sick puppy. Are there any decent vets in China Joe?

That sure sounds like the same kind of language people use to describe homosexuals.

I know that as a Christian you're not used to backing up your statements with facts and logic. You throw out your emotional opinions and insult anyone who doesn't share them. That doesn't make you right, and that isn't how you convince someone they're wrong.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 13, 2012, 04:00:57 AM
Still, I don't think that your recollections are helping your point.  I mean, I knew girls that were pregnant by the time they were in 8th grade too.  But didn't their pregnancy itself kind of demonstrate that they probably weren't ready to be having sex in the first place?  I mean, I remember dudes begging girls to have abortions.

I think that if they were able to get pregnant, that proves that they were ready to have sex. Evolution favors procreation over the needs of the individual. Society shames them for it, but there is no reason that they couldn't have raised a happy, healthy child, continued their education and became productive members of society. Teen moms do it literally every day.

In any case, I think you're confusing two different things.  Being sexually curious and being sexually mature.  And I just don't think that being sexually curious isn't the same thing as being prepared to actually have sex with a much older woman, let alone a woman that is ostensibly acting as your guardian, or deal with whatever issues one might have surrounding that experience.

You missed my point. My point is that children are very sexual beings, despite what society would have you believe. I did not say anything about their readiness for sex other than stating that I, personally, was.

What issues? What negative issues may have arisen out of my 10 year old self having sex with my 20 year old babysitter that are not simply artificial morality issues imposed by a sexually-repressed society?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Van Persie on June 13, 2012, 04:16:52 AM
Child pornography, be it production of, distribution of or possession of, is intolerable to anyone who isn't a depraved, sick puppy. Are there any decent vets in China Joe?

What if it's produced, distributed and consumed by children, as is often the case when our young people have access to a cell phone or a web cam and some alone time?

Timo, then it is just a damn tragedy and makes me weep.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Van Persie on June 13, 2012, 04:22:18 AM


That sure sounds like the same kind of language people use to describe homosexuals.

Not me.


I know that as a Christian you're not used to backing up your statements with facts and logic. You throw out your emotional opinions and insult anyone who doesn't share them. That doesn't make you right, and that isn't how you convince someone they're wrong.

Facts and logic, when it comes to something like child pornography, can bite me. If you don't simply fucking know it's wrong then you are a tragedy, and need help, and will certainly never have a meaningful relationship with any woman. Discussion over.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 13, 2012, 04:39:39 AM
I think that if they were able to get pregnant, that proves that they were ready to have sex. Evolution favors procreation over the needs of the individual. Society shames them for it, but there is no reason that they couldn't have raised a happy, healthy child, continued their education and became productive members of society. Teen moms do it literally every day.

The fact that they are physically capable of carrying a child doesn't mean that they are emotionally or financially ready to do so.  We can talk about evolution until we're blue in the face but the fact of the matter is that evolution has instilled in us more than the ability to reproduce in our early teen years.  It's also instilled in us, among other things, the ability to create complex societies in which having children in our early teen years can have a profoundly negative impact on our quality of life.

To be sure, there are indeed plenty of young single moms that were able to get their lives in order.  I know some of them.  But I think that this is the same sort of sleight of hand we usually see employed by economic conservatives.  You can't act as if something like a pregnancy at age 14 is not, in general, a very bad thing to happen in this society (and for more than "moral" reasons) just because there are people that have managed to overcome it.

You missed my point. My point is that children are very sexual beings, despite what society would have you believe. I did not say anything about their readiness for sex other than stating that I, personally, was.

What issues? What negative issues may have arisen out of my 10 year old self having sex with my 20 year old babysitter that are not simply artificial morality issues imposed by a sexually-repressed society?

I completely understood your point.  I just doubt that you're being completely honest with yourself.  Maybe I'm wrong and you were an exceptional little boy in that regard.  Only Allah knows.  I'm just saying that I doubt it.

As far as negative issues go, I'd imagine that they'd be the same sorts of issues that other sexual abuse victims deal with, ie anything from control, trust and anxiety issues to depression, ptsd and substance abuse problems later in life.  I know they've got support groups for this sort of thing and that there are men out there that are to this day ashamed and embarrassed about things that happened between them and their babysitters.  How much of that is due to our society being sexually repressed or whatever is anyone's guess.  I don't think that this sort of thing is possible to completely isolate as a variable in these sorts of discussions, nor do I think these things should be isolated.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 13, 2012, 04:53:47 AM
Timo, then it is just a damn tragedy and makes me weep.

Just curious.  What exactly makes you weep about it?  I'd imagine that our concerns overlap but that yours go beyond mine, what with you being a Christian and all.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Dante on June 13, 2012, 06:59:07 AM

I know that as a Christian you're not used to backing up your statements with facts and logic. You throw out your emotional opinions and insult anyone who doesn't share them. That doesn't make you right, and that isn't how you convince someone they're wrong.

Facts and logic, when it comes to something like child pornography, can bite me. If you don't simply fucking know it's wrong then you are a tragedy, and need help, and will certainly never have a meaningful relationship with any woman. Discussion over.

Well, that was easy.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 13, 2012, 07:04:28 AM
Then the answer is not no, you're saying you would not have sex with her right now, which is a non-answer that deflects the question.

Fine. The answer is "not right now". Is that better? Anyway, you don't see sex the way I see it. To you, it's for pleasure. For me, it's for love. If I was going to have sex with anyone[1], it'd be because I loved them. I would even have sex with the ugliest person in the world if I loved them.

And for the last time, the name's One Above All. Get it right.
 1. And I'm bisexual, BTW. And no, it's not dishonest of me to omit irrelevant information. It would only be relevant if I was homosexual, in which case my opinion would be moot.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 13, 2012, 07:14:09 AM
I would even have sex with the ugliest person in the world if I loved them.

But would you love the ugliest person in the world? Romantic love.

And for the last time, the name's One Above All. Get it right.

Yeah, I'm not calling you that.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 13, 2012, 07:19:59 AM
But would you love the ugliest person in the world? Romantic love.

Fuck yes. You're still young[1], so I see how that might confuse you, but appearances don't mean a damn thing.

Yeah, I'm not calling you that.

It's a fictional character from the Marvel universe; no different than Lucifer, Vishnu or Spider-man.
 1. From my PoV.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Van Persie on June 13, 2012, 07:21:57 AM
Timo, then it is just a damn tragedy and makes me weep.

Just curious.  What exactly makes you weep about it?  I'd imagine that our concerns overlap but that yours go beyond mine, what with you being a Christian and all.

The loss of innocence, the fact that sex has become such a commodity made all the more exploitable by technology. Peer pressure. My own daughter is on the cusp of puberty. It's scary.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Van Persie on June 13, 2012, 07:25:52 AM

I know that as a Christian you're not used to backing up your statements with facts and logic. You throw out your emotional opinions and insult anyone who doesn't share them. That doesn't make you right, and that isn't how you convince someone they're wrong.

Facts and logic, when it comes to something like child pornography, can bite me. If you don't simply fucking know it's wrong then you are a tragedy, and need help, and will certainly never have a meaningful relationship with any woman. Discussion over.

Well, that was easy.

If you can stomach discussing this with him, go ahead. He makes my skin crawl. I signed back up to the forum to make my point to him, from now on I avoid him.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 13, 2012, 07:28:50 AM
Facts and logic ... can bite me.

When the evidence demonstrates that legalizing the possession of child porn would lead to fewer children being raped and you're still in favor of banning it, it becomes obvious that it's not really about protecting children. It's about banning things that make you uncomfortable, that don't fit in with your concept of normal.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Nam on June 13, 2012, 07:44:36 AM
Facts and logic ... can bite me.

When the evidence demonstrates that legalizing the possession of child porn would lead to fewer children being raped and you're still in favor of banning it, it becomes obvious that it's not really about protecting children. It's about banning things that make you uncomfortable, that don't fit in with your concept of normal.


If it would be happening less, than where is all this child pornography coming from? What? What's already floating out there? You'd think just like those into regular porn would get sick and tired of the old and want something new.

Oh, but, that's different, right? There'd be less children being sexually abused just to please people like you.

-Nam
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Dante on June 13, 2012, 07:45:05 AM
Well, that was easy.

If you can stomach discussing this with him, go ahead. He makes my skin crawl. I signed back up to the forum to make my point to him, from now on I avoid him.

I can stomach any subject when facts, logic, and thought are used in the discussion. What I've found I have a hard time stomaching are discussions based on preconceived attitudes and emotional platitudes, such as yours.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Zankuu on June 13, 2012, 07:45:22 AM
But would you love the ugliest person in the world? Romantic love.

Fuck yes. You're still young, so I see how that might confuse you, but appearances don't mean a damn thing.

I find it hard to believe that you could connect emotionally and physically with someone you consider "ugly" and aren't attracted to. In fact, I'd go so far to say it isn't possible. But I don't want to derail this thread. I can start a topic on it if you're willing to discuss is.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 13, 2012, 07:48:56 AM
I can start a topic on it if you're willing to discuss is.

Bring it on.[1]
 1. This is a reference to "Megas XLR".
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Nam on June 13, 2012, 07:52:07 AM
But would you love the ugliest person in the world? Romantic love.

Fuck yes. You're still young, so I see how that might confuse you, but appearances don't mean a damn thing.

I find it hard to believe that you could connect emotionally and physically with someone you consider "ugly" and aren't attracted to. In fact, I'd go so far to say it isn't possible. But I don't want to derail this thread. I can start a topic on it if you're willing to discuss is.

If they are "settling", I can believe it but if someone finds another "repulsive" physically, I don't see how they can truly love them. Perhaps they are confusing lust with love?

-Nam
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 13, 2012, 07:52:58 AM
...Society likes to pretend that children aren't sexual but they are. Most begin masturbating years before puberty. We like to forget that historically women girls were married as soon as they could menstruate. Not rarely, not just sometimes, but this was the norm.

And here we get to an important point that I think has been missed. Girls and boys are different. Women carry the burden of the consequences of early pregnancies, and I think they are often more vulnerable to advances that end them up in trouble. I'm generalizing here, but many teenage boys just want to get laid. Teenage girls want to be loved. This leads to mixed signals, girls having sex to be liked, boys having other ideas, and the girls get hurt. You are not a girl, Joe. I cannot repeat this enough. I am a woman. I was a girl. I've spoken with lots of girls and women. And many, many of them have been hurt by this difference in outlook. Anything you say or feel about being a young, sexual being, cannot immediately be applied to the female side of the equation.

And saying something is anonymous in this day and age? Please. Be serious. Nothing is beyond reach. A child in a porno image can be identified now, tomorrow, or next year or decades later. It will always hang over them as a possibility. I would feel humiliated if I knew there were such out there of me. Heck, after this discussion I might never have sex again for fear they'll film it and distribute it. Ick.

Edited to add: Any society that marries girls off at menstruation were wrong. Those women were oppressed. I defy you to find any society that does such where the women have freedom or equality. They are property.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 13, 2012, 07:58:27 AM
Got it, most of mankind since the beginning of time was wrong, and now we finally have our perfect morality, which will never change.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 13, 2012, 07:59:28 AM
Got it, most of mankind since the beginning of time was wrong, and now we finally have our perfect morality, which will never change.

Can anyone say "strawman"? I'm sure you can, joebbowers, since you seem so fond of it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 13, 2012, 08:04:27 AM
If it would be happening less, than where is all this child pornography coming from? What? What's already floating out there?

All what child pornography? What deluge of child porn have you been flooded with? Is AOL sending child porn-laden CDs to your door to try 50 hours free?

On the other hand, try to throw a rock on the internet without hitting some gay porn. It's errrywhere. And yet homosexuals and pedophiles represent approximately equal percentages of society.

You'd think just like those into regular porn would get sick and tired of the old and want something new.

I think there is enough existing content to keep consumers satisfied, yes.

Oh, but, that's different, right? There'd be less children being sexually abused just to please people like you.

No, there'd be more! Decreased access to pornography leads to increased sexual crime. Have you been sleeping?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Nam on June 13, 2012, 08:12:59 AM
Joe, you're an idiot. You really are. I mean, if a person who watches legal porn now can get sick of what's out there now, and there's a lot of legal porn out there, then there'd be no reason for people to make more of it since there's plenty out there?

It'd be a commodity. A business, if made legal. People would exploit it[1] just to make more money from it, and the consumer will want more newer stuff, they'll get sick of the old stuff.

You are not only an idiot but also full of shit.

-Nam
 1. and the children
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 13, 2012, 08:19:31 AM
Got it, most of mankind since the beginning of time was wrong, and now we finally have our perfect morality, which will never change.

No, no, and no. We are not perfect, and I despair of us ever being perfect. Human society is so screwed up sexually that I despair of us ever learning a better way.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Quesi on June 13, 2012, 08:35:45 AM

The consensus among experts is that increased access to pornography reduces the number of sexual crimes. I will read any scientific paper that says otherwise, but I believe that the only articles you will find that claim the opposite are the sole opinions of the authors, and not based on solid research.

Longitudinal study

A longitudinal study of 341 convicted child molesters in America found that pornography's use correlated significantly with their rate of sexually re-offending. Frequency of pornography use was primarily a further risk factor for higher-risk offenders, when compared with lower-risk offenders, and use of highly deviant pornography correlated with increased recidivism risk for all groups.[5] The majority of men who have been charged with or convicted of child pornography offenses show pedophilic profiles on phallometric testing.[6] A study with a sample of 201 adult male child pornography offenders using police databases examined charges or convictions after the index child pornography offense(s). 56% of the sample had a prior criminal record, 24% had prior contact sexual offenses, and 15% had prior child pornography offenses. One-third were concurrently charged with other crimes at the time they were charged for child pornography offenses. 17% of the sample offended again in some way during this time, and 4% committed a new contact sexual offense. Child pornography offenders with prior criminal records were significantly more likely to offend again in any way during the follow-up period. Child pornography offenders who had committed a prior or concurrent contact sexual offense were the most likely to offend again, either generally or sexually.[7]


Mayo Clinic studies

According to the Mayo Clinic of the U.S.A., studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child, however they note that it is difficult to know how many people progress from computerized child pornography to physical acts against children and how many would have progressed to physical acts without the computer being involved.[8]
American Federal Bureau of Prisons

A study conducted by psychologists at the American Federal Bureau of Prisons has concluded that "many Internet child pornography offenders may be undetected child molesters", finding a slightly higher percentage of molesters among child pornography offenders than the Mayo Clinic study, though they also "cautioned that offenders who volunteer for treatment may differ in their behavior from those who do not seek treatment." The study was withdrawn by Bureau officials from a peer-reviewed journal which had accepted it for publication, due to concerns that the results were not applicable to the general population of offenders.[citation needed] Some researchers argued that the findings "do not necessarily apply to the large and diverse group of adults who have at some point downloaded child pornography, and whose behavior is far too variable to be captured by a single survey".[9] Child protection advocates and psychologists like Fred Berlin, who heads the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma, expressed disapproval over the failure to publish the report.[9] A 1987 report by the U.S.A. National Institute of Justice described "a disturbing correlation" between traders of child pornography and acts of child molestation.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse

If Joe says "consensus among experts" enough times, it might just come true.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on June 13, 2012, 08:43:19 AM
"a disturbing correlation" between traders of child pornography and acts of child molestation

And what do we know about correlation...?  (Which is all that the studies you cite demonstrate.)
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 13, 2012, 09:25:09 AM
Thanks, Lucifer, for playing the role of the Christian.

Learn the difference between speaking like a theist and arguing like one. You're embarrassing yourself. The "dodging" you perceived had a subtle message encoded underneath it. I see it has gone over your head. Not to worry; I'm sure other, more intelligent, atheists got it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 13, 2012, 11:05:12 AM
If Joe says "consensus among experts" enough times, it might just come true.

I've already read both of the studies you mentioned, they are highly flawed as even their authors repeatedly point out. First, the claim that 30-80% of child porn consumers have molested a child is ridiculous. 30-80% is hugely vague and it's impossible to know how many child porn consumers are really out there, or how many of them have molested children.

Sure, you can interview pedophiles arrested for molesting children and ask them if they viewed child pornography, and I'm sure most of them did. I'm sure most rapists of adult victims also viewed pornography. I'm sure most of the people arrested for unpaid parking tickets also viewed pornography. Is there a connection between bad parking and pornography use or are these numbers simply reflecting the fact that most people watch porn?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 13, 2012, 11:16:39 AM
Joe, you're an idiot. You really are. I mean, if a person who watches legal porn now can get sick of what's out there now, and there's a lot of legal porn out there, then there'd be no reason for people to make more of it since there's plenty out there?

Nobody is sick of the porn that's out there now as nobody's ever seen all of it. If it were made illegal to produce, there's enough to watch it 24 hours a day for the rest of your life and not see it all. They continue to make new porn because they can and people buy it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 13, 2012, 11:19:37 AM
I'm completely against child[1] pornography, whether it's production, distribution, or ownership.  There's a very simple reason for this; in order for it to exist at all, someone has to make it.  In order for someone to make it, they have to use a child in it.  To use a child in something like that has the very real potential to do lasting harm to them.  There is no good argument for risking such serious harm to a child in something like that so that adults can get sexual enjoyment out of it.  That includes so-called "virtual" porn.  Even if it involves a virtual construct instead of an actual child, it's still got a lot of potential for causing problems that can and should be avoided.
 1. child, in this case, means someone who's prepubescent or within a year or so of when pubescence begins
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: HAL on June 13, 2012, 11:34:20 AM
What if the child porn was pure animation?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 13, 2012, 11:45:30 AM
What if the child porn was pure animation?

I'd want more information on whether porn causes or prevents future harm to children. If Joe is right, and it lessens the chance for child rape and other abuse, then its worth considering. If others are right and it encourages child rape and other abuse, then its another story altogether.

I've only done a few searches and I've found conflicting data.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 13, 2012, 12:07:40 PM
Including animation, unless and until someone can show that it does not increase the overall possibility of children being sexually abused.  Until then, I don't think it's worth the risk.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 13, 2012, 12:08:40 PM
Including animation, unless and until someone can show that it does not increase the overall possibility of children being sexually abused.  Until then, I don't think it's worth the risk.

What if its absence causes more sexual abuse than its presence? In other words, both cause an increase of sexual abuse, but one causes less than the other. What then?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timtheskeptic on June 13, 2012, 12:09:46 PM
What if the child porn was pure animation?

I think that if it is purely animation, then fine. We have video games of violence and such and it doesn't make anyone go out and do violence. Child porn disgusts me and i would rather die a horrible, excruciating, agonizing death than to watch it, but i don't think it would make people rape children. Also, i've watched Penn and Teller talked about war on porn , porn doesn't make people do anything like rape. I've watched porn before and never felt an urge to do anyone any harm. I don't watch porn because i don't want to hurt my laptop. my last laptop had viruses and malware so i want to avoid that.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: albeto on June 13, 2012, 12:42:31 PM

But I would like to take a moment to address the op and subsequent posts on the topic of pedophilia. 

Pedophilia is about a power imbalance.  It is about a sexuality that resides in the realm of the adult/child relationship, in which the child has no option but to submit to the authority of the adult.  It is about an adult wanting a level of sexual control that he (and sometimes she) cannot obtain with an adult peer.  Pedophiles often exploit their real or perceived authority as respected uncles, priests, teachers, coaches, casting agents, or just simply as adults, who children who have been taught to trust and obey.

Pedophilia is a recognized psychiatric disorder....

Homosexuality was a recognized psychiatric disorder as well.  Mothers of autistic children were blamed for being "refrigerator mothers" incapable of loving their child, thus imprisoning him in a mental hell for life.  The point being, the more familiar we are with something, the more valuable our analysis and response (I mean this generally, speaking as a society, the "royal we"). 

Your comments about what pedophilia is seems to me to be no different than the arguments made against homosexuality - a position of power, an abuse of authority, compelling another to behave in a certain way for the gratification of the abuser.  We no longer think this as a society (well, we're getting there anyway) because we're gaining familiarity with homosexuality in terms of social, biological, neurophysiological, and other variables.  My question would be, what makes one think pedophilia is about control and exploitation and not a matter of simply a physiological response to specific stimuli?  If we put sexuality on a bell curve, where does pedophilia go?  I think Joe has been clear in explaining a physiological attraction does not equal a physical behavior, and a physiological attraction is one that can't be helped any more than any other physiological condition with which one is born (like left handedness or autism).  One can learn to behave in socially appropriate ways, but to suggest it is bad (as you do with equating it to control and exploitation) is to place a value statement on a relatively little known physiological condition.  In other words, I think it's an immature, knee-jerk reaction that is based more on tradition than knowledge. 

In any case, this has been a most fascinating conversation to me because as I mother with teenagers, I do cringe at the idea of them being taken advantage of in any way, certainly sexual.  That empathy translates rather easily to any tween/teen.  Perhaps my experiences have skewed my opinion in that I don't know people who were exploited sexually against their will (which to me isn't about sex but about power), whereas my best friend throughout middle school had a boyfriend 20 years her senior.  They met in the hospital where she was a candy-striper, he was a doctor.  She left him flirtatious notes on his car.  A year later he was spending the nights at her house.  She was 13, he 35 when this started.  This continued for a couple years.  This wasn't about exploitation at all, but a mutual attraction between two people with a socially inappropriate age difference.  This is one of the reasons I'm finding this conversation so interesting - I'm reading this against the backdrop of positive memories. 

Another reason I find it so fascinating is it forces me to face the moral code I had imposed on me, I had imposed on my children, and generally supported in society.  Instead of accepting it just because (appeal to tradition, appeal to popularity), I'm forced to analyze it detail by detail and find where it fits in my moral code.  Today my moral code is no longer based on an outsider's opinion (biblegod), but based on the well-being of another person (as a reference, Sam Harris' "the moral landscape" works well for me).  Based on my friend's experience, I would say her relationship was not bad for her well-being and I doubt it was bad for his.  Being 13 myself, I didn't think to ask these things and I never did meet him.  I don't think of this as domestic help that is considered toys for the father/oldest son of the family because that's not a mutually respectful relationship any more than a date-rape is a mutually respectful relationship.  For the same reason date-rape doesn't negate the value of casual sex-on-the-first-date, exploiting young women ought not be the reference for pedophilic relationships, and certainly not as a sexual identity.

Okay, I'm sorry if I rambled on and on and I meant for Quesi's comment to be a jumping off point for me, not a response to her specifically.  Quesi, I find your insight into society in the lesser known corners of the world invaluable.  Between you and nogodsforme's posts, I feel like I've gained more knowledge about the world I'm not familiar with than I ever got in any class or from any book.  I hope you don't interpret my post as anything other than a springboard for my thoughts that I tried to wrap up in one post after a long, complex and fascinating thread. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: albeto on June 13, 2012, 12:45:59 PM
Facts and logic, when it comes to something like child pornography, can bite me.

Why?  How would you know something without facts and the skills to logically analyze those facts?  How can you be familiar with a concept if you don't explore the facts and critique the logic being used? 

If you don't simply fucking know it's wrong then you are a tragedy, and need help, and will certainly never have a meaningful relationship with any woman. Discussion over.

Can you share why this is?  It is still rather common to think homosexual identity is caused by a lack of a meaningful relationship with a father figure (mother figure for lesbians).  The more we understand sexual identity, the more we can dismiss this as a theory.  I imagine the more we learn about pedophilia as a sexual identity the more we will be able to dismiss your idea that a pedophilic man will never have a meaningful relationship with any woman as well.  And are we assuming pedophilia is unique to men? 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 13, 2012, 02:21:04 PM
What if its absence causes more sexual abuse than its presence? In other words, both cause an increase of sexual abuse, but one causes less than the other. What then?
Then you would be showing that it increases the overall possibility of children being sexually abused.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 13, 2012, 02:22:57 PM
Then you would be showing that it increases the overall possibility of children being sexually abused.

Yes, but so does its absence. That's my question: What do we do then?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 13, 2012, 02:40:17 PM
Yes, but so does its absence. That's my question: What do we do then?
Already answered it, in the post you quoted about two and a half hours ago.  I didn't say "increase the possibility" (an absolute increase), I said "increase the overall possibility" (a relative one).
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 13, 2012, 05:02:49 PM
A five-year-old child cannot consent to photos of its abuse being published. So publication of such photos should be prohibited, on grounds of invasion of privacy, at the very least.

And as I said, it is highly unlikely that an adult survivor of sexual abuse would consent to such photos being released into the public domain.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that all publications of images of child sexual abuse are non-consensual, and therefore they should be confiscated and removed from the public domain.
As I've already said, the production and distribution of child pornography should be illegal. You aren't making a compelling case against possession unless you can apply the same logic to all cases non-consensual publication.

Would you say that any non-consensual images of anyone should be removed from the public domain?

It depends to what extent a person's privacy is being invaded and to what extent a person might reasonably expect privacy in a particular situation.

Quote
Paparazzi photos,
That's a difficult one, because celebrities sometimes appear in public expecting to be photographed (at a film premiere, say), other times they don't expect it. 

Quote
hidden-camera and ex-girlfriend sex tapes
A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy when having sex in their homes. Covertly recording private sexual activity and publishing it would be wrong.

Quote
people photographed in public places?.
It would depend on what they were doing. If you saw an attractive young girl on the beach with her parents, would you approach her and start taking photos of her from 10 feet away? Wouldn't that be somewhat impolite, to say the least? And don't you think her father would have cause to be irate?

But, none of these situations are comparable with child pornography. Those children have already been abused once; allowing possession by others of the evidence of their abuse can only hurt them further.

As Traveler said, showing the empathy of which you appear incapable:
And saying something is anonymous in this day and age? Please. Be serious. Nothing is beyond reach. A child in a porno image can be identified now, tomorrow, or next year or decades later. It will always hang over them as a possibility. I would feel humiliated if I knew there were such out there of me.
Quite.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 13, 2012, 07:36:21 PM
What if the child porn was pure animation?

Somebody asked this question already. It is a fair question.

Another scenario that comes up, is artistic child pornography that is aimed at educating people about the problem or helping people deal with their own experience in the form of art theraphy.

One may also ask, what about people over 18, who pretend for erotic purposes, to act out pedophilic fantasies.  ;D

One may be very close to entering the realm of thought crime.

On a logical plane, one would think it should be allowed

On the other hand, if you knew X was into thast, would you want5 him near your kids.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Van Persie on June 14, 2012, 01:27:05 AM
What if the child porn was pure animation?

Nothing 'pure' about it.

100% no. All that is doing is finding an alternate method to sate the same evil desire.

But, as atheists, you are all forced to look at such desires within the context of evolutionary usefullness. And within that context, people like Joe can justify things which we know, if we are prepared to be honest, are just plain wrong.

It's a problem for the many atheists on this forum who have read this thread without commenting. Silently disgusted, they have failed to give voice to that disgust partly because it raises the question of good and evil outside the evolutionary context. They can see the evil with absolute clarity, but how to explain it in the face of 'logic' and 'reason' which might tell us that such things are not harmful at all? 

I stand by my previous comment that logic and reason comes a distant second to the conviction many of you must have that what Joe supports is wrong. The source of that conviction may trouble you, but I am interested now to hear from those yet to weigh in on this matter as to whether I am off base.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on June 14, 2012, 02:14:22 AM
Actually, VP, "we atheists" can denounce it on the basis of our anti-harm ethic.  As in, objecting to the harm to children, or even to observing harm to children.

Quite irrelevant to (a)theism, that.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: albeto on June 14, 2012, 02:21:19 AM
100% no. All that is doing is finding an alternate method to sate the same evil desire.

Can you explain this?  What makes a desire evil?  Does a desire count as evil or the acting out of it count as evil?  I wonder because this is a deliciously theistic point of view, but now I'm quite convinced it has no meaning outside one's own amorphous beliefs. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Van Persie on June 14, 2012, 02:27:17 AM
Actually, VP, "we atheists" can denounce it on the basis of our anti-harm ethic.  As in, objecting to the harm to children, or even to observing harm to children.

Quite irrelevant to (a)theism, that.

I get that, but what if Joe convinces you that such activity as possessing child pornography is not harmful?

Does it not 'feel' wrong to you outside that?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 14, 2012, 02:30:49 AM
Nothing 'pure' about it.

100% no. All that is doing is finding an alternate method to sate the same evil desire.

Why should the state be in the business of curbing people from expressing "evil desires" in an entirely fictional format?  And it is the state's business, why should it stop with child pornography?  Why not do away with movies that depict murder, rape, torture, etc?

Basically, I think that there are very good reasons for making child pornography illegal when it involves actual children who are harmed in the production and disemination.  I fail to see how any of those reasons could apply to completely fictional characters that are animated rather than portrayed by actual children.

But, as atheists, you are all forced to look at such desires within the context of evolutionary usefullness. And within that context, people like Joe can justify things which we know, if we are prepared to be honest, are just plain wrong.

I think that everyone needs to look at our desires and behaviors with evolution in mind, regardless of where they stand on the god question.  I just don't think it makes sense to pretend that our values, however deeply and sincerely we hold them, are the only thing worth considering in a discussion of morality or any subject for that matter.  And I wouldn't think that this would be all that difficult for a Christian to really work with.  Most Christians I know believe that we are born with a sin nature and that this is something that we, as humans, should do our best to overcome.  Christians also believe that we are born with God's law written on our hearts.  I think it works more or less the same way with what we might call our basic, primal nature.  There are what we would mostly consider good things that are instilled in us through evolution and there are things that are a bit more base.  If we're talking about morality and moral questions we ought to keep that in mind, but that doesn't mean that we have to hold up the findings of evolutionary biologists as sign posts that will guide us towards absolute moral truth.

It's a problem for the many atheists on this forum who have read this thread without commenting. Silently disgusted, they have failed to give voice to that disgust partly because it raises the question of good and evil outside the evolutionary context. They can see the evil with absolute clarity, but how to explain it in the face of 'logic' and 'reason' which might tell us that such things are not harmful at all?

Not really.  I find pedophilia to be disgusting.  I have no problem saying that.  But with that said, I think that I can also recognize that a sub-set of the adult population is going to be sexually attracted to children and that this is not something that is their fault.  It's therefore not something that I would condemn.  At this point, we're only talking about sexual orientation.  What I would condemn, however, is an adult actually engaging in a sexual act with a child.  And I don't need to appeal to a god to do this.  I condemn it because it does tangible damage to the children that fall victim to it.  I condemn it because it is essentially rape, even if ostensibly consensual (working from the premise that children are not capable of giving informed consent).

What's more, I would say that your view is actually worse for the world.  If we're going to condemn people as being evil for their innate desires, those people are probably not going to seek out the sorts of therapies that would work towards preventing them from harming children.

I stand by my previous comment that logic and reason comes a distant second to the conviction many of you must have that what Joe supports is wrong. The source of that conviction may trouble you, but I am interested now to hear from those yet to weigh in on this matter as to whether I am off base.

I think you're off base.

I think that one of the biggest knocks against the notion that modern Christian ideas about morality are really innate is that there have been so many cultures over the course of human history, many of them Christian cultures that would not share our disgust.

That photo that joe put up, for example, was off-putting to me.  I have a problem with what appears to be a young girl being sexualized in that way.  (And I think Quesi was completely on point about the pose.)  I think you would too.

But here's the thing.  The notion that I should not look at a 14 or 15 year old as a potential sexual partner is not something that we humans have always believed.  In fact, it's very recent.  And this is where I think that the whole evolutionary thing is important to take into consideration.  For most of our history, it was considered normal for girls of child-bearing age to be....bearing children.  In other words, for most of our history a 14 or so year old girl wasn't a "girl," she was a woman.  A shift in our thinking has taken place.  It's a shift that I think is a good thing.  However, it's not a shift that I would expect to necessarily inform anyone's involuntary reaction to a photograph.

So yeah...nah
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Van Persie on June 14, 2012, 02:32:21 AM
100% no. All that is doing is finding an alternate method to sate the same evil desire.

Can you explain this?  What makes a desire evil?  Does a desire count as evil or the acting out of it count as evil?  I wonder because this is a deliciously theistic point of view, but now I'm quite convinced it has no meaning outside one's own amorphous beliefs.

Sort of hard to, really. Sort of like trying to explain to a blind person how you can see the ocean. It's obvious to you, but...

I don't mean to be flippant. I genuinely don't know how to explain myself better. You know I'm a Christian....but I can't help thinking even non-Christians can see evil for waht it is, just because of what it is.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Van Persie on June 14, 2012, 02:42:29 AM
In fact, I would say that your view is actually worse for the world.  If we're going to condemn people as being evil for their innate desires, those people are probably not going to seek out the sorts of therapies that would work towards preventing them from harming children.

I didn't mean to suggest that. I recognise that we are born with many desires, and we aren't evil just for wanting something.


I think you're off base.
 

Fair enough. I respect your opinion.

That photo that joe put up, for example, was off-putting to me.  I have a problem with what appears to be a young girl being sexualized in that way.  (And I think Quesi was completely on point about the pose.)  I think you would too.

I have to be honest here. The photo, at first glance and probably even second, was very appealing to me. She is physically desirable. But....I try not to run with that, and rationalise why it would be OK for me to be OK with it. I end up coming to the conclusion Quesi and you did, but I have to make an effort to do so.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 14, 2012, 02:45:40 AM
Yeah, and actually I should say here that where joe really flew off the rails for me was when he was starting to get into why it might be better for a thirty year old to be on some sexual mentor shit with a 15 year old or how it would have been awesome if he would have been able to sleep with his babysitter at age 10.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Samothec on June 14, 2012, 03:22:13 AM
I grew up seeing movies like Porkies, American Virgin and others where it was not only okay but celebrated for teen guys to make it with teen girls or adult women. Then there's the fact of the bar/bat mitzvah where the 13-year-old is declared a man/woman.

American culture has shifted to claim sex between teens and adults is wrong and is now enforcing laws that have been on the books but rarely enforced before.

Instead of presenting teens as teens and children (pre-teens) as children (pre-teens), we are presented with adult actors as teens and teen actors as children (pre-teens).

We call teens children even though they aren't but prosecute them as adults even though they aren't.

Of course things are messed up.

Teens are sexual beings. We need to accept that fact. We also need to accept that there is no single right choice. For most teens, fumbling around with other teens will be the best thing. For some, an adult would be a better partner.


Proposed modifications to the law:

If the character in a movie/TV show is underage the actor should be within 2 years of age of the character's age.

No adult should be allowed to make underage porn. Teens should be allowed to make porn only if there is no adult involved in its conception. (Currently it is usually just suggestive/nude photos sent to a bf/gf known as sexting.) No porn involving children (pre-teens) should be allowed to be made by anybody. Existing teen/child porn should be permissible to own only if it can be reliably confirmed that it prevents sexual relations with teens/children. Animation, whether hand-drawn or CGI, should be a legal substitute.

Sexual contact between teens and adults would be legal only if the teen initiated contact with the adult (getting to know each other) and subsequently initiated the sexual contact. No sexual contact with a child (pre-teen) would be permitted at all.

No child (pre-teen) can be tried as an adult under any circumstances. Teens must undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine if they are capable of making adult decisions before being tried as an adult and are then legally declared an adult to stand trial. Even if acquited, the teen retains their adult status with all rights and responsibilities unless they are currently underage and choose to relinquish that adult status.


But these or similar changes to the law require rational people and rational decisions. Instead we get irrational laws that are based on emotion and religion.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 14, 2012, 03:42:24 AM
Oh come on Timo, you never had a crush on some older guy/girl when you were 'too' young? Never fantasized? What would have been so bad about those fantasies coming true?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 14, 2012, 04:33:11 AM
What if the child porn was pure animation?
<snip>
One may be very close to entering the realm of thought crime.

It is pre-emptive punishment, and it is thought crime. There is no victim, and no evidence to suggest a crime would occur at any future point. It is simply putting people in prison because they make you uncomfortable. Note that the punishment for virtual child porn is identical to the punishment for real child porn, and even more disturbing, possession of child porn considered the same class of crime (and therefore deserving of the same punishment) as actually raping a child.

On a logical plane, one would think it should be allowed

On the other hand, if you knew X was into thast, would you want5 him near your kids.

One of my best friends that I've known for half of my life got a 6 year sentence for possession of child porn. He had no record, it was his first offense. They destroyed his life for nothing. He never touched a child inappropriately and he never would have. He was a very kind and responsible citizen. He lost everything, his family won't speak to him anymore and won't let him near his nieces and nephews.

I understand this knee-jerk response, but let me explain to you how ridiculously stupid that is.

Consider these two questions:

Do you think someone who is sexually attracted to children is likely to rape a child?
Do you think someone who is sexually attracted to women is likely to rape a woman?

Now do you see the flaw in assuming that sexual attraction leads to rape? It leaves no room for self-control and common decency. You are punishing someone for a crime that you are assuming they will commit based on flawed logic. Obviously if sexual attraction were enough to lead to rape a women like Megan Fox would have to lock herself away in a fortress. And yet she goes out in public, knowing full well that almost every man she meets is intensely sexually attracted to her, but trusting them to control themselves.

Why can't we extend that trust to pedophiles? Unless they've actually harmed a child, we have no right to put them in prison.

It would be like pre-emptively convicting someone for rape for watching (adult) pornography, or pre-emptively convicting someone for murder because they bought a gun. If we did either of those things, it would be ridiculous, but when pedophiles are the targets of pre-emptive punishment, nobody speaks against it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 14, 2012, 05:05:49 AM
Oh come on Timo, you never had a crush on some older guy/girl when you were 'too' young? Never fantasized? What would have been so bad about those fantasies coming true?

Nah, I didn't say all that.  I don't think you quite get me.  What I'm saying is that, whatever scenarios we might have fantasized about at that age, 10 or 11, we probably weren't ready to act on that. 

I don't want to get too bogged down in my own case but I know that I was what they call "sexually active" by the time I was in my early teens and with girls that were my own age.  I don't think that I was ready then.  And I'm pretty damn sure that I wouldn't have been able to handle that a few years prior, and especially not with a babysitter[1] or other woman in a position of authority over me.....back when, looking back, I was just talking a big game about how I'd do this, that and the third to whoever I thought was fine.  When I read you talking about how you would have been a legend or whatever, that's how I read it.

But look, this is all speculation on both of our parts.  I didn't have much of any sexual contact with anyone that was more than a few years older than me until I was in my late teens and so I really don't have much to personally add on the possible effects of the sort of encounter we're talking about.  Maybe it would have been awesome.  I've had experiences that kind of got close to that line and I'm glad they ended there.  But maybe I'm putting too much stock in my own experiences.  Only Zeus knows.

Really, going back a ways, that's why I asked:

what do the studies say about young boys who had some sort of sexual contact with older women?

 1. But maybe it would have been awesome.  I don't think I ever had a proper babysitter growing up.  Just older cousins and aunts and uncles and shit.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timtheskeptic on June 14, 2012, 05:56:05 AM
Actually, VP, "we atheists" can denounce it on the basis of our anti-harm ethic.  As in, objecting to the harm to children, or even to observing harm to children.

Quite irrelevant to (a)theism, that.

I get that, but what if Joe convinces you that such activity as possessing child pornography is not harmful?

Does it not 'feel' wrong to you outside that?

VP, joe cannot convince me to ever want such a thing, but this wasn't about that, it's about discussing what is right or wrong on the subject, it's a complicated matter. None of us here thinks child porn is alright, we're trying to be reasonable.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 14, 2012, 07:04:37 AM
Now do you see the flaw in assuming that sexual attraction leads to rape? It leaves no room for self-control and common decency.

You didn't really read what i wrote very carefully. Thought crimes are unfairt because of this, yes.

Child porn involves a crime. The crime is in its production. Now as I said, the CGI thing is different.

People are protective of theior children. Its human nature.

I'm sorry about your friend but on the othehand those pics probably were not CGI.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 14, 2012, 07:20:13 AM
No, Ricky, they were not CGI. But don't you understand how it's illogical to assume a pedophile is a danger to your child any more than any straight man is a danger to your wife, or you yourself are a danger to any woman you are attracted to? Sexual attraction does not equal intent to rape.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Zankuu on June 14, 2012, 08:56:11 AM
VP, since you ask for input from those that have been lurking...

I think you're off base. There is nothing inherently wrong with or evil about pedophiles, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with or evil about graeophiles. Would you call a person that admits they are attracted to the elderly evil? Probably not. Which means the main issue you take with it, like myself and most in this thread, is that children don't fully understand the ramifications of their sexual choices at such an early age. So it's the idea of taking advantage of someone that you have a problem with. But now we're talking about child molestation, not pedophilia. I hope you aren't subconsciously equating the two since action is not dogmatically tied to desire.

It's a problem for the many atheists on this forum who have read this thread without commenting. Silently disgusted, they have failed to give voice to that disgust partly because it raises the question of good and evil outside the evolutionary context. They can see the evil with absolute clarity, but how to explain it in the face of 'logic' and 'reason' which might tell us that such things are not harmful at all?

And this is why I said you were off base since this isn't how I feel at all. I don't need a god (especially the Christian god: the trademarked supporter of child rape and murder) to tell me that taking advantage of a child could have potentially irreversible harm on the child's psyche. Psychology does a commendable job explaining how and why such things can be damaging.

I stand by my previous comment that logic and reason comes a distant second to the conviction many of you must have that what Joe supports is wrong.

Then you stand by your irrationality. Your argument that "Pedophiles are evil" is no different than an argument used against homosexuality or pro school segregation. "Gays are an abomination" and "It's just wrong to put blacks and whites together" are also arguments from conviction that people firmly stood by.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: screwtape on June 14, 2012, 12:47:51 PM
Discussion over.

Or not.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 14, 2012, 04:06:38 PM
Joe, I notice that you skipped over my last post to you  (#242 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg513410.html#msg513410)).

I'd like a reply.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Van Persie on June 14, 2012, 04:21:30 PM
Discussion over.

Or not.

Discussion with Joe over. (in this topic)
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: screwtape on June 14, 2012, 08:20:34 PM
Right.  Well, you posted that before and then made about 9 more posts.  You also said you were quitting this forum twice? before and here you are again.  So pardon me if I raise an eyebrow when you say it's over.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: magicmiles on June 14, 2012, 08:26:39 PM
VP, since you ask for input from those that have been lurking...

Just to be completely clear..VP is no more and I am back.


I think you're off base. There is nothing inherently wrong with or evil about pedophiles

I'm finding it it difficult to clearly state my position on this, I'll try again:

I agree there is nothing we can do to prevent ourselves feeling sexual attraction. I'm a Christian, and I believe we are born with a sin nature. What this means in terms of our attractions and desires is that we no longer desire only what God intended for us, and I firmly believe that God intended for most of us to have a sexual relationship with a life time partner of the opposite sex. We are not intended to have sex with people of the same sex and we are not intended to have sex outside of a life-long partnership.

Clearly, the age of your sexual and lifelong partner has cultural relevance. I really don't know how you go about drawing a universal line in the sand in this respect.

In our culture today, I think it's reasonable to say that 17 or 18 is about the minimum age. My wife was 19 when we were married, and I was a bit uneasy about that to be honest. Very mature for her age though.

So, for me, the problem is when we don't fight against our desires. I realise this is a Christian perspective and will appear ridiculous to you, but just so you know where I am coming from.


So it's the idea of taking advantage of someone that you have a problem with. But now we're talking about child molestation, not pedophilia. I hope you aren't subconsciously equating the two since action is not dogmatically tied to desire.

The two become linked when you don't fight against an attraction that is wrong. The attraction in iteslf is wrong, feeling the attraction is unavoidable, but fighting against it is certainly possible.

Are the things we are attracted to necessarily good? More of a general question, possibly worth a separate thread.


I stand by my previous comment that logic and reason comes a distant second to the conviction many of you must have that what Joe supports is wrong.

Then you stand by your irrationality. Your argument that "Pedophiles are evil" is no different than an argument used against homosexuality or pro school segregation. "Gays are an abomination" and "It's just wrong to put blacks and whites together" are also arguments from conviction that people firmly stood by.

I hope I have clarified my position. I don't consider anyone evil based on an attraction they have.

The reason I have come down so hard on Joebbowers is that he flaunts and embraces an attraction which I think he should fight against. Women and girls don't exist for his sexual gratification, or for anybody's, outside the God intended life long partnership.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: magicmiles on June 14, 2012, 08:29:22 PM
Right.  Well, you posted that before and then made about 9 more posts.  You also said you were quitting this forum twice? before and here you are again.  So pardon me if I raise an eyebrow when you say it's over.

I don't mind you raising your eyebrow. I trust I have clarified the matter.

I think I've quit three times actually. Check out my new signature.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: screwtape on June 14, 2012, 08:32:54 PM
You suck at quitting.  Never take up smoking or develop and addiction.  You'll be screwed.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: magicmiles on June 14, 2012, 08:34:21 PM
I know it. I fight addiction to many things daily. Thanks for the encouragement.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 14, 2012, 09:14:57 PM
Joe, I notice that you skipped over my last post to you  (#242 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg513410.html#msg513410)).

I'd like a reply.

I didn't reply because you focused on the production and distribution, and didn't answer my question about the possession. I asked whether or not you thought those found possessing the materials should be punished equally as those who produced and distributed it.

Quote
Paparazzi photos,
That's a difficult one, because celebrities sometimes appear in public expecting to be photographed (at a film premiere, say), other times they don't expect it. 

I was pretty clearly referring to the non-consensual ones.

Quote
hidden-camera and ex-girlfriend sex tapes
A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy when having sex in their homes. Covertly recording private sexual activity and publishing it would be wrong.

Fair enough, but that's production and distribution. No mention of possession, so I didn't respond to it.

Quote
people photographed in public places?.
It would depend on what they were doing. If you saw an attractive young girl on the beach with her parents, would you approach her and start taking photos of her from 10 feet away? Wouldn't that be somewhat impolite, to say the least? And don't you think her father would have cause to be irate?

Ditto. And by the way, as a photographer myself, if you ask permission, I've never known anyone to not allow you to photograph their kids. Most people are flattered that you find their kids attractive.[1]

But, none of these situations are comparable with child pornography. Those children have already been abused once; allowing possession by others of the evidence of their abuse can only hurt them further.

But how does it hurt them?

As Traveler said, showing the empathy of which you appear incapable:
And saying something is anonymous in this day and age? Please. Be serious. Nothing is beyond reach. A child in a porno image can be identified now, tomorrow, or next year or decades later. It will always hang over them as a possibility. I would feel humiliated if I knew there were such out there of me.
 1. Note I didn't say sexually attractive, just attractive.

How can they be identified? Why does it matter even if they are?

When you sit at home masturbating to Paris Hilton's leaked sex tape, you know who she is, but she doesn't know who you are, that you're watching the tape, or even that you exist.

How does it hurt her?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Zankuu on June 14, 2012, 09:56:09 PM
I'm a Christian, and I believe we are born with a sin nature. What this means in terms of our attractions and desires is that we no longer desire only what God intended for us, and I firmly believe that God intended for most of us to have a sexual relationship with a life time partner of the opposite sex.

We are not intended to have sex with people of the same sex and we are not intended to have sex outside of a life-long partnership.

So, animals have a sin nature? I ask that because homosexuality flourishes in many, many species other than the great apes. But sinning animals with souls isn’t what the Bible teaches. So I have to ask: Is this Christianity or the Religion of magicmiles? Because you are saying some things that are spitting in the face of the Old Testament.

The two become linked when you don't fight against an attraction that is wrong. The attraction in iteslf is wrong, feeling the attraction is unavoidable, but fighting against it is certainly possible.

Out of curiosity, since your feelings on this subject are based on your faith, where in the Bible does God say pedophilia is wrong? I’ll save you some leg work: it doesn’t.[1] Just some food for thought.

Women and girls don't exist for his sexual gratification, or for anybody's, outside the God intended life long partnership.

Attention: For those that read this quote and are now confused, magicmiles is referring to his self-projection as God including what he wants God’s intentions to be, not the actual God in the Torah which viewed women as property to be exchanged and bartered for.
 1. On the contrary, God doesn't seem to have a problem with Moses suggesting the rape of young girls in Numbers 31:13-18.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on June 14, 2012, 10:32:12 PM
And yet again, sadly, I am forced to explain that I am against the production and distribution of child pornography, but in favor of legalizing the simple possession.

First, I would like to apologize for taking so long between posts and responses. I have a new job now. I drive a commercial vehicle and have very very limited access and time to devote to leisure activities such as the internet.

Second, How in the world are people expected to obtain and possess child pornography if there is no production or distribution of the material?

It's supply and demand. As long as there is a demand for child pornography there will be someone willing to supply that product. By legalizing the possession of child pornography you effectively increase demand.

As long as there is demand for child pornography, children are at risk.

Simple possession of child pornography can never be decriminalized in a society that values and respects its children. 

Also, if this point of view has already been covered then please accept another apology, It is late and I am short on time.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: magicmiles on June 14, 2012, 10:48:50 PM

So, animals have a sin nature? I ask that because homosexuality flourishes in many, many species other than the great apes. But sinning animals with souls isn’t what the Bible teaches. So I have to ask: Is this Christianity or the Religion of magicmiles? Because you are saying some things that are spitting in the face of the Old Testament.

I don't believe it's possible for animals to sin. Animals are not created in the image of God. What they do, how they act has absolutely no relevance to anything humans do. Not sure what your point is, or how my views differ from anything recorded in the bible.


Out of curiosity, since your feelings on this subject are based on your faith, where in the Bible does God say pedophilia is wrong? I’ll save you some leg work: it doesn’t.[1] Just some food for thought.
 1. On the contrary, God doesn't seem to have a problem with Moses suggesting the rape of young girls in Numbers 31:13-18.

The bible clearly teaches that our sexual urges are to be fulfilled within the context of a life long partnership with the opposite sex. True, the bible does not specifically prohibit marriage below a certain age. As I said, cultural relevance is important. We live in a culture today which, quite frankly, gives mixed messages about our sexuality. On the one hand, pedaphilia is a massive taboo, and on the other hand our culture encourages girls at a younger and younger age to dress like women. It's messed up.

In a sense, I defer to what I believe God has provided for us by way of a moral compass. If you get a sneaking suspicion something is wrong then it probably is. Accept that - don't try to find clever arguments to get around it in order to gratify yourself.

As for your numbers 31 reference, I am sure you are aware of the perspectives which differ from yours in understanding what was going on. We won't find agreement on it, as your are certain the God of the bible was evil and I am certain the God of the bible demonstrates that evil cannot and will not be tolerated. We don't get to decide what's evil, much to our annoyance.



Women and girls don't exist for his sexual gratification, or for anybody's, outside the God intended life long partnership.

Attention: For those that read this quote and are now confused, magicmiles is referring to his self-projection as God including what he wants God’s intentions to be, not the actual God in the Torah which viewed women as property to be exchanged and bartered for.

I don't just look at the Torah, I look at the entire bible. The OT was full of rules and rituals, and yes, women were largely treated as property. That definitely seems wrong to us today, and truth be told I don't 100% understand it all. But I also know that Jesus came to free the world from the need to tick 1000 boxes each day, and I know that Christians are taught to love women as Jesus loved the world. Sacrificially.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 15, 2012, 12:11:47 AM
This has already been stated by others, and answered by me, but I'll summarize it to save you the time looking it up.

How in the world are people expected to obtain and possess child pornography if there is no production or distribution of the material?

You're making a false assumption that banning production will stop production. It obviously doesn't work that way. It will continue to get made, and we should punish those who make it. Even if somehow you could prevent it's production entirely (impossible) that wouldn't cause the existing content to suddenly dissapear.

You might think of it kind of like marijuana. It's legal[1] (in some places) to possess a small amount, as the police consider it's for personal use and you're not hurting anyone. But producing it or selling it will land you in jail.

It's supply and demand. As long as there is a demand for child pornography there will be someone willing to supply that product. By legalizing the possession of child pornography you effectively increase demand.

In order for that to be true, you must demonstrate how anonymous download without payment increases production. If you have a good argument for this please take it to the RIAA and Hollywood to get them to shut the fuck up about piracy.

Even if it's legalization did lead to more demand, you must explain how increased demand taxes the supply. Normal supply and demand rules do not apply when the product is infinitely copyable.

Nam called me an idiot for making this argument and pointed out that porn companies are always making more porn. Of course he failed to take into account that porn is profitable because it is sold, produced, and distributed legally, and porn companies don't seem too happy about the anonymous download without payment of their product.

As long as there is demand for child pornography sex, children are at risk.

Fixed that for you. You know rape was around long before the internet right? Like, long before.

Simple possession of child pornography can never be decriminalized in a society that values and respects its children. 

So you're saying that most countries in the world don't value and respect their children? Japan doesn't? Denmark doesn't?

Even if you are saying that what's good enough for most of the world isn't good enough for you, I can respect that position. We should aspire to be better than the others. Just because they allow it doesn't mean we should. I understand that.

However that doesn't take into consideration the studies that conclude that sex crime worldwide has gone down since the advent of the internet and the proliferation of freely accessible pornography. Many many studies on both general pornography and specifically child pornography have demonstrated that increased access to porn gives an outlet to sexual energy and leads to fewer incidents of rape.

Very few studies have reached the opposite conclusion, I've read them, and I find their methods to be highly flawed. Even the authors of the studies preface their conclusion with a warning that it's impossible to determine how accurate they are. They emphasize the point that the vast majority of rapists use porn but don't seem to consider the fact that the vast majority of porn users are not rapists.

The vast majority of rapists probably also watch TV, eat ice cream, and like long walks on the beach. Of course nobody blames those things for rape because society doesn't feel the need to demonize those behaviors like they do sex. Just because porn is related to sex does not mean there is a causal link between porn and rape, and indeed no causal link is proven in the studies, but merely suggested.

I want you to answer this question for me. If the studies were correct and availability of child porn was conclusively proven to lead to fewer abuse victims, would you still oppose it's legalization[2]?
 1. Legal in some places, de-criminalized in some places, and simply ignored by the cops in other places.
 2. I will yet again clarify that I am speaking of the legalization of simple possession only. Production and sale would still be illegal.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Samothec on June 15, 2012, 12:14:33 AM
I agree there is nothing we can do to prevent ourselves feeling sexual attraction. I'm a Christian, and I believe we are born with a sin nature. What this means in terms of our attractions and desires is that we no longer desire only what God intended for us, and I firmly believe that God intended for most of us to have a sexual relationship with a life time partner of the opposite sex. We are not intended to have sex with people of the same sex and we are not intended to have sex outside of a life-long partnership.

You do know that there are people whose genetic gender and physical gender are not the same, right? A woman can have XY chromosomes and a man can have XX chromosomes. This is because the  chromosomes guide but do not absolutely control the development of the fetus. Let's take the woman with the XY chromosomes - are you okay with her marrying a man who also has XY chromosomes? If not, why not? She is physiologically female. Yet genetically male. Shouldn't love and respect matter more than a physical body?

If we make love and respect subservient to form and function then we should also then limit marriage to those of viable child-bearing age 15-35 in most cases. And you are then advocating with Joe for recognition of teens as potential sexual partners.

So, for me, the problem is when we don't fight against our desires. I realise this is a Christian perspective and will appear ridiculous to you, but just so you know where I am coming from.

It is not a Christian perspective - it is a human one and many here have voiced the same perspective, even Joe to a degree. I say to a degree because he (and others including myself) have pointed out that the issue if far from simple or clear regarding consent and the ability to give consent.

The reason I have come down so hard on Joebbowers is that he flaunts and embraces an attraction which I think he should fight against. Women and girls don't exist for his sexual gratification, or for anybody's, outside the God intended life long partnership.

Joe has not flaunted his attraction; he was surprisingly open about it.


Joe, I apologize if I have misremembered/misrepresented your views.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Zankuu on June 15, 2012, 12:47:10 AM
I don't believe it's possible for animals to sin. Animals are not created in the image of God. What they do, how they act has absolutely no relevance to anything humans do. Not sure what your point is, or how my views differ from anything recorded in the bible.

Here is my point.

You don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin in regards to every other single mammalian species aside from us, and you agree it is a normal and natural occurrence for those other species. But if you understood that our species, classified as homo sapiens, within the genus homo, in the tribe hominin, grouped in the family hominidae, are in fact primates like bonobos, gibbons, baboons, gorillas and chimpanzees, then you would see why the concept of a “sin nature” isn’t real. We are animals, magicmiles. We are apes. It’s a fact. And since you don’t believe animals “sin”, you would have to conclude that humans don’t “sin” either.

Here is the argument I’m presenting you. It contains four true premises from the Bible and one premise verified via natural observation (P1-5), to which there is only one logical conclusion (C):

P1 Human beings have souls.
P2 Animals do not have souls.
P3 A soul is corrupt by sin.
P4 Homosexuality is a sin.
P5 Both human beings and animals engage in homosexuality.
_________________________________________________
C Therefore, either homosexuality isn’t a sin, or animals have corrupt souls and are sinning in the same way human beings are.

If you happen to disagree with one of these premises or the conclusion, please explain why.

The bible clearly teaches that our sexual urges are to be fulfilled within the context of a life long partnership with the opposite sex.

Cite the verses please.

True, the bible does not specifically prohibit marriage below a certain age. As I said, cultural relevance is important. We live in a culture today which, quite frankly, gives mixed messages about our sexuality. On the one hand, pedaphilia is a massive taboo, and on the other hand our culture encourages girls at a younger and younger age to dress like women. It's messed up.

I think that most taboos are greatly misunderstood subjects thanks to Christianity and its negative influence on our Western culture: atheism, homosexuality, pedophilia, and incest to name a few. Most people equate atheism with god hating, homosexuality with sinful, pedophilia with child molesting, and incest… well, I’d wager all my quatloos that incestuous relationships would be another controversial topic here.

In a sense, I defer to what I believe God has provided for us by way of a moral compass. If you get a sneaking suspicion something is wrong then it probably is. Accept that - don't try to find clever arguments to get around it in order to gratify yourself.

You’re making an appeal to emotion. This would make sense if everyone was feeling those same magical “sneaking suspicions” about the same things, but we aren’t. Our compasses, which have been crafted by our culture and society and then rebuilt, ever so slowly by the knowledge we gain, are pointing in different directions and this thread about pedophilia should be evident of that.

I don't just look at the Torah, I look at the entire bible. The OT was full of rules and rituals, and yes, women were largely treated as property. That definitely seems wrong to us today, and truth be told I don't 100% understand it all.

Not making excuses for Yahweh would be a good start to understanding it. But at least some of the barbaric rules Yahweh laid out such as marrying your rapists and the selling of daughters resonate as wrong vibes with you.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 15, 2012, 12:51:16 AM
The reason I have come down so hard on Joebbowers is that he flaunts and embraces an attraction which I think he should fight against.

I don't flaunt it. You'll notice that the first time I ever mentioned it on this website was in this thread. I don't go out of my way to tell people in my daily life that I'm a pedophile, it was relavent to the topic.

But neither am I ashamed of it, as it's something I have no control over. I am not ashamed to be white or left-handed or a man either. I am a little ashamed of my weight problem, as that's something I can control, but I'm working on it.

I also believe that it's perfectly natural to be attracted to females of apparent child bearing age. You yourself, as well as most of the men here, admitted to being sexually attracted to an 11 year old girl.

Yes, that's right. The girl in the photo? 11[1]. Now, you can recoil in abject horror or you can realize that most of the men here also admitted to finding her sexually attractive, and that most men everywhere would. Why? She appears to be of child-bearing age, despite being only 11. I'm mature enough to realize that it's normal to be attracted to her, as you were, and I'm certainly not ashamed of it.

Now, would I act on that attraction? No. Why not? She's 11, dude. Looky but no touchy.

In the case of those primarily attracted to pre-pubescent children (ie. the clinical definition), I also realize it's something they didn't choose and don't vilify them for it. But I expect them to show self-control. Giving them access to child pornography, even the simulated (animated) kind, would at least give them an outlet for that sexual energy.

Women and girls don't exist for his sexual gratification, or for anybody's, outside the God intended life long partnership.

Actually that's kind of exactly why women exist. That's kind of exactly why we all exist. To procreate. If you want to start a discussion of our greater purpose according to God's plan, please start a new thread which I will not read as I don't believe in God.
 1. At the time the photo was taken.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 15, 2012, 01:06:13 AM
Now, would I act on that attraction? No. Why not? She's 11, dude.

Hahahaha.  Y'all some creeps.  Nah, I'm playing though.  I would have guessed 14 or so.

Looky but no touchy.

Nah, don't even looky.  At least not in person.  I don't think that little girls that develop early need any more dudes sneaking glances than they already have.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 15, 2012, 01:10:32 AM
That's kind of exactly why we all exist. To procreate.

Indeed.  The fact that we're designed to pass our genes on is probably why sex is so damn gratifying in the first place.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: magicmiles on June 15, 2012, 01:34:49 AM


Here is my point.

you agree it is a normal and natural occurrence for those other species.

Not sure how normal it is. It occurs, yes. Any zoologists in the house?


But if you understood that our species, classified as homo sapiens, within the genus homo, in the tribe hominin, grouped in the family hominidae, are in fact primates like bonobos, gibbons, baboons, gorillas and chimpanzees, then you would see why the concept of a “sin nature” isn’t real. We are animals, magicmiles.

I disagree, obviously. I believe humans are uniquely different spiritually to animals, regardless of what physicall characteristivs we share.


Here is the argument I’m presenting you. It contains four true premises from the Bible and one premise verified via natural observation (P1-5), to which there is only one logical conclusion (C):

P1 Human beings have souls.
P2 Animals do not have souls.
P3 A soul is corrupt by sin.
P4 Homosexuality is a sin.
P5 Both human beings and animals engage in homosexuality.
_________________________________________________
C Therefore, either homosexuality isn’t a sin, or animals have corrupt souls and are sinning in the same way human beings are.

If you happen to disagree with one of these premises or the conclusion, please explain why.

I agree with the 5 statements, but don't see how you reach that conclusion. Because humans have souls and are created in God's image, they are under God's rule. Animals were created by God, but were created to be under mankind's rule, along with all other creation. The fact that animals engage in certain behaviours which are prohibitted by God for humans does not logically dis-prove the fact that homosexuality is wrong for humans or that animals don't have souls.

The bible clearly teaches that our sexual urges are to be fulfilled within the context of a life long partnership with the opposite sex.

Cite the verses please.

Gen. 2:18, 21-24
 
The Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him'...and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.



I think that most taboos are greatly misunderstood subjects thanks to Christianity and its negative influence on our Western culture: atheism, homosexuality, pedophilia, and incest to name a few. Most people equate atheism with god hating, homosexuality with sinful, pedophilia with child molesting, and incest… well, I’d wager all my quatloos that incestuous relationships would be another controversial topic here.

Know what? I agree with much of this. Christianity isn't about prowling the world with a big moral stick looking to whack people with it. It shouldn't be, and it angers me when it is. I'm as guilty and as far removed from God as the worst criminal in history without the intervention of Christ.

That doesn't mean that Christians should go along with what the world tells us is right and wrong, but I don't think we should go around telling people they are sinning, either (even when they are). I, of course, am a poor example sometimes of what a Christian should do. I like to argue and I'm opinionated. But I hope you all know that it all comes down to Christ, in the end. I'm stuffed without Him, as are you all. Can't earn your way to God.


In a sense, I defer to what I believe God has provided for us by way of a moral compass. If you get a sneaking suspicion something is wrong then it probably is. Accept that - don't try to find clever arguments to get around it in order to gratify yourself.

You’re making an appeal to emotion.

Without objective wrong, appeal to emotion is all atheists are doing with their plethora of OT verses detailing moral outrages.

Not making excuses for Yahweh would be a good start to understanding it. But at least some of the barbaric rules Yahweh laid out such as marrying your rapists and the selling of daughters resonate as wrong vibes with you.

Apologists don't try to excuse God, they try to make sense of the bible based on who God has revealed Himself to be, cultural context, histotrical context. When they do, often our knee-jerk reactions to OT occurrences are correctly challenged.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: magicmiles on June 15, 2012, 01:39:15 AM
That's kind of exactly why we all exist. To procreate.

Indeed.  The fact that we're designed to pass our genes on is probably why sex is so damn gratifying in the first place.

Absolutely agree with Timo here. Unbeatable design.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on June 15, 2012, 06:08:51 AM
Yes, that's right. The girl in the photo? 11.

Indeed.  Here's another photo of her (not sure of the age in this one, though.)

(http://www.filehurricane.com/photos/613200894947AM_asian_girl.jpg)
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 15, 2012, 07:57:57 AM
Here's another photo of her (not sure of the age in this one, though.)

She is also 11 in that photo, it is also from her first photo book. What a hilariously appropriate caption.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on June 15, 2012, 08:11:20 AM
Here's another photo of her (not sure of the age in this one, though.)

She is also 11 in that photo, it is also from her first photo book.

For purposes of this discussion, I'm actually glad to hear that.  It makes the point better than any argument ever could.

Quote
What a hilariously appropriate caption.

Exactly... that's why, out of all the different photos I found that I could have chosen, I chose that one.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 15, 2012, 09:06:59 AM
Joe, I'll come back to your reply to me, but please answer this question in the meantime. You just said:
Quote
Now, would I act on that attraction? No. Why not? She's 11, dude. Looky but no touchy.
The gist of your argument on the thread is that the age of consent is arbitrary, some girls mature much faster than others, and you think older people are better at initiating children into the world of sex, and you feel OK about breaking the law in some situations.

So why do you cite her age, alone, as a reason not to act on your attraction to her?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 15, 2012, 11:40:56 AM
I think the law is wrong, but I'm not willing to spend 10 years in jail for breaking it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 15, 2012, 11:56:55 AM
I think the law is wrong, but I'm not willing to spend 10 years in jail for breaking it.

Waaaaaaait a minute.  So in a perfect world, you think that it should be legal for you, as a grown ass man, to have sex with an 11 year old?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 15, 2012, 12:05:54 PM
Timo, he's said that consistently through the thread e.g. :
I think that if they were able to get pregnant, that proves that they were ready to have sex.
Society likes to pretend that children aren't sexual but they are. Most begin masturbating years before puberty. We like to forget that historically women girls were married as soon as they could menstruate. Not rarely, not just sometimes, but this was the norm.
And :
I agree, there should be a line, but I think the age of consent should be lowered to the same age that a juvenile could be tried as an adult.
Which in the US is between 6 and 12. (here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_infancy#Ages_of_criminal_responsibility_by_country)).
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 15, 2012, 12:18:25 PM
An 11 year old is most certainly not ready for sex. Menstruation is completely unrelated to emotional maturity. Anyone who would have sex with an 11 year old is WAY over the line. Cases of mid to late teens I find more variable, but 11??? As someone who WAS an 11 year old girl, and whose friends at the time were all 11 year old girls, I can guarantee you that NONE of them has the slightest clue how to handle that.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on June 15, 2012, 12:20:03 PM
Society likes to pretend that children aren't sexual but they are. Most begin masturbating years before puberty. We like to forget that historically women girls were married as soon as they could menstruate. Not rarely, not just sometimes, but this was the norm.

That's true.  For fun, do a search on how old Juliet was in the play "Romeo and Juliet", where her parents were casually talking about her arranged marriage as though it were a routine matter of course (which it was), and where she actually married Romeo and had sex with him.  And that society wasn't the only one where that was the norm, either.  China was the same way for a long time, and in fact in China, if a girl exited her teen years without being married, she was practically considered an old maid.  Hell, as recently as the early Twentieth Century, the age of consent throughout the United States was ten.

What's considered an appropriate age for sex (and marriage) is a societal construct.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 15, 2012, 12:37:36 PM
^^^

Quote
What's considered an appropriate age for sex (and marriage) is a societal construct.
But let's not forget that in the last 150 years we have lengthened life-expectancy and also lengthened childhood (and invented teenagers in the process). So the age of maturity has slowly edged upwards.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 15, 2012, 12:41:50 PM
timo, he's said that consistently through the thread

I guess I just took what he said differently.

On the age of consent question, I completely agree with him that it's absurd that the state will consider a child an adult in one circumstance (like a murder trial and especially if said child is male and a person of color) and a child in another (when sex is involved).

And on the question of cultural norms, it's just a fact that our conception of how long childhood lasts is not one that has been shared by most societies throughout our history.

I think that you can accept these things and still believe, as I do, that it's just not okay for a grown man or woman to be messing around with 11 and 12 year-olds.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on June 15, 2012, 12:42:34 PM
Quote
What's considered an appropriate age for sex (and marriage) is a societal construct.
But let's not forget that in the last 150 years we have lengthened life-expectancy and also lengthened childhood (and invented teenagers in the process). So the age of maturity has slowly edged upwards.

Right -- and those are largely, though admittedly not entirely, the results of changes in society.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 15, 2012, 12:48:45 PM
Do you think that the newness of our views on childhood make our age of consent laws unjust or at least less just?  And if so, what do you think the age of consent should be?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 15, 2012, 01:06:42 PM
...What's considered an appropriate age for sex (and marriage) is a societal construct.

Yes and no. In a patriarchal society such as existed "back then," women were considered little more than property. Most of them had little to no say in what they did, or who they were given to. How many of them were happy with the choices that were made for them? I still contend, based largely on the fact that brain development simply isn't yet even nearly complete, that those girls were not prepared for the life they had to live. Many, many women even in my lifetime, did not even know what an orgasm was. Sex was for reproduction and the satisfaction of the male. Very sad, and I wouldn't make ANY assumptions about what was healthy for the girls based on the fact of early marriage in those times.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on June 15, 2012, 01:06:49 PM
Do you think that the newness of our views on childhood make our age of consent laws unjust or at least less just?

As far as whether it's just or not, I'm really not sure.  I do think it's pretty strange that it was quite routine, until only within the last century or perhaps two, for a thirteen-year-old girl to be considered not just a sexual being but one whose time had come to marry, whereas today, we tend to think of thirteen-year-old girls as being little more than eight-year-old girls in larger bodies.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gracie on June 15, 2012, 01:31:12 PM
Hell, as recently as the early Twentieth Century, the age of consent throughout the United States was ten.

What's considered an appropriate age for sex (and marriage) is a societal construct.

Do you find that to be a reasonable argument?   

Females had no rights at that time and weren't even able to vote until 1920.  They were basically left out of the workplace and were expected to stay home, have children, and be submissive to men.  Even if the age of consent WAS ten in the early 20th Century, does it make it acceptable?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 15, 2012, 01:33:02 PM
Joe, I notice that you skipped over my last post to you  (#242 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg513410.html#msg513410)). I'd like a reply.
I didn't reply because you focused on the production and distribution, and didn't answer my question about the possession. I asked whether or not you thought those found possessing the materials should be punished equally as those who produced and distributed it.
I ignored that because i don't see why it's important. For the record, I think that production of child pornography is a greater crime. But so what? 


Quote
Quote
hidden-camera and ex-girlfriend sex tapes
A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy when having sex in their homes. Covertly recording private sexual activity and publishing it would be wrong.

Fair enough, but that's production and distribution. No mention of possession, so I didn't respond to it.
You're being obtuse; possession of it should also be wrong, that was implied.

Quote
Quote
people photographed in public places?.
It would depend on what they were doing. If you saw an attractive young girl on the beach with her parents, would you approach her and start taking photos of her from 10 feet away? Wouldn't that be somewhat impolite, to say the least? And don't you think her father would have cause to be irate?

Ditto.
You didn't answer my question.

Quote
And by the way, as a photographer myself, if you ask permission, I've never known anyone to not allow you to photograph their kids.
That's completely different, because you have obtained consent. We are discussing non-consensual situations.


Quote
But, none of these situations are comparable with child pornography. Those children have already been abused once; allowing possession by others of the evidence of their abuse can only hurt them further.
But how does it hurt them?
The same way invasion of privacy hurts anyone.

Quote
As Traveler said, showing the empathy of which you appear incapable:
And saying something is anonymous in this day and age? Please. Be serious. Nothing is beyond reach. A child in a porno image can be identified now, tomorrow, or next year or decades later. It will always hang over them as a possibility. I would feel humiliated if I knew there were such out there of me.
How can they be identified? Why does it matter even if they are?
Hopefully they can be identified by the police so that their abusers can be brought to justice.

Quote
When you sit at home masturbating to Paris Hilton's leaked sex tape, you know who she is, but she doesn't know who you are, that you're watching the tape, or even that you exist.
Don't judge everyone by your own dismal standards; I have never watched Hilton's sex tape because I have no desire to invade her privacy.

Joe, I stand by what I said back in post 174:

Quote
A five-year-old child cannot consent to photos of its abuse being published. So publication [edit: and possession, to be clear] of such photos should be prohibited, on grounds of invasion of privacy, at the very least.

And as I said, it is highly unlikely that an adult survivor of sexual abuse would consent to such photos being released into the public domain.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that all publications of images of child sexual abuse are non-consensual, and therefore they should be confiscated and removed from the public domain.

Your comparisons with paparazzi photos and so on simply aren't relevant.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on June 15, 2012, 01:38:56 PM
Hell, as recently as the early Twentieth Century, the age of consent throughout the United States was ten.

What's considered an appropriate age for sex (and marriage) is a societal construct.

Do you find that to be a reasonable argument?

It's not any kind of an argument at all.  It's a statement of fact.

Quote
Females had no rights at that time and weren't even able to vote until 1920.  They were basically left out of the workplace and were expected to stay home, have children, and be submissive to men.  Even if the age of consent WAS ten in the early 20th Century, does it make it acceptable?

And if you were to bring someone from that age into ours, they would think that we were crazy for allowing women to vote, to work, to lead their own lives, and so forth.  Why?  Because they were products of their society, just as much as we are.

I've often wondered in the past what kind of things there are present in our society today that we take so much for granted that we don't even think about them at all, but which will be regarded with abject horror by our descendants in one or two hundred years.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Zankuu on June 15, 2012, 03:00:19 PM
Not sure how normal it is. It occurs, yes. Any zoologists in the house?

If I take the time to find reliable scholarly sources and the findings of which confirm what you would deem normal, what would this mean to you? This is a genuine question.

I disagree, obviously. I believe humans are uniquely different spiritually to animals, regardless of what physicall characteristivs we share.

What is it you exactly disagree with? That we are apes? Does the taxonomy itself bother you?

Genetically our chromosomes are nearly identical with the other great apes; all apes found in the Hominidae family have 24 chromosomes, except humans. We have 23. We have evidence that there was a chromosomal fusion between two chromosomes to create our chromosome #2, hence the seemingly absent ancestral ape chromosome. This is my layman understanding. I'm sure we have a few members here that are neck deep in genetic knowledge and could explain it in greater detail.

And our similarities aren't just genetic, our intertwined history can be seen behaviorally as well. Everything from facial expressions to lying and feelings of guilt and sorrow. We could get so deep with behavioral similarities that it would deserve its own thread.

Here is the argument I’m presenting you. It contains four true premises from the Bible and one premise verified via natural observation (P1-5), to which there is only one logical conclusion (C):

P1 Human beings have souls.
P2 Animals do not have souls.
P3 A soul is corrupt by sin.
P4 Homosexuality is a sin.
P5 Both human beings and animals engage in homosexuality.
_________________________________________________
C Therefore, either homosexuality isn’t a sin, or animals have corrupt souls and are sinning in the same way human beings are.

If you happen to disagree with one of these premises or the conclusion, please explain why.

I agree with the 5 statements, but don't see how you reach that conclusion. [...] The fact that animals engage in certain behaviours which are prohibitted by God for humans does not logically dis-prove the fact that homosexuality is wrong for humans or that animals don't have souls.

You would agree that animals don't sin because animals were not affected by the Fall of Man in Genesis and did not inherit a sinful nature. So they are completely incapable of sinning; there is no desire to sin so every action they take part in can only be considered good, natural and normal. Therefore, homosexuality, something they regularly engage in, is not sinful in and of itself. So with all that in mind, what makes homosexuality sinful for humans? By agreeing to those five premises, you and I have essentially devalued sin to nothing more than God's arbitrary decision to label it as wrong.

We now need to tread lightly here, because we're taking the concept of  corrupt/evil sin from the Fall of Man (via the snake) and labeling sin as nothing more than actions which God arbitrarily doesn't want humans to do; “sin” is no longer an evil thing, it's just a thing God doesn't want one species to partake in. Take some time to really consider it all because this conclusion has serious implications.

Without objective wrong, appeal to emotion is all atheists are doing with their plethora of OT verses detailing moral outrages.

You're partly correct here and it's true, I do want you to feel disgusted when you read about Yahweh ripping open wombs and dashing apart infants. But I'm also asking you to rationally evaluate those verses and ask yourself if a logical and reasonable deity would do such things, or if it's more likely ancient men created a savage war god that supported their behavior. If the latter is the case, then you need to reconsider a lot of things.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Samothec on June 15, 2012, 05:00:48 PM
magicmiles,

I understand that I am strange and make people uncomfortable which is why most people here ignore my posts but I wrote to you directly in post #273 of this thread and you could at least aknowledge that and say you don't know what to say in reply.

Yes, the genetic gender versus pysiological gender question contains a hidden trap since Biblegod took Adam's rib to make Eve meaning she is Adam's clone (using the modern term). Thus Eve is genetically male while having a female form.

Reasoning behind that: Since Biblegod could (and did) make at least one person from scratch, Adam (and Lilith if you accept her as the real first woman), he could have made Eve from scratch if he wanted to make her genetically different. Since he didn't that logically means she is an XY clone with female form. Genetically they are Adam and Steve.

Is form all that matters? If so, does that void a marriage if the wife gets a mastecomy or hysterectomy or a husband gets castrated?

Also bring my post back to the topic, any speculation as to why Biblegod didn't say anything about pedophilia, child molestation, and so on? Or did I miss those passages?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 15, 2012, 05:20:41 PM
magicmiles,...Also bring my post back to the topic, any speculation as to why Biblegod didn't say anything about pedophilia, child molestation, and so on? Or did I miss those passages?

Doesn't the bible recommend marrying young girls?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Samothec on June 15, 2012, 05:33:02 PM
Doesn't the bible recommend marrying young girls?

After I posted I did recall that when instructed as to who to kill during instances of local genocide, it was all men, boys and women but the girls up to 8-years-old or so IIRC were to be saved for eventual breeding. I could be wrong. So biblegod might be pro-(heterosexual)-pedophilia.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: magicmiles on June 15, 2012, 07:01:35 PM
magicmiles,

I understand that I am strange and make people uncomfortable which is why most people here ignore my posts but I wrote to you directly in post #273 of this thread and you could at least aknowledge that and say you don't know what to say in reply.

Sorry, totally missed it. I can't spend respond in depth now, but will do so in a day or so. Maybe late tonight (Australian time)

Zannuku, will respond further to you also.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 15, 2012, 09:18:33 PM
Waaaaaaait a minute.  So in a perfect world, you think that it should be legal for you, as a grown ass man, to have sex with an 11 year old?

Hmm, I'm wondering if fanciful visions of "a perfect world" have any place in a discussion of maturity. That irony aside, I think that in a perfect world everyone would be granted wisdom and maturity at puberty, and nobody would be sexually attracted to anyone who hadn't reached puberty. There would be no need for age of consent laws.

Edit: By the way, you define me as a "grown ass man", defining me by my physical maturity and not my age. But the girl in the photo you define by her age despite her appearing to be a (nearly) fully grown woman. I just find that interesting.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 15, 2012, 09:23:55 PM
But let's not forget that in the last 150 years we have lengthened life-expectancy and also lengthened childhood (and invented teenagers in the process). So the age of maturity has slowly edged upwards.

This is absolutely true, and isn't really a good thing in my opinion. Too many 20 and even 30-somethings living in their parents' basements playing Dungeons & Dragons with their friends while working part time at McDonalds. I read a study about it, saying that a lot of people simply aren't growing up any more, or at least they never reach the kind of maturity that previous generations did. I read that a few years ago, if I find it I'll link it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 15, 2012, 09:40:34 PM
Do you think that the newness of our views on childhood make our age of consent laws unjust or at least less just?

This makes me wonder if part of the reason people are maturing later is that we are defining them as children longer. If people knew that at, say, 13 years old they would have to move out, get a job, get married and have kids, perhaps they would mature faster.

On the other hand if you tell them that they can be children, free of financial responsibility, immune to the law[1], safe from military service, with room and board provided until at least their 18th birthday, are we not directly contributing to their delayed maturity?

 1. In perception, but not in reality.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 15, 2012, 09:46:21 PM
Hell, as recently as the early Twentieth Century, the age of consent throughout the United States was ten.

What's considered an appropriate age for sex (and marriage) is a societal construct.

Do you find that to be a reasonable argument?

It's not any kind of an argument at all.  It's a statement of fact.

Facts are the best kind of argument.

I've often wondered in the past what kind of things there are present in our society today that we take so much for granted that we don't even think about them at all, but which will be regarded with abject horror by our descendants in one or two hundred years.

The internal-combustion engine.
Edit: The cast of Jersey Shore.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 15, 2012, 11:26:22 PM
Hmm, I'm wondering if fanciful visions of "a perfect world" have any place in a discussion of maturity. That irony aside, I think that in a perfect world everyone would be granted wisdom and maturity at puberty, and nobody would be sexually attracted to anyone who hadn't reached puberty. There would be no need for age of consent laws.

Edit: By the way, you define me as a "grown ass man", defining me by my physical maturity and not my age. But the girl in the photo you define by her age despite her appearing to be a (nearly) fully grown woman. I just find that interesting.

I honestly almost gave my very first smite for this one.  I mean are you always this hyper-literal or is this just how you respond only when you don't want to directly answer a question?

And the thing about "grown ass man."  It's an expression.  Not unlike "In a perfect world."  And if you want to get down to how the expression is typically used, no one would refer to even a fully developed 17 year old as a "grown ass man" even if they're technically done growing.  That's not how the expression works and this should surprise no one.  We use words to convey ideas that go beyond their literal meaning.  But just to be extra clear, let me rephrase my question:

Do you think that it should be legal for you to have sex with an 11 year old?

This makes me wonder if part of the reason people are maturing later is that we are defining them as children longer. If people knew that at, say, 13 years old they would have to move out, get a job, get married and have kids, perhaps they would mature faster.

On the other hand if you tell them that they can be children, free of financial responsibility, immune to the law[1], safe from military service, with room and board provided until at least their 18th birthday, are we not directly contributing to their delayed maturity?
 1. In perception, but not in reality.

I don't think so.  I'm not up on the biology of it, but I was under the impression that females don't finish physically maturing until they're around 18 and males don't finish until they're about 20 or so.  Though that's probably changing if puberty is happening earlier.

But I agree that kids would grow up faster if society had different expectations of them.  But we're moving in the opposite direction there.  Today if a young person comes from a family that puts a premium on education, they'll be expected to go to school and they will most likely remain financially dependent on their parents until they're at least 22.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 15, 2012, 11:43:14 PM
I didn't reply because you focused on the production and distribution, and didn't answer my question about the possession. I asked whether or not you thought those found possessing the materials should be punished equally as those who produced and distributed it.
I ignored that because i don't see why it's important. For the record, I think that production of child pornography is a greater crime. But so what? 

Well if you can ignore my questions I can ignore yours. My argument has been about possession from the beginning. I'm not interested in discussing production.

Quote
Quote
hidden-camera and ex-girlfriend sex tapes
A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy when having sex in their homes. Covertly recording private sexual activity and publishing it would be wrong.

Fair enough, but that's production and distribution. No mention of possession, so I didn't respond to it.
You're being obtuse; possession of it should also be wrong, that was implied.

You may have implied it, but I did not infer it. Perhaps be more clear. And can you define wrong? Should it be illegal to possess such videos?

Quote
people photographed in public places?.
It would depend on what they were doing. If you saw an attractive young girl on the beach with her parents, would you approach her and start taking photos of her from 10 feet away? Wouldn't that be somewhat impolite, to say the least? And don't you think her father would have cause to be irate?

Yep the dad might get mad. So what? If he's afraid of the magic machine stealing his daughter's soul perhaps he should keep her locked up at home for her own protection, or dress her from head to toe in black cloth that only reveals her eyes.

Impolite or not, angry dad or not. Should it be illegal to photograph people in a public place without their permission? Should it be illegal to possess photos taken in such a manner? Would you be comfortable throwing people in jail for downloading unflattering paparazzi photos of celebrities' tubby tummies at the beach, taken without their permission?

The same way invasion of privacy hurts anyone.

Can you be more specific? That's a pretty vague answer. I don't understand how my behavior can affect someone who doesn't know I exist, has no idea that I'm doing it, and would never find out. Please explain it to me.

Quote
When you sit at home masturbating to Paris Hilton's leaked sex tape, you know who she is, but she doesn't know who you are, that you're watching the tape, or even that you exist.
Don't judge everyone by your own dismal standards; I have never watched Hilton's sex tape because I have no desire to invade her privacy.

It was an example and you didn't explain how that would harm her.


Joe, I stand by what I said back in post 174:

Quote
It is reasonable to assume that all publications of images of child sexual abuse are non-consensual, and therefore they should be confiscated and removed from the public domain.

Your comparisons with paparazzi photos and so on simply aren't relevant.

I'm just curious why you think one kind of non-consensual image should be banned, but other kinds are ok. I was wondering where you think the line should be.

And yet again, I'm not sure you've addressed my main point. What if it's proven that legalizing possession would lead to fewer cases of real world abuse? Would you still be against it?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 16, 2012, 12:17:07 AM
Do you think that it should be legal for you to have sex with an 11 year old?

You'll forgive me for not giving you a simple yes or no, as that's a difficult question. I don't think all 11 year olds are created equally. I certainly don't think most of them are anything like her.

If you really want to force an answer out of me, I would say that if and only if, you could determine with 100% certainty that it was completely consensual, and that she understood what she was doing and both the short and long term ramifications of her actions, I think it should be legal. If there is no coercion, manipulation, threat, deception, malice, or abuse, how can it be called rape?

Clearly in this case she is physically ready, the problem is determining her mental fitness. Is an 11 year old capable of that kind of understanding? Perhaps some are, but certainly most aren't. How could you determine which ones are? I don't know. Some specially designed psychological tests, I would imagine. Of course, that's awkward foreplay and it's not reasonable to set age of consent laws on a case-by-case basis.

I'm not up on the biology of it, but I was under the impression that females don't finish physically maturing until they're around 18 and males don't finish until they're about 20 or so.  Though that's probably changing if puberty is happening earlier.

How do you define mature? How do you know when the process is complete? Our bodies continue to change through adulthood and old age. A lot of women like a man with 'salt-and-pepper' hair, which they describe as 'mature'. Does that mean we should not consider a boy a man until his mid-40s?

Physical maturity and mental maturity are seperate subjects. Send boys to war and they come home men whether or not their balls have dropped.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 16, 2012, 04:00:36 AM
Peace joe

I appreciate your response.  That cleared things up for me.  With respect to the question of when someone is "mature," my answer here is going to be lacking because honestly I don't know much about biology.  I was but a liberal arts major in school.  I guess I could say that grey hair, like wrinkles and whatever else comes with aging is something that reflects a deterioration of the body rather than maturation or something like that.  In other words, it's not as if we're arbitrarily setting some line and saying that when you reach this point, you are mature.  Rather there is a point at which you stop developing and it's just downhill from there.  A point that you and me, being on the older side of the demographic of "young men" have already crossed.  Sadly.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 16, 2012, 04:36:51 AM
Aah but the great thing about being a man is that women don't judge you on your receding hairline or your protruding belly, but by your bulging wallet.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 16, 2012, 04:44:39 AM
Indeed.  Peace to male privilege.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 16, 2012, 03:51:33 PM
Well if you can ignore my questions I can ignore yours. My argument has been about possession from the beginning. I'm not interested in discussing production.
I'm discussing possession too. You're being obtuse and evasive.

In fact Joe, what you're doing in this thread is what paedophiles typically do - you're rationalizing child sexual abuse.

Paedophiles try to justify their behaviour by claiming that:

1. the sexual activity had educational value for the child.
2. the child derived 'sexual pleasure' from the activity.
3. the child was abnormally mature and therefore capable of consent.
4. the child initiated the activity.
5. the activity caused no harm.
6. their paedophile feelings are normal - other adults are simply being dishonest.

And you've been arguing most of those points, haven't you?

What else? You yourself have come to the attention of the Department of Homeland Security for posession of dubious material. One of your best friends is a paedophile. You admit that the only thing that has stopped you from acting on your desires is the Law, which you would like to be changed. And you defend the possession of child pornography.

You're a dangerous man, Joe.

I wouldn't leave my daughter alone with you for a minute.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 16, 2012, 04:39:06 PM
...Physical maturity and mental maturity are seperate subjects. Send boys to war and they come home men whether or not their balls have dropped.

Send boys to war and they come back traumatized men. Have "sex" with an eleven year old and she comes back a traumatized woman. Your definitions are wearing thin.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 16, 2012, 04:48:09 PM
Let me spell this out further. An 11 year old girl is in FIFTH grade. Guess what, Joe? Many fifth graders are still playing with Barbie dolls. Their biggest concerns are homework and what movie to see on the weekend. Anyone ... ANYONE, who would take that time away from them and force them into premature adulthood is a selfish, conceited person, only concerned with their own gratificaction.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 16, 2012, 06:00:47 PM
In fairness, joe wrote:

Is an 11 year old capable of that kind of understanding? Perhaps some are, but certainly most aren't.

In other words, he's not trying to pick up on the type of girl you're describing.  Where I would disagree, and I'd reckon that you would disagree is that I doubt that any 11 year olds would have that kind of capacity.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on June 16, 2012, 06:56:56 PM
Quote
In other words, he's not trying to pick up on the type of girl you're describing.  Where I would disagree, and I'd reckon that you would disagree is that I doubt that any 11 year olds would have that kind of capacity.

An 11 year old wouldn't be able to demonstrate that sort of capacity unless that 11 year old has already been introduced to sexual activity from either a relative or close friend of the family.

Edit to add:

If they are old enough to bleed they are old enough to breed eh joe?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 16, 2012, 07:05:19 PM
Nah, not really.  There are 11 year olds that have experimented sexually with other kids.  There are even those that have had sex by that age.  I went to school with a girl that got pregnant in the 5th grade.  The father wasn't a relative or a family member.  It was another kid from down the way...who was in the 7th or 8th grade as I recall.  It happens.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on June 16, 2012, 07:10:09 PM
Nah, not really.  There are 11 year olds that have experimented sexually with other kids.  There are even those that have had sex by that age.  I went to school with a girl that got pregnant in the 5th grade.  The father wasn't a relative or a family member.  It was another kid from down the way...who was in the 7th or 8th grade as I recall.  It happens.

But that is not the same as pedophilia. Are you saying that if an 11 year old with tits has diddled with the 10 year old neighbor boy down the street then she is prime real estate for grown men like joe to put the moves on her?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 16, 2012, 07:16:27 PM
Nah, maybe I misread your post.  All I'm saying is that there need not be any abuse for a child to become sexually active at an age that society at large would find to be too early, which was what I read your post as suggesting. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on June 16, 2012, 07:23:48 PM
Nah, maybe I misread your post.  All I'm saying is that there need not be any abuse for a child to become sexually active at an age that society at large would find to be too early, which was what I read your post as suggesting.

My bad, a relative or close family friend need not be an adult.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 16, 2012, 07:28:40 PM
...It happens.

Lots of stuff happens. That doesn't mean its healthy for the girl.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 16, 2012, 07:29:31 PM
Never said it was.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 16, 2012, 09:52:25 PM
Congratulations! A gross misrepresentation of my argument from top to bottom! Quite impressive in fact. Without further ado, let's look at the myriad of mistakes you've made here, shall we?

In fact Joe, what you're doing in this thread is what paedophiles typically do - you're rationalizing child sexual abuse.


No, I'm rationalizing the consensual sexual contact between two people capable of giving informed consent, regardless of age. I was clear that I don't know if an 11 year old is even capable of that. Perhaps you should read this again:

Quote
If you really want to force an answer out of me, I would say that if and only if, you could determine with 100% certainty that it was completely consensual, and that she understood what she was doing and both the short and long term ramifications of her actions, I think it should be legal. If there is no coercion, manipulation, threat, deception, malice, or abuse, how can it be called rape?

Clearly in this case she is physically ready, the problem is determining her mental fitness. Is an 11 year old capable of that kind of understanding? Perhaps some are, but certainly most aren't. How could you determine which ones are? I don't know. Some specially designed psychological tests, I would imagine. Of course, that's awkward foreplay and it's not reasonable to set age of consent laws on a case-by-case basis.

That is not a call to legalize child sex. That is a call to recognize that not every single case of adult-minor sexual contact is abusive. And in case you have missed it after even reading a second time, I am acknowledging that most are.

Paedophiles try to justify their behaviour by claiming that:

1. the sexual activity had educational value for the child.

They're going to experiment with kids their own age, or they could learn from someone with experience. Someone who is knowledgeable enough to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. If I'm wrong explain why. Because it makes you uncomfortable is not a logical refutation of fact.

2. the child derived 'sexual pleasure' from the activity.
I never stated this, but I won't argue that consensual sex can certainly be pleasurable.

3. the child was abnormally mature and therefore capable of consent.
I think some are and some aren't. Unless you think that at 17 and 364 days no 'child' is capable of giving informed consent but that one day later they magically receive the gift of enlightened judgement.

4. the child initiated the activity.
I never said that. Likely sometimes that happens, but more often than not it's the adult's idea.

5. the activity caused no harm.

I am sure that in some cases it doesn't. I am also sure that in most cases it does.

6. their paedophile feelings are normal - other adults are simply being dishonest.

A simple statement of fact if you're using the broad definition of pedophile which includes teenagers. If you're using the clinical definition obviously that is a much smaller group, but I would still be uncomfortable calling their feelings abnormal, just as I would be uncomfortable calling a homosexual's feelings abnormal. Uncommon perhaps, but not abnormal.

And you've been arguing most of those points, haven't you?

Nope. I've pointed out that not every situation is the same, and that in some rare cases one or more of those points may be accurate. If you're trying to say that I believe ALL of those points to be true ALL of the time, then you obviously haven't been paying attention.

What else? You yourself have come to the attention of the Department of Homeland Security for posession of dubious material.

I came to the attention of the Department of Homeland Security because I have brown skin and hadn't shaved in a couple weeks. They had no idea I was a pedophile until they searched my laptop.

One of your best friends is a paedophile.
A pedophile who never touched a child. Most of the men here admitted to finding an 11 year old girl sexually attractive. What's your point?

You admit that the only thing that has stopped you from acting on your desires is the Law, which you would like to be changed.

The only thing? Seriously? Have you not been following along? Wow. Kudos. Awesome intentional misrepresentation. From way back on page #3, my first post in this thread...

Quote
I would never have sex with someone who I didn't feel knew full well what they were doing, and understood the physical and emotional ramifications of their actions, and was participating completely of their own free will.

It's not only the law that stops me, it's that too.

And you defend the possession of child pornography.

I've given a compelling and logical argument for it's legalization, which I believe would lead to few children being sexually abused. You have not given a compelling and logical argument to refute it. You're welcome to give one.

You're a dangerous man, Joe.

Kind of a silly thing to say.

I wouldn't leave my daughter alone with you for a minute.

Aaand here we have the stupidest fucking thing anyone has said so far (except for the Christians who chimed in).

You think I would find your daughter attractive? You think she would find me attractive? You think I would find her mature enough to handle a sexual relationship? You think she would consent to one? Do you think that if she did not consent that I would rape her? You think I would risk losing my job, my family, and my life to have sex with her?

Unless ALL of those things were true, your little daughter is safe. I mean, as safe as a child can be with an idiot for a father.

Also, should I assume you wouldn't leave your wife alone with any of the other men here? After all, most of them are sexually attracted to adult women and you've made it clear that you believe sexual attraction leads to rape and since your wife is presumably over the age of consent there would be absolutely nothing to stop them!
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on June 16, 2012, 11:34:19 PM
AT joe

I didn't even read your last rebuttal, yet I have faith that it is weak.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: MadBunny on June 17, 2012, 12:57:53 AM
I'm a bit late to this, and I will admit to skimming through some of the middle threads, please correct me if I cover ground already discussed.  Ahead of time: Informed consent is my personal deciding factor.

As I see it Pedophilia has three distinct divisions.

First; the obvious.  Abuse of a non-consenting minor by an adult.
Second: the gray area.
Third: impulses, either acted upon or not.  (for this category I'll consider them 'not acted upon' to keep it simple.)
------------------------ - -
I don't think anybody, even those with the urges consider the first category acceptable. [1] 

The third category, while useful for the study of human nature isn't really a problem unless it strays into the territory of actually acting on impulses.

This leaves us with the gray area.  The gray area, unsurprising is is quite large where the subject is concerned.  The simplest means of breaking it down is 'informed consent'.  If you look around the world you'll see that different cultures have different ages of informed consent.  Indeed it isn't even consistent within the US.

http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

You can see that it varies.  The lowest age of consent in the US is actually 14.  14! Most states are either 16, or 18 with caveats though.  Typically the caveat being that the partner is within a few years of age.

However, laws regarding M/F F/F and M/M sex vary wildly, both in the US and around the world.

-------------------------------- - -

This so far shouldn't be surprising to anybody, I'm just establishing my information thus far.

Mostly, I've stuck to legal definitions (see the link), but the question itself of whether or not it's pedophilia, if a person is below a certain age can be broader than most.  Where I break it down, is the term 'informed consent'.

is it possible for an 18 year old to be incapable of understanding what sex is?  Certainly.

This person:
(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k150/madbunny_2006/japankids-727451.jpg)
Is clearly a child.  I can't see this being confusing for anybody.

This person however:
(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k150/madbunny_2006/brooke_16yo.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Greenberg
She was 16 at the time of the photo, and according to Wikipedia is apparently 19 now.[2]

The obligatory reference:
(http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/06/22/45977/alost.jpg?t=20110622075549)
51 year old lost actor marries 16 year old with tons of plastic surgery.
-------------------------- - -

Is it possible for a person, a *normal* person at the age of say, 15 to feel urges and be emotionally capable of deciding that they want to have sex with an older person, lets say 21?  I'd say it depends on the people involved. 
Generally speaking though, most 15 year olds despite thinking they have all the answers in the universe... are just kids.  What they think isn't relevant because they don't know enough to know they don't know enough.

So anyway, to answer the OP, even though we're quite a few pages in: no.  I don't think most pedophiles should be automatically killed.  Partly because I think the death penalty should be reserved for very exceptional cases, partly because I think a lot of these crimes can fall within what I consider a gray area and people are prone to letting their emotions cloud them on the issue.
 1. Most people who commit crimes, whether they try to justify it or not, unless they're flatly sociopath understand that what they're doing it 'wrong'.
 2.  I really find looking at this person to be disturbing.  My apologies for posting it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: MadBunny on June 17, 2012, 01:08:28 AM
I've given a compelling and logical argument for it's legalization, which I believe would lead to few children being sexually abused. You have not given a compelling and logical argument to refute it. You're welcome to give one.
My apologies if I've missed where you covered this.

The problem with child pornography of an explicit nature is that it's exploitation of children who by definition cannot give informed consent.  Naturally there are exceptions to this, how would you see this being done in a way that does not exploit children?  Obviously you could simply get it from a country with a lower bar set on sex age I suppose.

You've made it clear from the posts I've see that you consider informed consent to be important, how do you reconcile this?

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 17, 2012, 01:54:53 AM
AT joe

I didn't even read your last rebuttal, yet I have faith that it is weak.

Ignorant and proud to be ignorant? Yes, that does sound like faith.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 17, 2012, 03:54:23 AM
My apologies if I've missed where you covered this.

The problem with child pornography of an explicit nature is that it's exploitation of children who by definition cannot give informed consent.  Naturally there are exceptions to this, how would you see this being done in a way that does not exploit children?  Obviously you could simply get it from a country with a lower bar set on sex age I suppose.

You've made it clear from the posts I've see that you consider informed consent to be important, how do you reconcile this?

Yes I've covered this. I've been arguing for the legalization of the possession of child pornography, not the production or sale. Lock the actual abusers up, as well as those who encourage the abuse through purchasing it, but the anonymous unpaid downloaders are small fish and haven't hurt anyone, and more importantly their sexual energy might be satisfied by the porn, preventing them from seeking out real children to abuse.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Chronos on June 17, 2012, 06:53:56 AM
The obligatory reference:
(http://scm-l3.technorati.com/11/06/22/45977/alost.jpg?t=20110622075549)
51 year old lost actor marries 16 year old with tons of plastic surgery.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/51-year-actor-dough-hutchingson-marries-teenager-couple-14079128


There are bigger problems than pedophilia with that one. She says she is mature for her age, and I say she appears like a wanna-be porn star. Her persona is more than a simple case of precocious puberty -- I do not detect a real personality there but one that is manufactured. Not only can I not imagine a relationship with a 16yo, but I sure as hell would not grant permission for my 16yo to marry a 51yo. Even at 18 or 20, but by then it's none of my business.

Also, isn't it ironic that California chooses and/or is required to recognize a marriage from Nevada that California wouldn't otherwise grant? His marriage certificate is the only thing that prevents him from violating the law for age of consent. (http://www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm) I wonder if this situation is referenced in the Prop 8 case ...


Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 17, 2012, 08:06:48 AM
I don't think age of consent applies to cyborgs. I'm pretty sure she is more plastic than flesh.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: MadBunny on June 17, 2012, 01:07:19 PM
My apologies if I've missed where you covered this.

The problem with child pornography of an explicit nature is that it's exploitation of children who by definition cannot give informed consent.  Naturally there are exceptions to this, how would you see this being done in a way that does not exploit children?  Obviously you could simply get it from a country with a lower bar set on sex age I suppose.

You've made it clear from the posts I've see that you consider informed consent to be important, how do you reconcile this?

Yes I've covered this. I've been arguing for the legalization of the possession of child pornography, not the production or sale. Lock the actual abusers up, as well as those who encourage the abuse through purchasing it, but the anonymous unpaid downloaders are small fish and haven't hurt anyone, and more importantly their sexual energy might be satisfied by the porn, preventing them from seeking out real children to abuse.

That seems like a bit of dissembling.

It's like saying: 'I've been arguing for the legalization of possession of cars, not their production and sale.  Lock up the actual producers of cars, as well as those who would sell them but not the people who already have them.'

Can you link me to the post, or the post # where you covered this, I'll go back and read it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: MadBunny on June 17, 2012, 01:19:09 PM
Oh, FYI, for those who missed it in my earlier post: Brooke Greenberg is the one on the LEFT.
It's my one of my goto examples for conversations about pedophilia.

There are doubtless people who're attracted to that, those people are unhealthy.  The example Joe has given with teenagers at the cusp of puberty, mostly developed, or in some cases indistinguishable from legal adults (Happens more often than you'd think) are rationally understandable even if you disagree with it.





There are bigger problems than pedophilia with that one. She says she is mature for her age, and I say she appears like a wanna-be porn star. Her persona is more than a simple case of precocious puberty -- I do not detect a real personality there but one that is manufactured. Not only can I not imagine a relationship with a 16yo, but I sure as hell would not grant permission for my 16yo to marry a 51yo. Even at 18 or 20, but by then it's none of my business.

I wonder if this situation is referenced in the Prop 8 case ...


Actually I wonder at that myself.  There was the story of a teacher who quit his job, left his wife and family for an 18 year old former student. 
(http://cdn.newsoxy.com/2012/03/teacher-leaves-family-for-student-e1330784868599.jpg)[1]

Baffling, but perfectly legal.
What could an adult of that age POSSIBLY find interesting about an 18 year old?[2]

You raise one of my pet peeves about prop 8 actually. 
You'd think that marriage certificates from say... Hawaii would be recognized but they're not.  If I remember correctly this is one of the problems with DOMA, in that it revokes the states need to recognize other states certifications of legality.
 1. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/01/10549926-calif-teacher-resigns-after-leaving-family-for-student?lite
 2. other than the obvious sexual implications
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Chronos on June 17, 2012, 03:39:51 PM
You raise one of my pet peeves about prop 8 actually. 
You'd think that marriage certificates from say... Hawaii would be recognized but they're not.  If I remember correctly this is one of the problems with DOMA, in that it revokes the states need to recognize other states certifications of legality.

Even so, how completely arbitrary to recognize the marriage of a 51yo and a 16yo in another state, yet not two adults of any sex in your own state (or any other state)? Completely arbitrary and fully unconstitutional.

On the grounds of immorality, I guess it's okay since the bible is replete with young girls being sold into marriage. Yet, we don't do that. Why not? Why not sell young girls into marriage? If the bible says it's okay, why don't we do it? Do we find it repugnant? I think so. Why is it okay to find certain things repugnant, yet not others?

I just love cherry pickers. They're always in the pits.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: magicmiles on June 17, 2012, 05:09:21 PM

You do know that there are people whose genetic gender and physical gender are not the same, right? A woman can have XY chromosomes and a man can have XX chromosomes. This is because the  chromosomes guide but do not absolutely control the development of the fetus. Let's take the woman with the XY chromosomes - are you okay with her marrying a man who also has XY chromosomes? If not, why not? She is physiologically female. Yet genetically male. Shouldn't love and respect matter more than a physical body?

I don't know enough about that to really give an opinion, and I don't see that it's relevant to an issue about which I don't personally have any doubts as to what is wrong and what is right. I think sometimes people point out extreme examples and ask "what about this? What about that?" in order to rationalise something which they feel is wrong but hope despeately to legitimize.  Of course, that is my gut feeling, and it's actually primarily based on how I personally try to rationalise bad behaviour. I don't think I'm especially unique.


If we make love and respect subservient to form and function then we should also then limit marriage to those of viable child-bearing age 15-35 in most cases. And you are then advocating with Joe for recognition of teens as potential sexual partners.

I might have to have you clarify that, as I don't quite understand what you're asking me. Thanks.

So, for me, the problem is when we don't fight against our desires. I realise this is a Christian perspective and will appear ridiculous to you, but just so you know where I am coming from.

It is not a Christian perspective - it is a human one and many here have voiced the same perspective, even Joe to a degree. I say to a degree because he (and others including myself) have pointed out that the issue if far from simple or clear regarding consent and the ability to give consent.

It's a Christian perspective in that Christians need to fight against sexual desire in situations when society says we don't have to. In making that point I was branching out from the desire for an inappropriately young sexual partner to the desire fr any form of sexual relationship which is outside what God intended.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: magicmiles on June 17, 2012, 05:51:46 PM


If I take the time to find reliable scholarly sources and the findings of which confirm what you would deem normal, what would this mean to you? This is a genuine question.

Not sure what it would mean to be honest, as I simply do not equate animals with humans at all. If you want to do the research I am happy to look at it and discuss it, if for no other reason than we might both learn something interesting.


What is it you exactly disagree with? That we are apes? Does the taxonomy itself bother you?

Genetically our chromosomes are nearly identical with the other great apes; all apes found in the Hominidae family have 24 chromosomes, except humans. We have 23. We have evidence that there was a chromosomal fusion between two chromosomes to create our chromosome #2, hence the seemingly absent ancestral ape chromosome. This is my layman understanding. I'm sure we have a few members here that are neck deep in genetic knowledge and could explain it in greater detail.

And our similarities aren't just genetic, our intertwined history can be seen behaviorally as well. Everything from facial expressions to lying and feelings of guilt and sorrow. We could get so deep with behavioral similarities that it would deserve its own thread.

I don't find some physical and behavioural similarities between humans and animals compelling. I believe in God, you see (you know). I believe He created all life. I would find it strange if the various life forms didn'thave many similar characteristics, just like it would be strange to see a great painter produce paintings which didn't contain some details and style unique to him or her.




You would agree that animals don't sin because animals were not affected by the Fall of Man in Genesis and did not inherit a sinful nature. So they are completely incapable of sinning; there is no desire to sin so every action they take part in can only be considered good, natural and normal.

It wasn't just the actions of manking that were affected by the fall of man - the bible teaches that all of creation stopped being perfect. That's a massive theological dscussion right there, which maybe we can delve into sometime.

But I do noe see the point you were making.


So with all that in mind, what makes homosexuality sinful for humans? By agreeing to those five premises, you and I have essentially devalued sin to nothing more than God's arbitrary decision to label it as wrong.

Nutshell right there Zanuku. It's what makes following God's rules so detestable to us, and why we are in the mess we're in. From day one we have told God to piss off because we don't want someone arbitrarily telling us how to live. I know atheism is based on a conviction that there is no evidence for God, but everything I see and hear tells me the dislike for God (even as a concept)overrules that 100 to 1. I've always thought so. Witness Hal's hotly debated hypothetical elsewhere on the forum.


We now need to tread lightly here, because we're taking the concept of  corrupt/evil sin from the Fall of Man (via the snake) and labeling sin as nothing more than actions which God arbitrarily doesn't want humans to do; “sin” is no longer an evil thing, it's just a thing God doesn't want one species to partake in. Take some time to really consider it all because this conclusion has serious implications.

Can you expand on this? What implications? I suspect i know where you're going with it, but I await your clarification.


Without objective wrong, appeal to emotion is all atheists are doing with their plethora of OT verses detailing moral outrages.

You're partly correct here and it's true, I do want you to feel disgusted when you read about Yahweh ripping open wombs and dashing apart infants. But I'm also asking you to rationally evaluate those verses and ask yourself if a logical and reasonable deity would do such things, or if it's more likely ancient men created a savage war god that supported their behavior. If the latter is the case, then you need to reconsider a lot of things.

Seems unlikely to me that an evil people wishing to create a savage war-God would create one quite like the God we see in the bible.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 17, 2012, 07:14:57 PM
Joe:
Quote
Congratulations! A gross misrepresentation of my argument from top to bottom! Quite impressive in fact. Without further ado, let's look at the myriad of mistakes you've made here, shall we?
I'm calling your argument as I see it. You're saying that in certain circumstances it would be OK for a 31 year-old man to have sex with an 11-year-old girl.

If she was physically ready, if she was emotionally mature enough, if she consented, if the man was kind and good, if the girl suffers no harm, and if it was legal.... then you'd be OK with it.

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.

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.

Quote
That is a call to recognize that not every single case of adult-minor sexual contact is abusive.
Technically it is. But an 18-year-old having sex with a 17-year-old is less abusive than a 31-year-old with an 11-year-old.

Quote
It's not only the law that stops me, it's that too.
I meant that if all those other conditons were met, you'd go for it, except for the Law stopping you. 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, Joe.
 
Quote
Quote
I wouldn't leave my daughter alone with you for a minute.
Aaand here we have the stupidest fucking thing anyone has said so far (except for the Christians who chimed in).
Really? It seems rather sensible of me, in the circumstances. (NOTE: I don't actually have a daughter, but I am assuming one for the purposes of this segment of the discussion).

And your questions support my defensive attitude. You say:
Quote
You think I would find your daughter attractive?
Let's assume she looks like the girl in your photo. So yes.
Quote
You think she would find me attractive?
That's possible, yes. She has crushes on pop-stars of your age. 
Quote
You think I would find her mature enough to handle a sexual relationship?
That's possible, given your opinion that if a girl is old enough to get pregnant then she's old enough to have sex.
Quote
You think she would consent to one?
She might, if you charmed her sufficiently.   
Quote
  Do you think that if she did not consent that I would rape her?
No, but not relevant to the situation.
Quote
You think I would risk losing my job, my family, and my life to have sex with her?
That's also possible. Your friend took the risk of looking at child porn and ruined his life. People do stupid things.

So actually Joe, you have said nothing reassuring there at all. You're saying that if the opportunity was there, you'd go for it. Like a rat up a drain-pipe.

And my decision to remove my hypothetical daughter from your presence still seems entirely reasonable.

Gnu.


=============================================

PS I mentioned before that these arguments of Joe's are typical paedophile rationalizations. I was just looking at the website of the paedophile organization  [wiki]NAMBLA[/wiki], and found these similar examples in the FAQ page (http://nambla.org/faq.html):

Q:  Why do you oppose age-of-consent laws?

A:  Opposing age-of-consent laws is not our only focus; it is one part of our broader criticism of North American social and legal practices.  We believe that these laws do great harm to people and relationships that do not deserve to feel the crushing weight of the heavy hand of the law.  Just as important, age-of-consent laws do not adequately protect young people.

Q:  What is this “ageism” you refer to?

A:  Ageism refers to age-based discrimination, and includes the tendency to discount and devalue the feelings and opinions of children and youth.

Q:  What do you propose in place of age-of-consent laws?

A:  Age-of-consent laws are those which say that if you are under a certain age, then what you say doesn’t matter.  We believe young people would be much better protected by laws -- and social attitudes -- that take their opinions, feelings and decisions into consideration.

Q:  Do you believe it’s possible for a boy and a man to have a close, even sexual relationship, without any harm?

A:  Yes it’s possible, and it happens every day. 

Q:  But aren’t these relationships always initiated by the adult?

A:  No.  We know from experience that some boys do initiate sexual contacts with adults.

Q:  So, does this mean you believe the relationship can benefit the boy?

A:  We know it can; some of us have seen examples in person. 

Q:  Ok, so if sex is so great, why do educators and doctors tell us it's harmful to kids?

A:  Well, people in very similar positions used to say with authority that masturbation would cause insanity and physical infirmity. 


This is delusional thinking.
 
Title: Re: should pedophiles be allowed to live?
Post by: MadBunny on June 17, 2012, 09:25:51 PM
Quote from: Joe
That is a call to recognize that not every single case of adult-minor sexual contact is abusive.
Technically it is. But an 18-year-old having sex with a 17-year-old is less abusive than a 31-year-old with an 11-year-old.

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned the 'gray area'. 

The problem here is that there is no way to create a sliding system that works with some people and not with others.  Since this doesn't exist we default to the least harmful option: legality.  We simply create an artificial threshold.

These thresholds exist in many places, soldiers for example are given guns, rockets and the ability to call down airstrikes with thousands of pounds of high explosive ordinance.  They are given the ability of mass murder, and the training to use it, yet in some cases they cannot even purchase an alcoholic beverage.

The solution is not to dissolve the idea of a threshold for people, but rather to understand that despite its inconvenience to a relative few, it does serve a purpose.

The same thing with sex.  Most people can accept this and deal with it, despite its inconvenience, or occasional restrictions.  I had to wait to get a drivers license, I had to wait to be able to buy beer.  It's just life. 

It takes all types, there are some people who like younger girls/boys, there are some people that prefer adults in big cat suits, heck there are probably people who prefer dolphins in nun-habits.

(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k150/madbunny_2006/PoiKree-Avatar4.jpg)

The criteria that we have to use isn't what people *want* or find *desirable*.  Heck, I've seen some of Joe's photography, it's obvious what he's talking about.  That can't be our criteria, it has to be either informed consent, which by definition people below a certain age cannot give or some sort of case by case criteria.[1]

Case by case criteria is frankly unrealistic.


Children can't give it, dolphins... who knows? 
 1. as in the example of the 18/17 year old.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: magicmiles on June 17, 2012, 10:14:48 PM
Did anybody else think the dolphin was being swallowed by a killer whale?

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 17, 2012, 10:28:01 PM
That seems like a bit of dissembling.

It's like saying: 'I've been arguing for the legalization of possession of cars, not their production and sale.  Lock up the actual producers of cars, as well as those who would sell them but not the people who already have them.'

You could insert the word 'watermelon' in place of cars and create the same sentence. It doesn't make my argument any less valid. While grammatically similar, there is no logical correlation.

Can you link me to the post, or the post # where you covered this, I'll go back and read it.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg512087.html#msg512087

I also posted links to studies that support my position. Quesi posted links to studies that she claimed reached the opposite conclusion. I disagreed with their conclusions as I found their methods highly flawed.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 17, 2012, 10:28:48 PM
Did anybody else think the dolphin was being swallowed by a killer whale?

Well, now I do. But he seems to be happy about it. Maybe that's his fetish.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 17, 2012, 11:02:57 PM
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.

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.

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, Joe.

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.
 
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.

Quote
And my decision to remove my hypothetical daughter from your presence still seems entirely reasonable.

Fair enough. I can't argue with a hypothetical since it's a moving goalpost.

Should I also assume that you would be removing your hypothetical wife from the presence of other men? You didn't answer that question. You are claiming that sexual attraction leads to rape, right? What if another man finds your wife attractive? For that matter, how do you prevent yourself from raping other women that you find attractive? After all, you don't seem to believe in self-control, or at least don't believe that pedophiles are capable of it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: MadBunny on June 17, 2012, 11:11:13 PM
<reply>
<links>

Thanks for the link.
I'm familiar with the rationalizations posted, and their various counter arguments.
My question/argument is not whether or not possession creates more abuse, or creates conditions that lead to abuse.  I have taken the liberty of assuming that you're a reasonably intelligent person, who from your posts and photography exist in the gray area of the topic.

It's about how a product which by definition is considered harmful to minors can be considered legitimate property.

To be clear I'm talking about sexually explicit content here.  Not a picture of children playing in swimsuits, or what is otherwise considered normal attire, despite what may or may not be provocative poses.

If it's illegal to make it.. 
Illegal to buy it..
Illegal to sell it..
Illegal to even be known to be looking at it...

Why the exception for possession? 



Did anybody else think the dolphin was being swallowed by a killer whale?

It's a dolphin in what looks like a Nun habit, wearing a StarTrek Communicator.
A character created for an RPG.

Last I remember he's relaxing in his quarters, a holodeck converted to an open environment and chilling with the chief of security.[1]
The game never really took off, but I like to imagine them sitting in dock, as if waiting for orders to depart.
 1. http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k150/madbunny_2006/haral.gif
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 17, 2012, 11:24:37 PM
If it's illegal to make it.. 
Illegal to buy it..
Illegal to sell it..
Illegal to even be known to be looking at it...

Why the exception for possession? 

That's a very easy question, which I've answered repeatedly.

Production - directly harmful
Purchase - indirectly harmful as it encourages production
Possession (if unpaid and anonymous) - harmless

Feel free to submit an argument that demonstrates that the possession of child pornography is harmful. Nobody has yet after 12 pages.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 18, 2012, 08:13:30 AM
...Feel free to submit an argument that demonstrates that the possession of child pornography is harmful. Nobody has yet after 12 pages.

If and when the child finds out about, the child is harmed. This is a simple thing, Joe. Think of the most humiliating thing that could possibly happen to you as a child. Now. Think about finding it in the possession of your uncle. Your aunt. Or plastered in a skanky newspaper after some guy is caught with it. Think about finding it online. Think about how you'd feel if your wife found it. Its called empathy, Joe. And if you think child porn victims never find out about it later, or never see the results later, then you're living in a bubble.

And, to be clear, as Madbunny said, we're talking about sexually explicit material, not just bathing suit shots.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 18, 2012, 09:43:43 AM
If and when the child finds out about, the child is harmed. This is a simple thing, Joe. Think of the most humiliating thing that could possibly happen to you as a child. Now. Think about finding it in the possession of your uncle. Your aunt. Or plastered in a skanky newspaper after some guy is caught with it. Think about finding it online. Think about how you'd feel if your wife found it. Its called empathy, Joe. And if you think child porn victims never find out about it later, or never see the results later, then you're living in a bubble.

And, to be clear, as Madbunny said, we're talking about sexually explicit material, not just bathing suit shots.

Yes, that's a very nice theoretical argument. But realistically, how is the child ever going to find out? I mean, when someone is arrested with it, it's not like the newspapers print the porn the guy was arrested with along with the story. At most you find out someone was arrested for possessing child porn, they don't tell you the names of the children involved. How would they ever know? And even so, as you said, if and when the child finds about it, the child is harmed. If the child didn't know about it, they wouldn't be harmed by it. So if it were legalized, people wouldn't be getting arrested for it and paraded in front of the media, and the victims could never know who possessed it.

Do you watch porn? Of course you do. Now, do you think the stars have any idea that you're watching it at home in your room? Let's say that 10 years ago a poor young woman did a porn film to make rent, and now she's a married mother of two. That film is an embarassment for her, and if she found out that her uncle or her neighbor were watching it, she would be mortified. But how could she ever know? She knows it's out there but she doesn't know who has it, or indeed if anyone is even watching it anymore.

Sure, if a child found out specifically who had downloaded, watched, and masturbated to their video, they may certainly have their feelings hurt, but I really don't see how they would realistically find out. I also don't know if 8-20 years in prison along with destroying families and careers is a fair punishment for hurt feelings. Having your daddy put in jail until you've completely forgotten his face probably hurts one's feelings too.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 18, 2012, 09:53:28 AM
...Do you watch porn? Of course you do...

No. I do not watch porn. You are making assumptions based on your own life. I am a woman. Perhaps that makes a bit of difference. But I also know men who do not enjoy porn.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: MadBunny on June 18, 2012, 11:40:09 AM
Feel free to submit an argument that demonstrates that the possession of child pornography is harmful. Nobody has yet after 12 pages.

This is somewhat similar to the Mengele quandry[1].

In short a few years back somebody questioned whether or not it was ethical to use the data collected by Josef Mengele.  After all, much of what he had collected was done using very disturbing methods, such as the cold water survival tests.[2] The results were used to design better German gear, and as a result wound up saving a lot of lives.  Other tests such as having people swim in pools of ice water were used to design cold water rescue plans.  We still use some of this information today.

There is a difference though.

Despite the apparent similarity, nobody is helped by using child pornography.

You can say, with some accuracy that probably nobody is harmed by it's continued existence.  After all, if it's in say, an attic somewhere and nobody knows about it, it isn't damaging anyone.  But then, neither is a sealed vial of anthrax.[3]  For what it's worth, I can accept that argument.

I would however, argue that given that it's impossible to tell if the material was purchased[4], which is a demonstrable harm, or simply 'found', that from a legal standpoint the assumption is going to be that it was acquired unless a reasonable explanation exists.  This stuff doesn't just appear out of the ether.  Somebody has to make it.

I'm at work I'll continue shortly.

**Edit: continuing**

I think that ultimately what we need to consider is that while the material itself is inert in that it doesn't actually harm anybody if nobody knows about it, we can't assume that it wasn't purchased.  We have to make an assumption that it came from somewhere, and as by definition somebody was harmed in the process of making it, that it shouldn't be considered a viable product to own.

Naturally there are gray areas, but it's my opinion that those gray areas should either be examined on a case by case basis if they are rare, or defined better if they are common.
 1.  (and no, I am not conflating the two groups with his actions, just using this as a springboard)
 2. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/dr-mengele-s-victim-why-one-auschwitz-survivor-avoided-doctors-for-65-years-a-666327.html
 3.  yes an obviously extreme example
 4. unless it's fairly obvious
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on June 18, 2012, 02:02:56 PM
... realistically, how is the child ever going to find out? I mean, when someone is arrested with it, it's not like the newspapers print the porn the guy was arrested with along with the story. At most you find out someone was arrested for possessing child porn, they don't tell you the names of the children involved. How would they ever know? And even so, as you said, if and when the child finds about it, the child is harmed. If the child didn't know about it, they wouldn't be harmed by it. So if it were legalized, people wouldn't be getting arrested for it and paraded in front of the media, and the victims could never know who possessed it.

You are arguing that "what you don't know, doesn't hurt you" That is an absurd argument.

Quote
Sure, if a child found out specifically who had downloaded, watched, and masturbated to their video, they may certainly have their feelings hurt, but I really don't see how they would realistically find out.

argument from ignorance. It doesn't matter if you can't fathom how someone could possibly ever stumble across some old photos or videos for the sake of this argument now does it?

Quote
I also don't know if 8-20 years in prison along with destroying families and careers is a fair punishment for hurt feelings. Having your daddy put in jail until you've completely forgotten his face probably hurts one's feelings too.

You wouldn't use that argument in defense of all criminals would you? Why should people who posses child porn get a pass?

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 18, 2012, 02:53:02 PM
But wouldn't those same sorts of arguments potentially apply to adults who might be illegally recorded doing embarrassing, even explicitly sexual things?  If I have sex with someone and record and distribute it without their knowledge I've probably, depending on my location, broken a few laws and almost certainly violated their trust in doing so.  And yet, it would likely be legal for you to have said material on your hard drive.  (Since I probably couldn't copyright it.)

And building on this point, I'm still wondering what people think about my previous post:

I'd also add that it's not impossible to have child pornography on your computer without even knowing it.  We live in a world where pornography is often produced by amateurs and delivered for popular consumption by aggregators, which in some cases is just a fancy word for dudes on tumblr, dudes who might not bother to or even have the means to verify the age of all of the young men and/or women pictured in the images or videos they upload.  And guess what?  If you've visited a site like that you might therefore have child pornography on your hard drive at this very moment if you haven't cleared out your cache since your last visit.

I also think that the discussion of distribution could use a little reality check.  In the US, something like 70 or 80 percent of teenagers have cell phones, most of which come equipped with digital cameras and the means to send any images or video captured to other mobile devices or to image or video hosting sites.  In other words, any one of them can become a producer and distributor of child pornography if they are so inclined.  There doesn't always need to be some creepy dude with a camera for child pornography to be produced and distributed.

This isn't exactly a hypothetical.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/angie-varona-14-year-unwillingly-internet-sex-symbol/story?id=14882768#.T9-B_hc7WAg

This girl took these photos herself to be shared only with her boyfriend but had her account hacked.  The photos were then spread by third party sources that didn't care whether or not she was of age.  Ironically, what kept these photos in circulation as long as they have been is that they were tame enough that the government couldn't consider them child pornography.  But this story shows that had she been less cautious there could have been sexually explicit images of her floating around, images that would certainly qualify as child pornography.

Indeed, there have been cases where a child performing a sexual act on another child goes viral.  See: Amber Cole.

So yeah...
Title: Re: should pedophiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: MadBunny on June 18, 2012, 05:15:29 PM
But wouldn't those same sorts of arguments potentially apply to adults who might be illegally recorded doing embarrassing, even explicitly sexual things?  If I have sex with someone and record and distribute it without their knowledge I've probably, depending on my location, broken a few laws and almost certainly violated their trust in doing so.  And yet, it would likely be legal for you to have said material on your hard drive.  (Since I probably couldn't copyright it.)

It's a bit of a gray area, sure it's quite possible for people to have content that consists of underage people on their hard drives without knowing about it.  Heck, all it would take would be for some of my students to email me something stupid and 'bang' there it would be.  They could ask me to charge their phones (I have a small locked area at the back of my room that I let students use for that purpose) and again... 'bang' in possession.

Using that argument, then Joe's argument that simply having it should be legal makes sense.

I don't think that it's the smart way to go though.  In my opinion, I think that having it should be illegal,  despite the problems with that argument.  How it was obtained should also be relevant, particularly now that new technology makes it so easy to obtain that it can be picked up accidentally.
Title: Re: should pedophiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: HAL on June 18, 2012, 05:22:40 PM
Using that argument, then Joe's argument that simply having it should be legal makes sense.

True, I should be able to have all manner of "illegal" drugs too, If I don''t use them what harm is it? Why can't I collect them all for a display? Why can't I grow marijuana as a garden plant if I don't smoke it?

What Joe doesn't understand is that the society is going to err on the side of what the lawmakers feel is the safest situation for all. To make a point, I should be able to have a nuclear bomb in my garage just for the hell of it, I mean I'm not going to explode it. If I want to collect one then why not? But they would say someone else might get hold of it ...
Title: Re: should pedophiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: MadBunny on June 18, 2012, 07:23:03 PM
Using that argument, then Joe's argument that simply having it should be legal makes sense.

True, I should be able to have all manner of "illegal" drugs too, If I don''t use them what harm is it? Why can't I collect them all for a display? Why can't I grow marijuana as a garden plant if I don't smoke it?

Don't think I'm suggesting that's the intelligent solution.

Lets use your marijuana plant analogy for a moment.  It's illegal to cultivate it in many places, and thanks to the so called war on drugs if you're found to be growing it you could lose your home if you're caught doing so.  I don't particularly think that's a good way for our government to operate, but that's the way it is at the moment.  "grow these drugs illegally and you'll suffer".

Now, the penalty is the same if some kid throws a bunch of seeds over your back wall and it grows on it's own as if you're actively converting all your rooms to a hydroponic jungle.  Some people have pretty big yards, its conceivable that they could be growing this stuff on their property and not really be aware of it..

In those cases I'd say it falls into the gray area.  Sure, it's illegal, but the possession and cultivation was through no fault of the homeowner who stands to lose everything. 



Pictured: Your house about to get seized.

(http://cannabisfantastic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/BackyardCannabis.jpg) 
<--The same?-->
(http://media.redding.com/media/img/photos/2010/10/23/20101023-232522-pic-746218852_t607.jpg)

Property seizures can and have happened based on just such events.  Try getting your property back after your local PD has already auctioned it off.

In my example you can see how the proper response is to look at the situation and simply remove the plants, possibly give the owner a warning to keep a better eye on their property, and maybe come back and inspect at a later time.


In the case of pornography, it *is* possible that you can come into possession of something through no fault of your own, lets say you buy a storage lot at an auction[1] and there is a box of the stuff in there.  It's *yours*, you paid for it no less.  But is isn't as if you went out of your way to specifically get it.  In that case should you go to jail for 20 years, get your balls cut off and lose your life?  I'd say no.

(http://storageauctionhq.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/storage-auction-300x225.jpg) <-- this it not my shit, it's from a storage auction website.

From a legal black and white standpoint though.... prepare to get fucked over.
The problem is a system where you have to prove your innocence rather defending it.
 1.  http://www.storagetreasures.com/storage-auctions/California/Los-Angeles
Title: Re: should pedophiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 18, 2012, 08:51:36 PM
Using that argument, then Joe's argument that simply having it should be legal makes sense.

True, I should be able to have all manner of "illegal" drugs too, If I don''t use them what harm is it? Why can't I collect them all for a display? Why can't I grow marijuana as a garden plant if I don't smoke it?

What Joe doesn't understand is that the society is going to err on the side of what the lawmakers feel is the safest situation for all. To make a point, I should be able to have a nuclear bomb in my garage just for the hell of it, I mean I'm not going to explode it. If I want to collect one then why not? But they would say someone else might get hold of it ...

That's kind of a terrible analogy.  The war on drugs, and the violence and mass incarceration that's come with it is perhaps the greatest source of injustice in the US since Jim Crow.  And for the record, in that case, society isn't erring on the side of safety, it's erring on the side of locking black and brown people up.

I know this is off topic.  I'm just saying....
Title: Re: should pedophiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: HAL on June 18, 2012, 09:09:13 PM
That's kind of a terrible analogy.  The war on drugs, and the violence and mass incarceration that's come with it is perhaps the greatest source of injustice in the US since Jim Crow.  And for the record, in that case, society isn't erring on the side of safety, it's erring on the side of locking black and brown people up.

That's what they perceive as "safety" though. Oh, I don't agree either, but it is what it is, as far as the lawmakers/law enforcers are concerned.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 18, 2012, 09:19:36 PM
Indeed.  Society at large seems to think that we're some savage animals that need to be caged in or put down.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on June 18, 2012, 09:23:56 PM
Indeed.  Society at large seems to think that we're some savage animals that need to be caged in or put down.

We elect them to represent us, then they treat us like chattel. Or worse, like we are the enemy.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: magicmiles on June 18, 2012, 09:40:53 PM
Indeed.  Society at large seems to think that we're some savage animals that need to be caged in or put down.

We are savage animals. We do need caging. Why do you think we need laws at all?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 18, 2012, 10:04:21 PM
No. I do not watch porn. You are making assumptions based on your own life. I am a woman. Perhaps that makes a bit of difference. But I also know men who do not enjoy porn.

Correction. You know men who lie about not watching porn.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 18, 2012, 10:09:28 PM
Correction. You know men who lie about not watching porn.

So now you know about every man on the planet. Wow. That's just amazing. I've got so many questions.  &)

You really need to learn that not everyone is the same as you. Seriously.
Title: Re: should pedophiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 18, 2012, 10:59:37 PM
True, I should be able to have all manner of "illegal" drugs too, If I don''t use them what harm is it? Why can't I collect them all for a display? Why can't I grow marijuana as a garden plant if I don't smoke it?

That's kind of a terrible analogy.  The war on drugs, and the violence and mass incarceration that's come with it is perhaps the greatest source of injustice in the US since Jim Crow.  And for the record, in that case, society isn't erring on the side of safety, it's erring on the side of locking black and brown people up.

I know this is off topic.  I'm just saying....

I think it's a fantastic analogy. Drugs and child pornography are both things that their use causes far less harm than their prosecution, and both should be legalized.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Chronos on June 18, 2012, 11:04:24 PM
...Do you watch porn? Of course you do...

No. I do not watch porn. You are making assumptions based on your own life. I am a woman. Perhaps that makes a bit of difference. But I also know men who do not enjoy porn.

After about 15 minutes, porn loses its attraction. Whether this is due to the low quality of porn scripts/actors or whether the actual scenes are so short or shallow that climax is achieved quickly, I dunno.

Sexual porn is like candy corn -- a little goes a long way. I haven't eaten candy corn in a long time ...

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 18, 2012, 11:13:56 PM
You are arguing that "what you don't know, doesn't hurt you" That is an absurd argument.

Please explain how someone you don't know doing something that you don't know about and will never know about can hurt you.

It doesn't matter if you can't fathom how someone could possibly ever stumble across some old photos or videos for the sake of this argument now does it?

Yes, it does. I am arguing that they can only be hurt by it if they know about it, and that there is basically no way for them to ever know about it.


Quote
I also don't know if 8-20 years in prison along with destroying families and careers is a fair punishment for hurt feelings. Having your daddy put in jail until you've completely forgotten his face probably hurts one's feelings too.

You wouldn't use that argument in defense of all criminals would you? Why should people who posses child porn get a pass?

I absolutely would. Hurt feelings are not worth destroying a life, let alone the lives of everyone in a family. What's even more disgusting and infuriating is that fact that in most cases, the children depicted in the porn never even know that someone was imprisoned for looking at it. Literally no harm was done to the child by the viewer, the child doesn't even know he exists, yet the viewer's life and the lives of his family members, including his children, are destroyed.

Does putting someone in prison for watching child porn un-abuse the child? Does it fix or solve anything? No, the punishment causes far more harm than the crime.

Do you realize that the average sentence for possession of child pornography is 6 months longer than the average sentence for raping a child, and nearly as long as the average sentence for murder? Don't you think that's fucking insane? Can you justify it?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on June 18, 2012, 11:40:13 PM
Even worse is someone who goes to jail for possessing a hard crush video (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crush_fetish#United_States). How are the animals harmed by someone simply watching a video? It's not like any money changed hands so it's not inherently evil or anything right?

I guess it's unreasonable for me to think that there is the slightest possibility of someone finding out that there is a photo or video of them being engaged in a sexual manor while they were too young to remember. It could never happen...ever. So yeah, Joe...I see your point.

No one who possesses child pornography should be deemed a threat of any kind to anybody...especially children, cause what's the harm right?

And yup, every single man on the planet enjoys porn and naked women stomping the life out of puppies. It's all normal and no punishment should ever be given to anybody, ever, because that might upset their friends and family.


I'm gonna go fuck a drunk hobo now. No harm in that. It's perfectly natural. I'll send you a video if you like.

No charge of course.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 18, 2012, 11:49:42 PM
But wouldn't those same sorts of arguments potentially apply to adults who might be illegally recorded doing embarrassing, even explicitly sexual things?  If I have sex with someone and record and distribute it without their knowledge I've probably, depending on my location, broken a few laws and almost certainly violated their trust in doing so.  And yet, it would likely be legal for you to have said material on your hard drive.  (Since I probably couldn't copyright it.)

I've made that point already. The production should be illegal, but why punish those who possess it? Why is it legal to watch an adult sex tape that was recorded illegally, but illegal to watch a child sex tape? The answer is simple, it's a thought crime. We're not punishing the actions of pedophiles, we're punishing their thoughts. If the action of possession was harmful, the adult videos would be illegal to possess too. If the action of watching porn lead to rape, adult porn would be illegal too.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Samothec on June 18, 2012, 11:54:30 PM
magicmiles,
You gave a very christian response, unfortunately. It's really my fault thinking that you might actually read what I wrote and think about it then answer. I'm disappointed that you avoided the points I made but they were borderline to this thread anyways so I'm going to let it go.

To all,
This thread is rife with people not reading and thinking about what they read. I want to make many comments but I really don't see the point right now.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 18, 2012, 11:57:28 PM
We are savage animals. We do need caging. Why do you think we need laws at all?

I disagree with this. I think our current penal system does very little to prevent crime. I think education, counseling, and community service would be a better solution for all but the very worst violent offenders. Not only could it teach many of these people valuable job skills and improve their sense of self-worth (which would prevent recidivism) but it would also save billions (yeah, with a b) on housing and feeding them. Not to mention their return to the work force would further contribute to the tax base.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 19, 2012, 12:16:52 AM
Even worse is someone who goes to jail for possessing a hard crush video (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crush_fetish#United_States). How are the animals harmed by someone simply watching a video? It's not like any money changed hands so it's not inherently evil or anything right?

It's clear from your sarcastic tone that you don't really expect a response to any of that, but I wanted to point out that possession of those crush fetish videos is legal.

Quote
On December 9, President Obama signed the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010 into law to re-criminalize the creation, sale, distribution, advertising, marketing and exchange of animal crush videos.

So production and distribution are illegal, yet possession isn't. Interesting.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on June 19, 2012, 12:32:07 AM
We are savage animals. We do need caging. Why do you think we need laws at all?

Are you typing this from your cage?  If not, then what are you doing out of your cage?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: magicmiles on June 19, 2012, 12:46:52 AM
We are savage animals. We do need caging. Why do you think we need laws at all?

Are you typing this from your cage?  If not, then what are you doing out of your cage?

You don't think the multitude of laws and social mores we follow could be seen as a type of cage?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 19, 2012, 12:50:57 AM
No.  I'm talking about dudes being locked up in literal cages.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: magicmiles on June 19, 2012, 12:54:54 AM
No.  I'm talking about dudes being locked up in literal cages.

I guess locking people up is necessary in some cases.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on June 19, 2012, 01:28:28 AM
...like when they're black or brown.  &)

That was the context, MM.  Read the context.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: magicmiles on June 19, 2012, 01:36:51 AM
I'm a bit confused now, to be honest. Sorry if I have missed the context.

I think my contribution to this thread can cease now.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on June 19, 2012, 07:27:40 AM
Correction. You know men who lie about not watching porn.

So now you know about every man on the planet. Wow. That's just amazing. I've got so many questions.  &)

You really need to learn that not everyone is the same as you. Seriously.

You know, a few years ago, I was listening to an ep of "Wait, Wait... Don't Tell Me!", the weekly NPR comedy news quiz game show.  They reported on a story of a group of researchers who were interested in determining what the effects on men were of having watched pornography vis a vis not having watched pornography.  The researchers ended up having to cancel the study.  Can you guess why?  ROT 13 for answer: Gurl pbhyqa'g svaq nal zra jub unq arire frra cbea.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: HAL on June 19, 2012, 07:37:45 AM
The production should be illegal, but why punish those who possess it?

This is pretty basic stuff Joe from the eyes of a lawmaker. If it's legal to own it but illegal to produce it (insert any vice you want), then it encourages a market more than the maximum restrictive case.

Think of it as a scale in order of the most market friendly situation to the least -

Legal to produce, legal to own

Illegal to produce, legal to own (or legal to produce, illegal to own)

Illegal to produce, illegal to own

To maximize control, the lawmakers opt for the last case.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 19, 2012, 07:43:11 AM
If that is so obvious, then why isn't that logic applied to other illegal activities like say, celebrity sex tapes.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: HAL on June 19, 2012, 07:46:29 AM
If that is so obvious, then why isn't that logic applied to other illegal activities like say, celebrity sex tapes.

Because the obvious isn't always done in this world.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 19, 2012, 07:48:51 AM
Ha.  I was scratching my head for a second but then I reread your post.  It's funny how tone is sometimes hard to convey via text.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 19, 2012, 08:15:19 AM
...I think our current penal system does very little to prevent crime. I think education, counseling, and community service would be a better solution for all but the very worst violent offenders. Not only could it teach many of these people valuable job skills and improve their sense of self-worth (which would prevent recidivism) but it would also save billions (yeah, with a b) on housing and feeding them. Not to mention their return to the work force would further contribute to the tax base.

Surprise! I actually agree with you.

In this thread we're talking about many related, but different things. The illegality of a thing is not, in theory, directly tied to the treatment of the perpetrator. Of course it is in practice. But when I say that an activity does harm, or has the potential to do harm, I'm not necessarily making a statement about whether the current punishment for doing such harm is appropriate or helpful. Perhaps that's a part of where this conversation gets cloudy. I believe I can summarize as follows ... Most of us are talking about the children. You're talking from the viewpoint of potential harm to you, that you think is disproportionate to your activity.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 19, 2012, 03:30:29 PM
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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, Joe.
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.
A lot of people agree with me; no-one agrees with you. That's because you're a paedophile, and we're not.
 
Quote
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). 

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: MadBunny on June 19, 2012, 04:03:08 PM
A lot of people agree with me; no-one agrees with you. That's because you're a paedophile, and we're not.

Actually[1] a lot of the world agrees with Joe on this one, if you look up 'age of consent' around the world you'll see that it's pretty low, occasionally non-existent in many places.  It's one of the reasons where there is such a problem with 'sex tourism', a related topic.

 1.  somewhat sadly in my opinion
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 19, 2012, 07:19:19 PM
Quote
if you look up 'age of consent' around the world you'll see that it's pretty low, occasionally non-existent in many places.
Nonsense, Madbunny. Worldwide, the AoC is mostly in the range of 14 to 18.

Wiki splits up the countries by continent, but I found this list  (http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm) which is incomplete, but appears to be accurate as far as it goes. As I said, mostly 14-18.

And the AoC is non-existent in some countries such as Afghanistan because all sex outside of marriage is illegal. So practically, the AoC is equivalent to the marriageable age, which in Afghanistan is 18 for males, 16 for females.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: MadBunny on June 19, 2012, 08:56:17 PM
I use this list:
http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm

Which looks to be a bit more detailed, and has the variations of FF/MM on it, the average appears to be between 12-16, with 18, or 5yrs age difference being reasonably frequent.  If you click on the country of note it takes you to the legal text of that particular issue.

So yes, you're right, but not by much.

I don't know about you, but I consider 12-16[1] to be pretty low. There are a few that it seems 'non-existent'.  That's barely out of grade school, or not yet in high school in the US.

random google pix of a ninth grade field trip. (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V-tFvbEkANI/Ti2fmLR_OuI/AAAAAAAADuQ/YOiUjxPnbSU/s640/Trio+Jr+High.jpg) <----- they look pretty damn young to my eyes.  I'm sure I could find more 'mature' looking 9th graders but I'm not inclined.
 1. or even 14-16
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: screwtape on June 19, 2012, 09:01:33 PM
t I found this list  (http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm) which is incomplete, but appears to be accurate as far as it goes. As I said, mostly 14-18.

I would not put too much confidence in that list.  It says the age of consent in India is 18.  Legally, perhaps.  But that is not common practice.  Perhaps by consent they mean "the age at which a female may make some decisions without her parents".  But even that is iffy in Indian culture.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Chronos on June 19, 2012, 09:20:21 PM
random google pix of a ninth grade field trip. (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V-tFvbEkANI/Ti2fmLR_OuI/AAAAAAAADuQ/YOiUjxPnbSU/s640/Trio+Jr+High.jpg) <----- they look pretty damn young to my eyes.  I'm sure I could find more 'mature' looking 9th graders but I'm not inclined.

Kansas, 1977?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 19, 2012, 09:25:58 PM
Madbunny, you've misunderstood me. I said to Joe:

Quote
Quote
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, Joe.
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.
A lot of people agree with me; no-one agrees with you. That's because you're a paedophile, and we're not.
I meant that a lot of people agree with me that the Age of Consent in the US isn't going to be reduced to the onset of puberty anytime soon.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 19, 2012, 09:31:13 PM
Then you should have clarified that no-one in America agrees with me. I mean, you'd still be wrong, but you'd be less blatantly wrong.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 19, 2012, 09:47:21 PM
^^^

Typical paedophile lawyering and pedantry.

Answer my post, Joe.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 19, 2012, 10:11:40 PM
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.
I welcome to to submit your proof that it was harmful in 100% of cases.

A lot of people agree with me; no-one agrees with you. That's because you're a paedophile, and we're not.
Oh? No-one agrees with me? Well then I change my mind and officially agree with whatever you're saying.

Appeal to popularity? Really? Doesn't work when Christians use it, doesn't work on me either.
 
Possession of child pornography isn't a thought-crime. It's an objectively verifiable crime.

I disagree. The fact that pornographic drawings and stories which involve no real children are also illegal demonstrates that it is not about protecting children, but punishing impure thoughts.

1. I am talking about removing my daughter only from your presence, based on your admission of paedophilia and other statements on this thread.

Would you keep other teenage boys away from your daughter?

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.

A ridiculous moving goalpost. If you're going to play that game, I can just say that your wife is leaving you for me because she likes my pretty eyes and says you spend too much time on the internet.

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.

My argument is about legalizing the possession of child pornography, not lowering the age of consent. I was asked my opinion, and I gave it. I do not care if the age of consent law is changed. I will yet again point out that I do not live in America. Your age of consent laws do not concern me.

All your arguments on a forum like this aren't going to change a thing.

First, I disagree with that. This is not the only forum I post on, and if I can open a few eyes to the injustice of our current overly-harsh punishments for possession of child pornography, I don't feel my time has been wasted.

Second, with or without my effort, things are changing. Federal judges are clamoring for reduced penalties and breaking official sentencing guidelines and refusing to issue severe punishments for simple possession cases. Studies are being conducted and publishing findings in favor of legalization. The ACLU is defending those caught in possession and supports decriminalization.

If you don't accept that, I recommend you get professional help, else you may end up in prison like your friend.

I'm sorry. I can't accept or tolerate thought crime.

Edit: What professional help would you suggest I get? Perhaps attending a religious camp where they try to pray away my abnormal sexual feelings? I've heard those are all the rage these days.

Sexual orientations can't be cured. The solution is to learn to tolerate things that make you uncomfortable.
Title: Re: should pedophiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: MadBunny on June 20, 2012, 12:58:56 AM
Madbunny, you've misunderstood..

I meant that a lot of people agree with me that the Age of Consent in the US isn't going to be reduced to the onset of puberty anytime soon.

My apologies.

You're right it won't happen here anytime soon.  Though, I'm still somewhat shocked that in the US 14 is considered acceptable.  I suspect it's one of those 'within XX number of years' things, so if a 34 year old guy was sexing up a 15 year old he's still get charged with statutory rape.  If a 16 year old was doing it, then it would be either a wink and a nod, or some kind of child oriented punishment.  Then again, I'm at an age where 18 year olds look like children to me so.... I may be rather biased on the subject.

Other parts of the world... not so much.  You could probably catch a plane to Thailand (15), or uh Spain (13!)...  and grab a 15 year old without much hassle.[1]
 1.  Note: sex tourism is illegal, in theory.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 20, 2012, 02:37:28 PM
Arguing that it should be legal to own pornographic materials involving children, but that the distribution and creation of such materials should be illegal, is roughly comparable to banning the slave trade but permitting the ownership of slaves.  Especially when you consider the lack of power that most children have compared to adults.  All that does is create a strong incentive to bypass the law in order to gain ownership of such materials.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Atheistisaweirdword on June 20, 2012, 02:48:17 PM
If that is so obvious, then why isn't that logic applied to other illegal activities like say, celebrity sex tapes.

Pedophiles and celebrity sex tapes are 2 different things.
Often child pedophiles have tumors, orbitofrontal cortex tumor's have led to a man's sexual preference to turn to children, it's obviously not a natural thing that natural selection has given a man's brain the preference of a child, it's sickness. They can't literally be a mentally healthy person and like kids.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Atheistisaweirdword on June 20, 2012, 03:15:54 PM
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.
I welcome to to submit your proof that it was harmful in 100% of cases.

A lot of people agree with me; no-one agrees with you. That's because you're a paedophile, and we're not.
Oh? No-one agrees with me? Well then I change my mind and officially agree with whatever you're saying.

Appeal to popularity? Really? Doesn't work when Christians use it, doesn't work on me either.
 
Possession of child pornography isn't a thought-crime. It's an objectively verifiable crime.

I disagree. The fact that pornographic drawings and stories which involve no real children are also illegal demonstrates that it is not about protecting children, but punishing impure thoughts.

1. I am talking about removing my daughter only from your presence, based on your admission of paedophilia and other statements on this thread.

Would you keep other teenage boys away from your daughter?

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.

A ridiculous moving goalpost. If you're going to play that game, I can just say that your wife is leaving you for me because she likes my pretty eyes and says you spend too much time on the internet.

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.

My argument is about legalizing the possession of child pornography, not lowering the age of consent. I was asked my opinion, and I gave it. I do not care if the age of consent law is changed. I will yet again point out that I do not live in America. Your age of consent laws do not concern me.

All your arguments on a forum like this aren't going to change a thing.

First, I disagree with that. This is not the only forum I post on, and if I can open a few eyes to the injustice of our current overly-harsh punishments for possession of child pornography, I don't feel my time has been wasted.

Second, with or without my effort, things are changing. Federal judges are clamoring for reduced penalties and breaking official sentencing guidelines and refusing to issue severe punishments for simple possession cases. Studies are being conducted and publishing findings in favor of legalization. The ACLU is defending those caught in possession and supports decriminalization.

If you don't accept that, I recommend you get professional help, else you may end up in prison like your friend.

I'm sorry. I can't accept or tolerate thought crime.

Edit: What professional help would you suggest I get? Perhaps attending a religious camp where they try to pray away my abnormal sexual feelings? I've heard those are all the rage these days.

Sexual orientations can't be cured. The solution is to learn to tolerate things that make you uncomfortable.

I'm not going to agree with you, but puberty is when a girl can have sex, they will probably being having sex with guys THEIR age, most do. Older men taking advantage of a younger not developed mind is just wrong, but I get the teenage point. Thoughtcrime, 1984 much? I hope that guy really doesn't think it's okay and feels so paranoid that his daughter has to carry a gun and have a black belt. Is she going to get in a kung fu battle and then a gun fight? 18 is a good age, they're old enough to make their decisions, out of high school and smart enough and capable enough to think for themselves, if you really actually like child porn you have a problem, that's not a regular fetish, I think liking getting shit on would be more rational than liking children. Liking children is not rational or logical and your point of view is saying puberty? That's not logical, they're not smart enough and not old enough to make decisions for themselves. Child pornagraphy is sick, no rational or logical mind will ever agree with you that it would be legal. It would not be legal in any developed country, if it ever does get legal in your country than you live in a fucked up country.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 20, 2012, 03:28:04 PM
It would not be legal in any developed country, if it ever does get legal in your country than you live in a fucked up country.

Watch your mouth, youngster. As someone who lives in a country where possession of child pornography is legal (according to joebbowers's chart), I can tell you that my country is not fucked up in any way. My country has one of the lowest crime rates on the planet, and is ranked #16 on the Global Peace Index; much higher than your country.
In case my subtle point wasn't clear, read up on [wiki]Poisoning the well[/wiki].
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 20, 2012, 03:52:57 PM
....puberty is when a girl can have sex, they will probably being having sex with guys THEIR age, most do...

I completely disagree with you. Most girls at puberty still think sex is icky. Remember that the average age of puberty in girls is 12ish. We're talking about elementary school kids.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Atheistisaweirdword on June 20, 2012, 03:58:48 PM
It would not be legal in any developed country, if it ever does get legal in your country than you live in a fucked up country.

Watch your mouth, youngster. As someone who lives in a country where possession of child pornography is legal (according to joebbowers's chart), I can tell you that my country is not fucked up in any way. My country has one of the lowest crime rates on the planet, and is ranked #16 on the Global Peace Index; much higher than your country.
In case my subtle point wasn't clear, read up on [wiki]Poisoning the well[/wiki].

I don't get the point on the wikipedia page, just states its a logical fallacy, doesn't state what it's about, I click the link and says error, please explain it. I didn't mean to offend you, was just saying child porn is wrong in the sense that they're not really old enough to make their own logical decisions in my point of view. For americans that's when you graduate high school. But again I didn't mean to offend you and I understand patrioticism most people are chauvinistic about their country, I think it's detrimental to think that way, we should be thinking about us as a human race as one, not of which country has a better country or crime rate in their country. Don't take offense.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Atheistisaweirdword on June 20, 2012, 04:01:40 PM
Meant to say they're 18 when they graduate high school, not sure what your country's graduation age is, but I still think thats the only age that makes sense.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 20, 2012, 04:06:02 PM
I don't get the point on the wikipedia page, just states its a logical fallacy, doesn't state what it's about, I click the link and says error, please explain it.

Basically it's when you say "If you don't think I'm right, you're a/an ______" (the blank space is placeholder for any negative quality; most commonly low intelligence or dishonesty). You're already classifying your position as the right one (shows close-mindedness) and dismissing anyone who disagrees as being an idiot/lying/whatever (shows idiocy).

I didn't mean to offend you, was just saying child porn is wrong in the sense that they're not really old enough to make their own logical decisions in my point of view. For americans that's when you graduate high school.

Trust me; most 12 year olds[1] are smarter than you think. In some areas. They're also complete idiots in others, just like everyone else.

But again I didn't mean to offend you and I understand patrioticism most people are chauvinistic about their country, I think it's detrimental to think that way, we should be thinking about us as a human race as one, not of which country has a better country or crime rate in their country. Don't take offense.

You're the one who brought it up. I simply used your logic and turned it inside out.

Meant to say they're 18 when they graduate high school, not sure what your country's graduation age is, but I still think thats the only age that makes sense.

Why?
 1. Per Traveler's post.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Atheistisaweirdword on June 20, 2012, 04:16:12 PM
I don't get the point on the wikipedia page, just states its a logical fallacy, doesn't state what it's about, I click the link and says error, please explain it.

Basically it's when you say "If you don't think I'm right, you're a/an ______" (the blank space is placeholder for any negative quality; most commonly low intelligence or dishonesty). You're already classifying your position as the right one (shows close-mindedness) and dismissing anyone who disagrees as being an idiot/lying/whatever (shows idiocy).

I didn't mean to offend you, was just saying child porn is wrong in the sense that they're not really old enough to make their own logical decisions in my point of view. For americans that's when you graduate high school.

Trust me; most 12 year olds[1] are smarter than you think. In some areas. They're also complete idiots in others, just like everyone else.

But again I didn't mean to offend you and I understand patrioticism most people are chauvinistic about their country, I think it's detrimental to think that way, we should be thinking about us as a human race as one, not of which country has a better country or crime rate in their country. Don't take offense.

You're the one who brought it up. I simply used your logic and turned it inside out.

Meant to say they're 18 when they graduate high school, not sure what your country's graduation age is, but I still think thats the only age that makes sense.

Why?
 1. Per Traveler's post.
I wasn't trying to call you an idiot, I thought you were using a term that I didn't know. I didn't know it just meant logical fallacy. Also, it is definitely and was wrong of my to say your country was fucked up, I admit that fully, it was never right of me to say your country is fucked up for YOUR point of view, your fucked up, not your country, so for that I apologize fully.
Okay if your point is actually thinking 12 year olds are smart enough and well developed enough to do porn then you're not that logical of a person, you're saying a 12 year old is smart enough to fuck older men? That's sick, literally. In every sense. A 12 year olds mind is not logical nor is she old enough to have sex with older men. That's disguisting. Call me an idiot and insult my intelligence but I'm not trying to actually make a point saying '12 year olds are well developed and smart enough to do porn'.
Say what you will, your point has been made as mine has too.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 20, 2012, 04:21:58 PM
Okay if your point is actually thinking 12 year olds are smart enough and well developed enough to do porn then you're not that logical of a person, you're saying a 12 year old is smart enough to fuck older men? That's sick, literally. In every sense. A 12 year olds mind is not logical nor is she old enough to have sex with older men. That's disguisting.

Not all of them; no. Just some. Maybe most.
And I am quite logical, thank you. More so than you, and I'd bet my life on that. Need I remind you of the fallacy known as "poisoning the well" again?

Say what you will, your point has been made as mine has too.

True. My point has been made. It was made in another thread, though; one I no longer have the patience or time to reply to. In fact, I shouldn't even be replying to this one right now. I'm gonna take a break for a couple of hours. See you later.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Atheistisaweirdword on June 20, 2012, 04:27:39 PM
Okay if your point is actually thinking 12 year olds are smart enough and well developed enough to do porn then you're not that logical of a person, you're saying a 12 year old is smart enough to fuck older men? That's sick, literally. In every sense. A 12 year olds mind is not logical nor is she old enough to have sex with older men. That's disguisting.

Not all of them; no. Just some. Maybe most.
And I am quite logical, thank you. More so than you, and I'd bet my life on that. Need I remind you of the fallacy known as "poisoning the well" again?

Say what you will, your point has been made as mine has too.

True. My point has been made. It was made in another thread, though; one I no longer have the patience or time to reply to. In fact, I shouldn't even be replying to this one right now. I'm gonna take a break for a couple of hours. See you later.

Not even a small fraction of 12 year olds would ever be considerable to porn. NOT ONE. You're smarter than me and think some 12 year olds can do porn. Good point. You probably are smarter than me in some areas, I'm sure. Your still just a human being on the planet as is everyone else, so if that's what you strive for is to smarter than some humans than good goal, helping humanity with your intelligence and your child porn views, kudos.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 20, 2012, 06:34:24 PM
Not even a small fraction of 12 year olds would ever be considerable to porn. NOT ONE.

While I agree with your conclusion, I'm having a hard time getting through that thick shell of emotion. Try logic for once. You (and others like you, who are arguing from emotion) make me ashamed to be on your side. You're like that one atheist who thinks atheism is about "rebelling against god".

You're smarter than me

Just to emphasize that this is your claim; not mine.

and think some 12 year olds can do porn.

"Can" in the sense that they can consent to it and be fully aware of what they're doing. Not "can" in the sense that they should. They might (and some would) regret it later in life, but we all make decisions we regret. It's just another part of growing up.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 20, 2012, 07:40:26 PM
.
Okay if your point is actually thinking 12 year olds are smart enough and well developed enough to do porn then you're not that logical of a person, you're saying a 12 year old is smart enough to fuck older men?


Please do not think by any stretch of the imagination, that i justify child porn. Below, i am addressing the low quality of your argumentation.

Have you considered looking up logic in the dictiinary? The rules of logic do not include observations about
the biological and mental maturity of human beings

And, your post ignores the fact that in historic times, it was historically considered acceptable for 12 year olds to have sex.

The idea of an extended childhood is apparently very modern. It is no accident that people can conceive at puberty. Most likely, throughout most of humanity's existence they did so.

Quote
That's sick, literally. In every sense. A 12 year olds mind is not logical nor is she old enough to have sex with older men. That's disguisting.

In our cultural framework, you are right. I do not think however that justifying our reaction to it is as trivial as you make out.

Certainly, rape is sick. We can easiliy justify this.

However, can we so easily make an informed blanket statement about the maturity of 12 year olds and then simply cite "logic".

You could try to cite your EXperience. That is fair. It is not logic but your personal observation. Problem is,
Is it "sick"if somebody else has a different sense there?

Quote
Call me an idiot and insult my intelligence but I'm not trying to actually make a point saying '12 year olds are well developed and smart enough to do porn'.
Say what you will, your point has been made as mine has too.

Ok.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 20, 2012, 08:11:44 PM
I completely disagree with you. Most girls at puberty still think sex is icky. Remember that the average age of puberty in girls is 12ish. We're talking about elementary school kids.

18 is the age at which i am fully comfortable with people having sex.

Still, can you say you are being objective here? That you are not projecting? There is quite a lot of variation
between people.
It is natural for us to want to protect chikdren from harm of course. They do experiment sexually in different ways at ages we are uncomfortable with sometimes.

In eras past, kids grew up at far younger ages. The idea of an extended childhood, is spparently rather modern. Samual de Champlain married a 12 year old. This was not contraversial when it hapoened. She came to Canada, hated it and went back to France

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 20, 2012, 08:21:33 PM
...They do experiment sexually in different ways at ages we are uncomfortable with sometimes...

Of course. But we're not talking about children exploring their bodies. We're talking about adults and children together.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 20, 2012, 08:30:39 PM
...They do experiment sexually in different ways at ages we are uncomfortable with sometimes...

Of course. But we're not talking about children exploring their bodies. We're talking about adults and children together.

Well, i am not a psycologist and i think some objective psycological data could be called for here, if there were a way to obtain it ...

I do know for example, my ex, mentioned, she "explored" as young as 6. Another girl, admitted to me, without any regret, that she had sex with a 30 year old at 11. I di not remember jow old she was when she first had sex. I was lol, 24, when i had my first time. ;).

Now, at the time that i hesrd this, i was shocked and if i were her parents, i would want thst 30 yesr old locked up.

It does however, beg the question as to whether or not we may be projecting?

Again, for modt of human history, people were "adults" in their teens.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: MadBunny on June 20, 2012, 08:53:47 PM
Ricky,

Perhaps the girl managed to do her thing at 11 with no regrets.
I can't however accept that anything like that would, or should be considered normal.

I fully admit that I may be in the wrong, but that's a hurdle that I can't get past and honestly don't really feel inclined to.

Maybe it's because I work with children on a regular basis, but I just don't see them being all that mentally mature despite their occasional early onset of puberty.
I've seen a lot of girls turn into very sexualized people who use it as a tool at young ages, but they never seem quite.... 'balanced'.  I'm not sure how to describe it really.
Maybe its just a byproduct of American culture or something.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Chronos on June 20, 2012, 09:33:38 PM
....puberty is when a girl can have sex, they will probably being having sex with guys THEIR age, most do...

I completely disagree with you. Most girls at puberty still think sex is icky. Remember that the average age of puberty in girls is 12ish. We're talking about elementary school kids.

My daughter was 9 when puberty hit. She was in 4th grade. She's now 16 and the idea of sex was icky until about a year ago. She still hasn't had sex with a boy, but she started dating a girl about 4 months ago. So far, I believe the most she has accomplished is a hickey.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 20, 2012, 09:50:10 PM


My daughter was 9 when puberty hit. She was in 4th grade. She's now 16 and the idea of sex was icky until about a year ago. She still hasn't had sex with a boy, but she started dating a girl about 4 months ago. So far, I believe the most she has accomplished is a hickey.

I dont know your kid but you do realize that kids dont actually tell their parents when they have sex, right?

I am glad that you are accepting of her apparent homosexuality.

I first had sex when i was 24. I didnt tell my family. ;). Generally, family members feel a bit uncomfortable discussing sex with each other.

Of course, i amva pretty private guy myself. I dont tend to vokunteer my sex life very often.

I am not saying your assessment is wrong but certainly one can put at least some doubt on it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 20, 2012, 10:07:38 PM
I can't however accept that anything like that would, or should be considered normal.

On an emotional level, neither can I. My point was, in past societies, that was normal.

I should add, that the girl was not particularly stable. She was balimic. She slept with a large number of men. She had issues with her family and self esteem. I do not think thatvwas caused by her having sex young but
I really dont know.



Quote
I fully admit that I may be in the wrong, but that's a hurdle that I can't get past and honestly don't really feel inclined to.

I can relate. As i said, I am not really comfortable with kids having sex when they are under 18. ;).

It is not really in their best interest to do so. I do not think any modrn parent woyld really be comfoftable with
this happening earlier. If my kid were involved, i definitely would not want my kid to have sex that young for all the obvious reasins.

Quote
Maybe it's because I work with children on a regular basis, but I just don't see them being all that mentally mature despite their occasional early onset of puberty.
I've seen a lot of girls turn into very sexualized people who use it as a tool at young ages, but they never seem quite

I do not disagree with you and travelar that many are immature at that age and hell even beyond 18. I suppode i could say most.

While our culture is sexualized, i am suspicious in fact, it could also be a product of biology?

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: MadBunny on June 21, 2012, 12:09:36 AM
I don't think anybody disputes that children begin experimenting and feeling the effects of their biological imperatives young.
Sure, that's a given.  Pretty much everybody has agreed on that point, even in the discussions with Joe, where the tendency has been to disagree with his viewpoint strongly.



The part that people have a problem with is the large age differences.
To a point, it's an emotional argument, but a very powerful one.  The idea is that the younger person is powerless in comparison, in my opinion is where the issue lies.

When I say age differences I'm not just talking about the basic: one person is older.

(http://img2-1.timeinc.net/people/i/2011/news/111128/demi-moore-1-300.jpg)

People were weirded out by this, but accepted it despite the apparent age difference. (Demi = 49 Ashton = 34)  There is a 15 year difference which is roughly analogous to your 11 year old sleeping with a 26 year old.

Ashton was already a successful and independent person, (also legally an adult) it didn't matter what others thought because he had the capability to make his own choices.

(http://www.rightcelebrity.com/wp-content/photos/Kiernan_Shipka.jpg)(http://www.indiavision.com/news/images/articles/2012_05/310682/u2_Robert-pattinson-sexiest-man.jpg)

This vibe feels different.  Not just because I used a picture of Robert Pattinson when he was 26 either.  Ok, maybe it has to lot to do with vampire boy.. but my point stands.  It feels weird.  Also Shipka can't make her own choices legally.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Atheistisaweirdword on June 21, 2012, 12:54:25 AM
Not even a small fraction of 12 year olds would ever be considerable to porn. NOT ONE.

While I agree with your conclusion, I'm having a hard time getting through that thick shell of emotion. Try logic for once. You (and others like you, who are arguing from emotion) make me ashamed to be on your side. You're like that one atheist who thinks atheism is about "rebelling against god".

You're smarter than me

Just to emphasize that this is your claim; not mine.

and think some 12 year olds can do porn.

"Can" in the sense that they can consent to it and be fully aware of what they're doing. Not "can" in the sense that they should. They might (and some would) regret it later in life, but we all make decisions we regret. It's just another part of growing up.

No I'm not like that one atheist who thinks he's rebelling against god. I'm not arguing from emotion either, I think it's just morally long to say a girl who hits puberty at 12 could do porn just based on puberty. We're all the same, no humans better than another human. Insulting my intelligence just makes you an asshole who thinks he's better due to higher knowledge. If I'm wrong feel free to tell me.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Atheistisaweirdword on June 21, 2012, 01:00:29 AM
....puberty is when a girl can have sex, they will probably being having sex with guys THEIR age, most do...

I completely disagree with you. Most girls at puberty still think sex is icky. Remember that the average age of puberty in girls is 12ish. We're talking about elementary school kids.

My daughter was 9 when puberty hit. She was in 4th grade. She's now 16 and the idea of sex was icky until about a year ago. She still hasn't had sex with a boy, but she started dating a girl about 4 months ago. So far, I believe the most she has accomplished is a hickey.

That was a terrible point I was trying to make. I was referring to more when they're a little bit more developed around 14-16 is when they usually start experimenting with teenagers their age. Sorry, definitely right for you to disagree, I agree.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 21, 2012, 03:03:03 AM
Welcome to the forum, Atheistisaweirdword.

First, let me say that we here place a very high value on logic and reason. Your emotionally charged blanket-statements without support will not fly around here. We welcome your opinions, but please back them up with explainations. Otherwise, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed just as easily.

Now, on to my reply to your initial comment...

Thoughtcrime, 1984 much?

We live in a world where people like us can be put to death for their beliefs or lack thereof. Legally. By their own governments. Thought crime is not a joke.

Specifically with relation to possession of child pornography, I believe it is a thought crime. I have three arguments to support this.

1. Pornographic animations and stories featuring imaginary children are also illegal, despite their being no victim in their creation. This demonstrates that the law is not designed to protect children, but to punish the dirty thoughts of pedophiles.
2. Expert have conducted studies that conclude that increased access to pornography (including child pornography) leads to a reduction in sexual assaults and rape.[1] Despite the fact that it's continued ban very likely leads to more child victims, politicians refuse to decriminalize it. This again demonstrates that the law is not designed to protect children.
3. Illegally obtained and hidden camera sex tapes, as well as videos depicting torture, rape, beastiality, animal cruelty, and murder, are all legal to possess despite being illegal to produce. This demonstrates an understanding that merely possessing and watching these types of videos is not harmful in and of itself. Why is child porn an exception? To punish pedophiles for their thoughts.

If you disagree, explain why.

if you really actually like child porn you have a problem, that's not a regular fetish

Do you think people who like gay porn have a problem? Do you understand that sexual orientation is an involuntary trait?

Also, studies estimate the prevalence of pedophilia to affect around 3-9% of the population. That would make them roughly equal to or possibly outnumbering homosexuals.

I think liking getting shit on would be more rational than liking children.
Um... good for you?

Liking children is not rational or logical and your point of view is saying puberty?

This is meaningless. Sexual orientation is not rationally or logically determined. It is a result of biological and environmental factors.

That's not logical, they're not smart enough and not old enough to make decisions for themselves.

That is your opinion, though the past few hundred thousand years of human history would disagree with you. Children were considered adults at puberty and paired for mating, more recently known as marriage.

Do you understand that age of consent laws are fairly new? And even in the modern world, the US standard of 16 years is among the highest.

Also, why do we try young children as adults for committing crimes? In the US, children as young as 9 are regularly tried as adults for violent crimes. They are considered capable of making decisions and held responsible for their actions. Why the double standard when sex is concerned?

In other words, most people in the world today, and most people since the beginning of time have considered a pubescent child capable of making decisions for themselves.

Child pornagraphy is sick, no rational or logical mind will ever agree with you that it would be legal.

This is just flat-out wrong. Blanket statements like that will get you no-where here.

Many rational and logical people including federal judges and university professors are advocating the decriminalization of the simple possession of child pornography on the grounds that it is harmless to possess and may in fact lead to fewer cases of abuse against real children.

It would not be legal in any developed country, if it ever does get legal in your country than you live in a fucked up country.

Another ridiculous false statement followed by another ridiculous moral judgement. You really shouldn't say things like that around here, we place a very high value on intellectual honesty. Do your research before making such bold claims.

It is legal to possess in most of the world, including many developed countries such as Japan and Denmark, which both have lower crime rates and higher quality of life standards than the United States.
 1. Others have questioned the results of these studies, however I find their methods to be accurate. Furthermore, the fact that multiple studies across multiple countries conducted by multiple independent organizations have reached the same conclusion lends veracity to the claim.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 21, 2012, 03:09:28 AM
While our culture is sexualized, i am suspicious in fact, it could also be a product of biology?

I don't believe it is. I believe children are maturing later because we are treating them like kids longer. We shield them from harsh realities and responsibilities, of course they seem more immature than earlier generations.

I believe that the longer lifespan has nothing to do with it. If that were true, you would expect children to be reaching puberty later, but in fact the opposite is true.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 21, 2012, 03:16:20 AM
No I'm not like that one atheist who thinks he's rebelling against god.

We'll see. Read the bold part.

I'm not arguing from emotion either, I think it's just morally long to say a girl who hits puberty at 12 could do porn just based on puberty.

And as a justification[1] you offer... nothing. Well, not "nothing", but simply what joebbowers has already pointed out as being irrelevant/wrong/emotion-based[2].

We're all the same, no humans better than another human.

Wrong. Many people are better than other people.

Insulting my intelligence just makes you an asshole who thinks he's better due to higher knowledge.

Probably would. I've yet to insult your knowledge, however. Or your intelligence. Why do you keep complaining about something that didn't happen?

I don't believe it is. I believe children are maturing later because we are treating them like kids longer. We shield them from harsh realities and responsibilities, of course they seem more immature than earlier generations.

It could be a little of both. I'm fairly certain that in the "Nature versus Nurture" debate, nature has a bigger influence than nurture. That's why homosexual homophobes still have sex with other men/women.
 1. Also note that my argument has nothing to do with puberty.
 2. Note that this (all three things) is just my view of your points.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Quesi on June 21, 2012, 05:04:02 AM

First, let me say that we here place a very high value on logic and reason.

And facts. 


I don't believe it is. I believe children are maturing later because we are treating them like kids longer. We shield them from harsh realities and responsibilities, of course they seem more immature than earlier generations.

No Joe.  CHILDREN ARE NOT MATURING LATER. As I've cited a few times, children are maturing earlier.  Puberty at 8.5 years for girls is now considered within the normal range.  As I stated earlier, there are various theories about why puberty is coming earlier and earlier, ranging from hormones fed to cows and chickens that make their way into the foods we eat, to chemicals in our soaps and shampoos, to obesity.   

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg512418.html#msg512418

If you didn't bother to read the links in my previous posts discussing the topic, here is a small quote from one article: 

Earlier breast development is now so typical that the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society urged changing the definition of "normal" development. Until 10 years ago, breast development at age 8 was considered an abnormal event that should be investigated by an endocrinologist. Then a landmark study in the April 1997 journal Pediatrics written by Marcia Herman-Giddens, adjunct professor at the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, found that among 17,000 girls in North Carolina, almost half of African Americans and 15% of whites had begun breast development by age 8. Two years later, the society suggested changing what it considered medically normal.

The new "8" -- the medically suggested definition for abnormally early breast development -- is, the society says, 7 for white girls and 6 for African American girls.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/21/health/he-puberty21

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 21, 2012, 05:06:03 AM
No Joe.  CHILDREN ARE NOT MATURING LATER.

I think he meant emotionally. Even if he didn't, I did. Just wanted to make that clear.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Chronos on June 21, 2012, 05:14:04 AM
I dont know your kid but you do realize that kids dont actually tell their parents when they have sex, right?

I'm sure most kids don't say "Hey, Dad, guess what? I had sex today!" However, there are clues if you are observant. Teenagers often are not good at hiding certain things for very long.

My daughter will tell me things that most kids won't tell their parents.

One thing about dating a girl, she won't get pregnant, which is a major plus.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Quesi on June 21, 2012, 06:56:14 AM
Joe has been making up facts throughout this thread.  First of all he repeatedly presented his argument that child porn reduces child abuse, by insisting that there is a consensus among experts.  When I cited various sources (like the Mayo Clinic) that indicate that child porn has the opposite effect, he retreated by saying that he has read the studies and disagreed with them.  Disagreeing with studies that you don’t like does not indicate a consensus among experts.”                           


2. Expert have conducted studies that conclude that increased access to pornography (including child pornography) leads to a reduction in sexual assaults and rape.

Bullshit.  There are no comprehensive, global studies that track child sexual abuse period.  And there are certainly no longitudinal studies that track pre-porn cultures to post-porn cultures.  I suspect you are citing data about how countries with more relaxed attitudes towards sexuality (including access to adult porn) appear to have lower instances of female sexual abuse, and then you are pretending that those studies have something to do with child porn. 

I notice that no one is following up on this statement.


Often child pedophiles have tumors, orbitofrontal cortex tumor's have led to a man's sexual preference to turn to children, it's obviously not a natural thing that natural selection has given a man's brain the preference of a child, it's sickness.


Or my much earlier statement citing studies indicating the a disproportionately high percentage of pedophiles were themselves victims of abuse.  For many it is a vicious cycle in which the abused becomes the abuser.  For others, it is a diagnosable medical disorder.  In some cases, the causes, just like the causes of precocious puberty, are unknown,

I am interested in stopping the cycle of abuse and supporting treatment of the medical disorders, not apologizing for an industry which perpetuates the abuse. 

I keep promising myself that I am not going to continue responding in this thread.  But when I see the same lies being repeated over and over again as if they were facts, I have trouble just ignoring them. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 21, 2012, 07:04:57 AM
No Joe.  CHILDREN ARE NOT MATURING LATER.

I think he meant emotionally. Even if he didn't, I did. Just wanted to make that clear.

I quite obviously meant emotionally. I even added that physically puberty was coming earlier than before.

But hey, thanks for the smite anyway Quesi. A reminder in future debates with you that you don't read very carefully.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 21, 2012, 07:09:18 AM
My daughter will tell me things that most kids won't tell their parents.

Then that by your own words would make your relationship an exception, and doesn't invalidate Ricky's point that most children don't tell their parents when they have sex.

One thing about dating a girl, she won't get pregnant, which is a major plus.

Yes, I think no unexpected pregnancies is a major marketing point for homosexuality. They should put that in their recruiting pamphlets. That and if you date a guy your size you double your wardrobe.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Quesi on June 21, 2012, 07:10:39 AM
No Joe.  CHILDREN ARE NOT MATURING LATER.

I think he meant emotionally. Even if he didn't, I did. Just wanted to make that clear.

You have not been changing the goal posts and making up data.  I may not agree with some of your conclusions, but I have no problem with the consistant arguments that you present. 

Joe has stated that when a girl starts developing breasts, she is sexually mature.  I have repeatedly pointed out that the age of puberty has been decreasing rapidly.  There has always been "premature puberty" that can effect even toddlers or babies.  But among the students in the 3 kindergarten classes at my daughter's school, there are quite a few 5 and 6 year olds who are showing breasts now, including one of my daughter's friends.  These are kindergartners.   But it is not that uncommon now.

So you can't argue that when a kid develops breasts, she is ready for sexual activity, and then in the same thread argue that "children are maturing later" in spite of evidence demonstrating that the onset of puberty at 7 or 8 or 9 (or even 5 or 6) is no longer unusual. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 21, 2012, 07:56:38 AM
Joe has been making up facts throughout this thread.  First of all he repeatedly presented his argument that child porn reduces child abuse, by insisting that there is a consensus among experts.

There is a concensus among literally dozens of studies that have reached the same conclusion. I didn't say everyone in the world agreed. I think you're taking the word concensus too literally.

When I cited various sources (like the Mayo Clinic) that indicate that child porn has the opposite effect, he retreated by saying that he has read the studies and disagreed with them.

I read the links you provided, and clearly explained that I don't believe their data concludes that porn use leads to sexual abuse, but instead that most sexual abusers use porn. I'm not sure you understand what 'retreat' means. I did not run away or surrender.

And by the way, the Mayo Clinic did not conduct any studies, they merely regurgitated and inflated figures from an earlier paper from the American Prosecutors Research Institute, which in turn got it's data from a U.S. Postal Inspection Service report that was quoting a statement by the director of The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Source: http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/nov/30/mike-dewine/mike-dewine-cites-link-between-viewing-child-porno/

And as I pointed out, even the authors of the Mayo clinic paper prefaced the article with a statement casting doubt on it's accuracy. As the 2005 National Center for Missing & Exploited Children report puts it "we do not know if these child porn possessors were representative of all Internet-related child porn possessors."

I have repeatedly welcomed any of you to read the studies I linked and dispute them. If you can conclusively prove that increased access to pornography leads to an increase in sexual crime, I am sure you can get published in some prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals. Kind of like the studies I linked.

Disagreeing with studies that you don’t like does not indicate a consensus among experts.
And disagreeing with the findings of multiple studies without explaining why doesn't make you right.

Bullshit.  There are no comprehensive, global studies that track child sexual abuse period.  And there are certainly no longitudinal studies that track pre-porn cultures to post-porn cultures.  I suspect you are citing data about how countries with more relaxed attitudes towards sexuality (including access to adult porn) appear to have lower instances of female sexual abuse, and then you are pretending that those studies have something to do with child porn. 

You can "suspect" all your want, or you can actually read the studies.

From Clemson professor Todd Kendall
http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf
Quote
The bottom line on these experiments is, "More Net access, less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth.

From University of Hawaii Ph.D. Milton Diamond
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/effects_pornography.htm
Quote
The concern that countries allowing pornography and liberal anti-obscenity laws would show increased sex crime rates due to modeling or that children or adolescents in particular would be negatively vulnerable to and receptive to such models or that society would be otherwise adversely effected is not supported by evidence. It is certainly clear from the data reviewed, and the new data and analysis presented, that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan, the United States and elsewhere has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims. Even in this area of concern no "clear and present danger" exists for the suppression of SEM. There is no evidence that pornography is intended or likely to produce "imminent lawless action" (see Brandenberg v. Ohio, 1969). It is reasonable that the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently rejected the principal that speech or expression can be punished because it offends some people's sensibilities or beliefs. Compared with "hate speech" or "commercial speech" there seems even less justification for banning "sex speech."

I notice that no one is following up on this statement.


Often child pedophiles have tumors, orbitofrontal cortex tumor's have led to a man's sexual preference to turn to children, it's obviously not a natural thing that natural selection has given a man's brain the preference of a child, it's sickness.

Because it was embarassingly stupid and not worth addressing.

Or my much earlier statement citing studies indicating the a disproportionately high percentage of pedophiles were themselves victims of abuse.  For many it is a vicious cycle in which the abused becomes the abuser.  For others, it is a diagnosable medical disorder.  In some cases, the causes, just like the causes of precocious puberty, are unknown,

Many people think homosexuals are victims of abuse, and that's why they are the way they are. This is an ignorant way of rationalizing behavior you can't understand or can't accept.

I am interested in stopping the cycle of abuse and supporting treatment of the medical disorders, not apologizing for an industry which perpetuates the abuse. 

Sexual orientations are not medical disorders, and do not need to be cured. Fuck off.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Atheistisaweirdword on June 21, 2012, 09:26:33 AM
Welcome to the forum, Atheistisaweirdword.

First, let me say that we here place a very high value on logic and reason. Your emotionally charged blanket-statements without support will not fly around here. We welcome your opinions, but please back them up with explainations. Otherwise, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed just as easily.

Now, on to my reply to your initial comment...

Thoughtcrime, 1984 much?

We live in a world where people like us can be put to death for their beliefs or lack thereof. Legally. By their own governments. Thought crime is not a joke.

Specifically with relation to possession of child pornography, I believe it is a thought crime. I have three arguments to support this.

1. Pornographic animations and stories featuring imaginary children are also illegal, despite their being no victim in their creation. This demonstrates that the law is not designed to protect children, but to punish the dirty thoughts of pedophiles.
2. Expert have conducted studies that conclude that increased access to pornography (including child pornography) leads to a reduction in sexual assaults and rape.[1] Despite the fact that it's continued ban very likely leads to more child victims, politicians refuse to decriminalize it. This again demonstrates that the law is not designed to protect children.
3. Illegally obtained and hidden camera sex tapes, as well as videos depicting torture, rape, beastiality, animal cruelty, and murder, are all legal to possess despite being illegal to produce. This demonstrates an understanding that merely possessing and watching these types of videos is not harmful in and of itself. Why is child porn an exception? To punish pedophiles for their thoughts.

If you disagree, explain why.

if you really actually like child porn you have a problem, that's not a regular fetish

Do you think people who like gay porn have a problem? Do you understand that sexual orientation is an involuntary trait?

Also, studies estimate the prevalence of pedophilia to affect around 3-9% of the population. That would make them roughly equal to or possibly outnumbering homosexuals.

I think liking getting shit on would be more rational than liking children.
Um... good for you?

Liking children is not rational or logical and your point of view is saying puberty?

This is meaningless. Sexual orientation is not rationally or logically determined. It is a result of biological and environmental factors.

That's not logical, they're not smart enough and not old enough to make decisions for themselves.

That is your opinion, though the past few hundred thousand years of human history would disagree with you. Children were considered adults at puberty and paired for mating, more recently known as marriage.

Do you understand that age of consent laws are fairly new? And even in the modern world, the US standard of 16 years is among the highest.

Also, why do we try young children as adults for committing crimes? In the US, children as young as 9 are regularly tried as adults for violent crimes. They are considered capable of making decisions and held responsible for their actions. Why the double standard when sex is concerned?

In other words, most people in the world today, and most people since the beginning of time have considered a pubescent child capable of making decisions for themselves.

Child pornagraphy is sick, no rational or logical mind will ever agree with you that it would be legal.

This is just flat-out wrong. Blanket statements like that will get you no-where here.

Many rational and logical people including federal judges and university professors are advocating the decriminalization of the simple possession of child pornography on the grounds that it is harmless to possess and may in fact lead to fewer cases of abuse against real children.

It would not be legal in any developed country, if it ever does get legal in your country than you live in a fucked up country.

Another ridiculous false statement followed by another ridiculous moral judgement. You really shouldn't say things like that around here, we place a very high value on intellectual honesty. Do your research before making such bold claims.

It is legal to possess in most of the world, including many developed countries such as Japan and Denmark, which both have lower crime rates and higher quality of life standards than the United States.
 1. Others have questioned the results of these studies, however I find their methods to be accurate. Furthermore, the fact that multiple studies across multiple countries conducted by multiple independent organizations have reached the same conclusion lends veracity to the claim.

You don't think it's logical enough to say that children are not meant for porn? How can you compare gays to liking child porn? I just don't get your point. An adult and a child should not be having sex. It's just wrong, that's my opinion. Just because something's legal in other countries doesn't make it right. I'm not emotionally charged, I just couldn't see child porn ever being morally ok, they're kids. Children and adults having sex could just never seem right. Of course I don't think gays and children aren't comparable, children and adults have 2 different places in the sexual world. You only have a childhood once, why ruin it by the adult perverse world? Thanks for welcoming me. Morally that will always be wrong to me, they're not adults, they shouldn't be doing adult things especially with adults at that age.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 21, 2012, 09:40:58 AM
...You only have a childhood once, why ruin it ...

When all is said and done, this is what it boils down to for me. In the animal world, the more complex a species is, the later they mature. Humanity, at the "top" of complexity, requires the longest childhood in order to "properly" mature into responsible adulthood. I don't understand why anyone would want to shorten that maturing time, except to satisfy their own wishes. Any of those "reasons" have nothing to do with the best interest of the child, and everything to do with selfish motives. For me, and I believe for most of society, its very important to protect those who can't yet protect themselves. And all the argueing in the world will not change the fact that a child's brain is not yet mature enough to understand the ramifications of adult sexual relationships.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Atheistisaweirdword on June 21, 2012, 09:49:05 AM
I meant to say I don't think gays and children are comparable.* sexual preference is about gender, not children. They're not mature enough to make their own decisions.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 21, 2012, 09:50:41 AM
I meant to say I don't think gays and children are comparable.* sexual preference is about gender, not children. They're not mature enough to make their own decisions.

Exactly.

I think Joe is talking about his own orientation/preference rather than the child's, but comparing that to homosexuality isn't fair, since in a gay relationship both partners are adults.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on June 21, 2012, 10:12:32 AM
A story about this matter from CNN today:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/opinion/cantor-pedophila-sandusky/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

In a nutshell: pedophiles are born that way, they don't choose to be that way, and if they had some support (which they very often can't get), they need never engage in any harmful behavior toward children.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 21, 2012, 10:25:44 AM
I think I need to see verifiable proof that the existence of child pornography reduces the cases of child sexual abuse, not simply a "consensus of experts".  If for no other reason than the fact that we often have such consensuses in other areas, such as health and diet, which are prone to changing periodically depending on the experts asked and the information cited.

Second, I think it is extremely important to differentiate between prepubescent children and pubescent adolescents in this discussion.  When I hear "child porn", I don't think of a sixteen-year old who is mostly through puberty, I think of a ten-year old who hasn't even started it yet.  I suspect that's true of a lot of the people in this argument.  Regardless of emotional maturity, the simple fact is that a child, such as the ten-year old I just mentioned, is almost certainly not physically or sexually mature enough to desire having sex with an adult in the first place.  Thus, any porn that involves adults having sex with children is not made for the benefit of such children, but for the benefit of an adult who presumably is sexually attracted to such a child.

Such a one-sided benefit has no real chance of being helpful to any child.  In fact, it has the very real potential to be detrimental to actual children, even if the porn itself did not use actual children, for the simple fact that human nature accustoms someone to doing something as they do it and makes it easier to do things which would have been unthinkable beforehand.  Of course this doesn't mean that everyone who watches child porn will move up to sexually abusing an actual child, but there's no good reason to discount the very real potential for that to happen.  In fact, that's enough of a reason to retain the ban on such material until it is proven that it does not increase the incidence of child sexual assaults.

There are ways to deal with pedophilia that don't involve the unacceptable risk of allowing a child to be harmed as a result of it.  I'm in support of those ways, but I simply do not see child pornography as one of them.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 21, 2012, 10:42:21 AM
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.
I welcome to to submit [sic] your proof that it was harmful in 100% of cases.
And that's another strawman. Did I say that adult-child sex is always harmful? No. But such sexual abuse is highly likely to be harmful, which is sufficient reason that it should never be permitted.

Quote
A lot of people agree with me; no-one agrees with you. That's because you're a paedophile, and we're not.
Oh? No-one agrees with me? Well then I change my mind and officially agree with whatever you're saying.

Appeal to popularity? Really? Doesn't work when Christians use it, doesn't work on me either.
It was a simple statement of fact. And where the Law is concerned, numbers do matter; that's how democracy works.
 
Quote
Possession of child pornography isn't a thought-crime. It's an objectively verifiable crime.

I disagree. The fact that pornographic drawings and stories which involve no real children are also illegal demonstrates that it is not about protecting children, but punishing impure thoughts.
No. You can have all the impure thoughts you like, Joe, and you won't be breaking the law and you won't be arrested. But possesing child porn is an action, not a thought.

Quote
1. I am talking about removing my daughter only from your presence, based on your admission of paedophilia and other statements on this thread.
Would you keep other teenage boys away from your daughter?
No. I'd keep her away from self-confessed paedophiles. So you don't have a point.

Quote
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.
A ridiculous moving goalpost. If you're going to play that game, I can just say that your wife is leaving you for me because she likes my pretty eyes and says you spend too much time on the internet.
You introduced this red herring of what I should permit my hypothetical wife to do. I've pointed out that this is comparing apples to oranges, and giving my wife certain self-defence skills is a way of highlighting the difference.

Quote
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.
My argument is about legalizing the possession of child pornography, not lowering the age of consent.
Well, you've spent a lot of time on this thread trying to justify adult-child sexual behaviour in some circumstances, and that's what I'm arguing against. The issue of child pornography is of less concern to me.

But as I just said, I agree with you that the punishments for possession are too high; nobody should go to prison for possession.

Quote
All your arguments on a forum like this aren't going to change a thing.

First, I disagree with that. This is not the only forum I post on, and if I can open a few eyes to the injustice of our current overly-harsh punishments for possession of child pornography, I don't feel my time has been wasted.
Fair enough.

Quote
If you don't accept that, I recommend you get professional help, else you may end up in prison like your friend.
I'm sorry. I can't accept or tolerate thought crime. Edit: What professional help would you suggest I get? Perhaps attending a religious camp where they try to pray away my abnormal sexual feelings? I've heard those are all the rage these days.

Sexual orientations can't be cured.
I'm suggesting you get help regarding your delusional thinking about child sexual abuse.

It is never OK for a 31-year-old to groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship, because there is a high probability that the child will suffer pervasive harm. If you disagree with that, you are deluded.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 21, 2012, 10:50:17 AM
You don't need to quote an entire  thread. Just cut out the relevant parts.

You don't think it's logical enough to say that children are not meant for porn?

Nobody here, including me, has said children were meant for porn. Nobody has even said that the production of child pornography should be legal.

How can you compare gays to liking child porn? I just don't get your point.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are both involuntary sexual orientations that are misunderstood and discriminated against.

Just because something's legal in other countries doesn't make it right.

This is absolutely true. But it does demonstrate that your definition of right is not universally held.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 21, 2012, 10:55:32 AM
I may not agree with some of your conclusions, but I have no problem with the consistant arguments that you present.

Just to reiterate and emphasize: I think that some children are perfectly capable of consenting to having a relationship with older people, but I still don't think they should do it. This is (probably) more commonly known as informed consent.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Atheistisaweirdword on June 21, 2012, 12:06:27 PM
You don't need to quote an entire  thread. Just cut out the relevant parts.

You don't think it's logical enough to say that children are not meant for porn?

Nobody here, including me, has said children were meant for porn. Nobody has even said that the production of child pornography should be legal.

How can you compare gays to liking child porn? I just don't get your point.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are both involuntary sexual orientations that are misunderstood and discriminated against.

Just because something's legal in other countries doesn't make it right.

This is absolutely true. But it does demonstrate that your definition of right is not universally held.


I get your point of unvolintary sexual preference, but let's say people see it your way, which I can understand they can't help it, but why would a child even want to do porn? Children at that age just don't have the idea nor the will to want to do porn. Child porn is usually forced without them wanting to do it or not. Wouldn't that be detrimental to a child mind being forced to do? Very few would ever want to do it, and even if they did their parents would never allow it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 21, 2012, 12:20:47 PM
Children at that age just don't have the idea nor the will to want to do porn. Child porn is usually forced without them wanting to do it or not.
It seems to me that you haven't read this whole thread; Joe has clearly said that the production of child porn should be a crime.

Though, now that I mention it, I'm not sure why Joe thinks that. If he believes that some 11-year-old girls can consent to sexual activity with a 30-year-old man, then surely those girls could also consent to being filmed in the act?

So tell us, Joe, why do you think the production of child-porn should be a crime?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: screwtape on June 21, 2012, 12:25:46 PM
Hi Atheistisaweirdword

Please do not quote the entire post.  Just the parts relevant to your reply.  A link to the quoting tutorial is in my sig. Please read it and practice. Thanks.

Regards

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Atheistisaweirdword on June 21, 2012, 12:29:00 PM
Children at that age just don't have the idea nor the will to want to do porn. Child porn is usually forced without them wanting to do it or not.
It seems to me that you haven't read this whole thread; Joe has clearly said that the production of child porn should be a crime.

Though, now that I mention it, I'm not sure why Joe thinks that. If he believes that some 11-year-old girls can consent to sexual activity with a 30-year-old man, then surely those girls could also consent to be being filmed in the act?

So tell us, Joe, why do you think the production of child-porn should be a crime?
I don't have a computer, so I usually just read the post responding to mine, but it goes for sex, there's no children at the age or 11 that would consent to sex with an adult without being talked in to it, kids just don't think 'damn that 30 year old guys attractive I could see him in my princess bedsheets'
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Atheistisaweirdword on June 21, 2012, 12:30:52 PM
Hi Atheistisaweirdword

Please do not quote the entire post.  Just the parts relevant to your reply.  A link to the quoting tutorial is in my sig. Please read it and practice. Thanks.

Regards



Sorry won't happen again.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 21, 2012, 01:16:37 PM
Atheistisaweirdword, I'm going to give you a small tip:
Saying "it's obviously wrong" is an irrelevant statement, given that morality is relative. It's also irrelevant because just saying "it's obvious" doesn't prove anything. You have to show evidence for your claims.
EDIT: Here's an example.[1]
You said:
Often child pedophiles have tumors, orbitofrontal cortex tumor's have led to a man's sexual preference to turn to children, it's obviously not a natural thing that natural selection has given a man's brain the preference of a child, it's sickness.
Bold mine for emphasis.
Disregarding the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about after "children", do you have any evidence for your claim? I've yet to see a study linking brain tumors with pedophilia.
 1. Thanks to Quesi for pointing this out, as I had missed it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on June 21, 2012, 01:31:24 PM
If that is so obvious, then why isn't that logic applied to other illegal activities like say, celebrity sex tapes.

Pedophiles and celebrity sex tapes are 2 different things.
Often child pedophiles have tumors, orbitofrontal cortex tumor's have led to a man's sexual preference to turn to children, it's obviously not a natural thing that natural selection has given a man's brain the preference of a child, it's sickness. They can't literally be a mentally healthy person and like kids.

Just to chime in real quick.

Like a lot of people have said, you really need to read the full context in which an argument or comment is given before you can attempt to rebut it.  Your post is interesting.  I'd never heard about orbitofrontal cortex tumors and what not.  But it has absolutely nothing to do with the very narrow point I was making.

Welcome to the forum though.


Peace
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Quesi on June 21, 2012, 02:10:36 PM
I've yet to see a study linking brain tumors with pedophilia.

Really?  There was one very famous case about 10 years ago.  Here is an exert from an article on the topic.  But if you google "brain tumor and pedophilia" you'll find lots more.   

In 2000, the man began collecting sex magazines and visiting pornographic Web sites, focusing much of his attention on images of children and adolescents.

Eventually he couldn't stop himself, telling doctors 'the pleasure principle overrode' everything else. When he started making subtle advances on his young stepdaughter, his wife called police. He was arrested for child molestation.

The man was convicted and failed a 12-step rehabilitation program for sexual addiction because he couldn't stop asking for sex favors, according to the case report.

The day before he was to be sentenced to prison, the man walked into the emergency room with a headache. He was distraught, Swerdlow said, and was contemplating suicide.

He also was 'totally unable to control his impulses,' Burns said. 'He'd proposition nurses.'

An MRI revealed the tumor, and it was cut out days later. The man's behavior began to improve. Swerdlow said the judge allowed him to complete a Sexaholics Anonymous program. The man eventually moved back home with his wife and stepdaughter.

About a year later, Swerdlow said, the tumor partially grew back and the man started to collect pornography again. He had another operation last year, and his urges again subsided.

'That's one of the interesting things about frontal lobe damage,' Swerdlow said. 'This guy, he knew what he was doing was wrong, but he thought there wasn't anything wrong with him,
and he didn't stop.' http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/4022.php

Here is another story about “late onset pedophilia" about a guy whose sexual interest in children started when he was 70 years old.  Brain concerns were cited as well. 

Paraphiliac behavior has been reported secondary to temporal lobe epilepsy, post-encephalitic neuropsychiatric syndromes, septal lesions, frontal lobe lesions, bilateral temporal lobe lesions, multiple sclerosis, and tumors in various sites.7 Recent reports have noted the concurrence of emergence of pedophilia in late life and brain disease. One report described 2 patients with pedophilia who had temporal lobe hypometabolism as revealed by positron emission tomography; 1 patient had frontotemporal dementia and the other had bilateral hippocampal sclerosis.4 No evidence of structural brain lesion, however, was evident in our patient.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1911163/

And here is an interesting piece on a man with temporal lobe damage caused by epilepsy, who, after undergoing brain surgery and a whole host of chemical interventions, became an pedophile, and was subsequently arrested and imprisoned for possession of child pornography.  The article questions  the ethics of his imprisonment, given that his behavior was clearly related to an ongoing brain problem, for which he was receiving treatment.  http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/11/brain-damage-pedophilia-and-law.html  I’m guessing that Joe and I can agree on this one.  Prison does not seem to be the appropriate solution to this man’s problem. 

The article that Pianodwarf linked talked about brain differences in pedophiles, but I think that it oversimplified the issue, ignoring some of these cases, but more importantly ignoring environmental factors, such as childhood sexual abuse, social environments with innate power imbalances (such as war zones, disaster areas, refugee camps, illegal border crossings, etc.) where incidences of rape of women and children increase exponentially.   

But I did want to comment on Joe's articles and links.  First of all, the first one is about internet usage and rape statistics, and has nothing to do with child pornography or pedophilia.

I continue to stand by my statement that
  There are no comprehensive, global studies that track child sexual abuse period.  And there are certainly no longitudinal studies that track pre-porn cultures to post-porn cultures.

No one knows how many children are sexually abused, because most sexual abuse is not reported.  I could get on the phone right now and call up a dozen women I know personally who were sexually abused as children, by uncles at family barbeques, by step brothers throughout their tween years, by husbands in arranged (forced) marriages that would not be legally recognized in most parts of the world, by employers, by security guards at refugee camps where they sought protection, by coyotes who were paid by their parents to get them safely across a border, by traffickers who promised them a better life, and by soldiers who burned their villages.  There is no data on these women.  They are not included in anyone’s study of the sexual abuse of children. 

There are no reliable numbers that capture the reality of child sexual abuse this year or last year or 20 years ago or a hundred years ago because that data has not been collected.  So let’s not pretend that there are studies that say that child pornography (internet or otherwise) has decreased the incidence of child abuse.  There is no reputable study that could make that claim. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 21, 2012, 02:22:31 PM
Really?
<snip>

I was unclear. I have yet to see a study regarding brain tumors and pedophilia on the scale that Atheistisaweirdword suggested. I know brain damage can result in a variety of effects, such as a change in sexual orientation/preference, but Atheistisaweirdword's wording suggested/implied/inferred that most pedophilia was due to brain tumors. If that is so, I'd like to see evidence for that, and for him to retract his statement that it's "wrong" (regardless of the "obviousness" of the morality of a sexual attraction). He can't have it both ways.
EDIT: Still, even if he is wrong about the "most" quantifier, which I suspect he is, his statement that an involuntary sexual attraction is somehow immoral is both illogical and wrong, and thus should be retracted, regardless.

There are no reliable numbers that capture the reality of child sexual abuse this year or last year or 20 years ago or a hundred years ago because that data has not been collected.  So let’s not pretend that there are studies that say that child pornography (internet or otherwise) has decreased the incidence of child abuse.  There is no reputable study that could make that claim. 

Sorry, but that goes both ways. To say that most sexual abuse goes unreported means that no study with that variable will ever be conclusive either way.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Quesi on June 21, 2012, 02:58:11 PM

There are no reliable numbers that capture the reality of child sexual abuse this year or last year or 20 years ago or a hundred years ago because that data has not been collected.  So let's not pretend that there are studies that say that child pornography (internet or otherwise) has decreased the incidence of child abuse.  There is no reputable study that could make that claim. 

Sorry, but that goes both ways. To say that most sexual abuse goes unreported means that no study with that variable will ever be conclusive either way.

I agree completely.  I've maintained from the beginning of this conversation (and for much of my adult life) that pedophilia is usually about power imbalances.  There is ample evidence that a significant percentage of pedophiles (in the contemporary first world at least) are consumers of child pornography. 

But more importantly, there is no doubt that the child porn industry exploits children. 

I think the brain stuff is really interesting, and I believe it.  But in my experience, many (most?) victims of child abuse were abused because of the abusers' exploitation of power imbalances.  That is why I said that I believe environmental factors play a sigificant role.  Soldiers who rape a group of young girls while pillaging a village, might never have been rapists if they had not been sent to war.  Plantation owners in the pre Civil War US might not have been rapists if they had not had access to so many young girls who they considered "property."  But Uncle J who pulls little Polly into the back room during the 4th of July barbeque?  There is already a power imbalance there.  He is the uncle and she is the little girl.  Did her pony tails remind him of the video he watched on the internet last night?  I don't know.  And neither does Joe. 

In terms of any cause/effect relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse, I have said repeatedly that there IS NO CONSENSUS AMONG EXPERTS IN THE FIELD.  There is simply not enough data, or sufficient methodology to collect accurate data.  The most interesting study that I cited compared the use of child porn among repeat child abuse offenders, compared to those who were not charged with repeat offenses.  However, even that data is not necessarily accurate, because it is possible that the control group continued to sexually abuse children, but just didn't get caught.   
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 21, 2012, 04:36:01 PM
^ That's part of why I'm so adamantly opposed to child porn.  Because we don't have enough information about how it affects pedophiles, and I do not feel it's acceptable to risk the damage it can do if it does actually increase the likelihood of child sexual abuse.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 21, 2012, 04:41:06 PM
^ That's part of why I'm so adamantly opposed to child porn.  Because we don't have enough information about how it affects pedophiles, and I do not feel it's acceptable to risk the damage it can do if it does actually increase the likelihood of child sexual abuse.

jaimehlers, what if its absence is what increases the likelihood of sexual abuse? Can you honestly say that you can find one argument that can't be used for either side?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Chronos on June 21, 2012, 06:54:31 PM
My daughter will tell me things that most kids won't tell their parents.

Then that by your own words would make your relationship an exception, and doesn't invalidate Ricky's point that most children don't tell their parents when they have sex.

That's not what he said:

I dont know your kid but you do realize that kids dont actually tell their parents when they have sex, right?

I saw no qualification of most.

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 21, 2012, 09:43:22 PM
I think I need to see verifiable proof that the existence of child pornography reduces the cases of child sexual abuse, not simply a "consensus of experts".

Have you actually read the studies I cited in their entirety?

Quote
Pornography was strictly prohibited in the Czech Republic between 1948 and 1989.

The ban was lifted with the country's transition to democracy and, by 1990, the availability and ownership of sexually explicit materials rose dramatically. Even the possession of child pornography was not a criminal offence.

Diamond and his team looked at what actually happened to sex-related crimes as it moved from having a strict ban on sexually explicit materials to the material being decriminalised.

Results from the Czech Republic showed that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalisation and wide availability of pornography.

Most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan.

They also found that the number of cases of indecent exposure and other, less serious, sex crimes fell dramatically in the wake of pornography becoming more readily available.

The researchers say: ‘As with adult pornography appearing to substitute for sexual aggression everywhere it has been investigated, we believe the availability of child porn does similarly.’

Read the entire study. Please explain how you think they are wrong.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 21, 2012, 10:30:39 PM
Currently, those convicted of possession of child pornography serve an average of 6 months longer in prison than those convicted of actually forcibly raping a child, and nearly twice as long of those convicted of statutory rape (consensual sex with a minor). In fact it is nearly as long as the average murder sentence (currently just under 10 years).

Do you believe the sentence should be :

A.) No punishment. (ie. legalized possession.)
B.) Reduced to a fine with no prison time. (ie. decriminalized possession.)
C.) Reduced to a misdemeanor with probation,  community service, and mandatory counseling.
D.) Reduced to a misdemeanor with less than 1 year sentence.[1]
E.) Increased to a minimum of 20 years.
F.) Increased to life in prison.
G.) Increased to the death penalty.
 1. Realizing that this would still mean the loss of career, income, family, etc.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Zankuu on June 21, 2012, 10:37:09 PM
B.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: MadBunny on June 21, 2012, 10:41:35 PM
Joe,

The problem here is that you're trying to use a 'reasonable' argument.
Normally I'd applaud that, in fact I think you've done a pretty good job of defending what my personal ethics consider an unreasonable thing.
I'm impressed that you would even try considering what you know about how people feel about it.

Therein lies the problem.
Even though, to a point I agree with you on some of the 'gray areas', I can't get past that.
Where explicit child pornography, or hard[1] pedophilia is concerned I don't see myself budging ever.  On the gray areas I already agree, there are people who may be able to handle what happens with no problem.  Heck empirically I know they can since for much of human history ages have been much lower than they are now in the US for sex.

I still can't get past that roadblock.

Let me give an example.

Imagine a 14 year old girl, takes 'naughty' pictures and sends it to her 14-15 year old boy/girl friend and we assume ONLY that person will ever see it.
Am I ok with that?  I'm a little uncomfortable, but I can live with it.

Imagine a 14 year old girl, takes 'naughty' pictures and sends it to her 35-40 year old boy/girl friend and we assume ONLY that person will ever see it.
Am I ok with that?  No, not really.




** this posted while I was writing**


Do you believe the sentence should be :

<list>

I know this probably wasn't directed at me, but my own answer is: it depends.
I recognize there is a difference between a 17 year old and a 9 year old, as well I recognize there is a difference between rape porn and topless posing, the law may not.


There was a man who was arrested for having and taking pictures of underage girls who were FULLY CLOTHED who was charged with child pornography, so clearly the issue can be a witch hunt.  Based on that,  sort of thing I'd say yes the law may need to be revised or clarified greatly.
 1.  meaning very young children
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 21, 2012, 11:45:58 PM
jaimehlers, what if its absence is what increases the likelihood of sexual abuse? Can you honestly say that you can find one argument that can't be used for either side?
To be blunt, it's the job of those advocating child porn who need to be able to prove that it's going to be able to reduce or at least not increase the incidence of child sexual abuse.  And to be even more blunt, any child porn that involves an actual child already does too much harm, in my opinion - because that's a kind of child sexual abuse.

Have you actually read the studies I cited in their entirety?
I haven't been following this topic all that closely.  Perhaps you could link them again (or at least the posts where you originally linked them from)?  I don't really want to look through sixteen pages of posts to find the ones you posted earlier.

As far as the snippet you just quoted, that doesn't look like a scientific study, it looks like a statistical analysis.  And based on what you posted here, I don't see there being a causative link between the availability of pornography and the reduction in sexual crimes.  Czechoslovakia was part of the USSR during that time; how do you know that the decrease in sexual crimes (and perhaps other crimes as well) wasn't due to other factors, such as the change in government or the presumably increased trust in authorities who were accountable to the people of that country, rather than to a foreign government which conquered and annexed them?

If you want to show that the one reduces the other, you have to be able to cite a study that isolates the two.  Otherwise, you end up with the usual problem with statistics, coming to incorrect conclusions because of problematical methodology.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 22, 2012, 01:11:28 AM
Czechoslovakia was part of the USSR during that time; how do you know that the decrease in sexual crimes (and perhaps other crimes as well) wasn't due to other factors, such as the change in government or the presumably increased trust in authorities who were accountable to the people of that country, rather than to a foreign government which conquered and annexed them?

Would that explain why Denmark and Japan also saw reductions in sexual crimes against children after legalizing child pornography?

Read the studies before you attack their methods and results.

From Clemson professor Todd Kendall
http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/events_media/Kendall%20cover%20+%20paper.pdf

From University of Hawaii Ph.D. Milton Diamond
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/effects_pornography.htm
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on June 22, 2012, 08:11:40 AM
Re: sentence for posession (assuming posession is their ONLY offense) ...

Somewhere between A and D, depending on how serious the porn it is I think. As others have said ... 15 year old topless is different than actual sex with a 12 year old, which is different than violent sex with a 5 year old. I can't imagine long jail time being fair unless it was directly tied to the person being a maker or distributor.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on June 22, 2012, 11:13:06 AM
Joe:  Neither of the two studies focus on child pornography or child sexual abuse/assaults.  You should link the study you cited in your earlier post so that I can actually review its methodology rather than your summary of its methodology.

Kendall's study makes it very clear that he is talking about rape, which may or may not cover sexual assaults on children.  He also states that the under-reporting of rapes in general makes his conclusions preliminary.  Furthermore, he shows that his conclusions are only valid for 15-19 year olds, and that the differences for other groups are statistically insignificant.  I guess your presumption here is that since making pornography available to that age group, when it was previously restricted, also applies to child pornography and child sexual abusers?  The problem here is that this is an assumption piled on an assumption; that you can apply the conclusions from one set of statistics (which are notably stated to not be conclusive) to a substantially different crime and have them be valid.  This is not the case.

While Diamond's study covers pornography in general, and he states that it extends from potentially-offensive pin-ups to XXX-fetish and child porn, I consider it highly questionable whether his conclusions can be considered any more conclusive than Kendall's.  Furthermore, as his study covers pornography in general, I do not think it is appropriate to apply his general conclusions to specific kinds of sexual crimes.

Simply put, if you want to show that child porn decreases child sexual crimes, you have to cite studies that focus on that specific issue and statistics that are related to it, not studies which cover pornography and sexual crimes as a whole.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 23, 2012, 06:09:01 AM
I'm curious, if you don't consider child porn to be in the same class of general pornography, then what is? Would you insist on seeing seperate studies conducted for each fetish? Grannies, BDSM, feet, butts, big tits, small tits, black chicks, asian chicks, anal, etc. Why are studies on pornography not valid for a subset of pornography?

Sex drive is sex drive, and pornography tailored to our desires gives us an outlet for out sexual energy. Anyone who has ever seen porn knows that. I don't see how you think what is obviously true for every other sexual orientation would prove different for pedophiles.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timtheskeptic on June 23, 2012, 08:43:57 AM
I'm curious, if you don't consider child porn to be in the same class of general pornography, then what is?

It's not the same because the adults in porn are doing they they want to do consensually, the children did not and/or could not consent. I'm sorry, but they are two completely seperate things. We do have our own personal likes in porn, but children in them isn't one of them.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 23, 2012, 09:19:30 AM
Yes thanks Captain Obvious for pointing out something we've all said a hundred times. You misunderstood my question.

How is it any different to the users? Can you explain why the effect of child pornography on relieving sexual energy would be any different than any other type of pornography?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 24, 2012, 12:18:23 PM
Yes thanks Captain Obvious for pointing out something we've all said a hundred times. You misunderstood my question.

How is it any different to the users? Can you explain why the effect of child pornography on relieving sexual energy would be any different than any other type of pornography?

Because allowing users to own it may encourage its future production

The reasononhg is the same as that of using jewish body parts from the halocaust for medicine.

All the other fetishes you mentioned involve consenting adults.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 24, 2012, 12:19:27 PM
Yes thanks Captain Obvious for pointing out something we've all said a hundred times. You misunderstood my question.

How is it any different to the users? Can you explain why the effect of child pornography on relieving sexual energy would be any different than any other type of pornography?

Because allowing users to own it may encourage its future production

The reasononhg is the same as that of using jewish body parts from the halocaust for medicine.

Porn involiving adults role playing is legal.

All the other fetishes you mentioned involve consenting adults.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: rickymooston on June 24, 2012, 12:24:35 PM
:
Saying "it's obviously wrong" is an irrelevant statement, given that morality is relative.

This is untrue. While morality is relative some assumptiions are pretty well universally held inn our society and era as to be obviously wrong

The halocast was obviously wrong. Sure the Nazis claimed otherwise and other eras existed without the values we had but for all practical purposes, its obviously wrong.

You may stillask why our morality evolved that way.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on June 24, 2012, 12:30:05 PM
This is untrue. While morality is relative some assumptiions are pretty well universally held inn our society and era as to be obviously wrong

Clearly not. Do you see joebbowers complaining about the ownership of child pornography? Do you see the X countries (according to the chart he posted) complaining about it?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 24, 2012, 01:53:07 PM
Joe, are you ignoring me? I'd like an answer to my last two posts to you (432 and 436).

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 24, 2012, 11:34:03 PM
Joe, are you ignoring me? I'd like an answer to my last two posts to you (432 and 436).

I didn't find anything worth replying to. Just re-hashing the same arguments.

Did I say that adult-child sex is always harmful? No. But such sexual abuse is highly likely to be harmful, which is sufficient reason that it should never be permitted.

You've already said that. I've already disagreed. Nothing new to add.

Quote
Appeal to popularity? Really? Doesn't work when Christians use it, doesn't work on me either.
It was a simple statement of fact. And where the Law is concerned, numbers do matter; that's how democracy works.

Do you think I don't know how laws are made? What's your point? It sure looks like you're saying the law must be just because a majority of people support it. You're defending your appeal to popularity with an appeal to popularity.  The fact that a majority of people voted for a law doesn't make it a just law. If you put 'death to homosexuals' up for a vote, it would pass in some states. That's one of the major flaws of democracy, the majority can oppress the minority legally.
 
You can have all the impure thoughts you like, Joe, and you won't be breaking the law and you won't be arrested. But possesing child porn is an action, not a thought.

They can't punish thoughts because they don't know who's thinking them. But when the thoughts are made known through related actions, they can punish the actions. It is not the action that is being punished, it is the thought, via the action. Another example would be anti-sodomy laws. That is obviously a way of persecuting homosexuals for their thoughts, via their actions.

If it is not thought crime, then why are pornographic drawings and stories of children also illegal when there is no child involved in the production? Who is the victim?

Quote
Would you keep other teenage boys away from your daughter?
No. I'd keep her away from self-confessed paedophiles. So you don't have a point.

My point is that you don't mind your daughter having sex, you just don't want her having sex with someone older. It's pretty arbitrary in my opinion.

Well, you've spent a lot of time on this thread trying to justify adult-child sexual behaviour in some circumstances, and that's what I'm arguing against.

I was asked, and whenever I thought a question wasn't worth my time to answer I was accused of dodging. If you want me to stop talking about it, stop asking me to talk about it.

But as I just said, I agree with you that the punishments for possession are too high; nobody should go to prison for possession.

Then it's just an academic argument now. I'm a practical man. As long as you agree that jail is not an appropriate punishment I don't care to debate the minutia of it's morality any further.

I'm suggesting you get help regarding your delusional thinking about child sexual abuse.
I'm not deluded at all. I'm being reasonable. Your use of the word abuse here tells me that you have completely ignored something I have said twice now...

Quote
If you really want to force an answer out of me, I would say that if and only if, you could determine with 100% certainty that it was completely consensual, and that she understood what she was doing and both the short and long term ramifications of her actions, I think it should be legal. If there is no coercion, manipulation, threat, deception, malice, or abuse, how can it be called rape?

The fact that you are referring to it as 'child sexual abuse' and not 'adult-child sexual relations' indicates that you have concluded that every case is abusive, and that the very definition of 'adult-child sexual relations' equates to 'abuse' in your mind. My point is simply that there are cases where it is not abuse. I've already said that in most cases it is, so I don't see what you're harping on here.

It is never OK for a 31-year-old to groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship, because there is a high probability that the child will suffer pervasive harm. If you disagree with that, you are deluded.

I would agree that a 31 year old should not "groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship" but I think there are situations where it just happens unintentionally, and it is not always harmful. Teachers working with students may form a friendship that develops into something more, and find themselves in a sexual relationship that neither one intended.

There have been many cases where the 'victim' did not want to press charges, and when the 'abuser' was released from jail many years later, they resumed their relationship. Careers and families were destroyed, reputations ruined, for nothing.

You call me deluded, but I think your black-and-white thinking is very childish and ignores a pretty damn big grey area.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on June 24, 2012, 11:51:10 PM
So tell us, Joe, why do you think the production of child-porn should be a crime?

On one hand I think the age at which one can participate in the production of pornography should be lowered to the age of consent, because I think it's ridiculous that you can have sex and even get married in some states at 14, 15, 16, etc., but if you filmed your wedding night shenanigans with your young wife you'd go to jail. There was a case a couple of years ago where a guy had a threesome with two sixteen year olds (legal in his state) and the girls themselves took photos with their cellphones. They sent him the photos and he was charged with possession of child pornography (the girls were not charged with production because that would have been ridiculous.)

However, I think there is a good argument for having the age of participating in pornography higher than the age of consent because making porn can have much more significant and long-lasting ramifications than mere sex. Assuming you've used proper protection, sex can be quite casual and fun with no lasting consequences. Porn on the other hand, once it gets on the internet it will exist forever and can affect your reputation, your relationships, your future career. Of course this is much less likely with amateur porn which has no credits to name the actors.

While I believe young girls can consent to sex (literally the whole of human history confirms this) I don't think anyone can predict how a porn video may affect their future. Even many, many adults regret making porn, but hey once you're over 18 the law doesn't have to protect you from yourself anymore.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on June 30, 2012, 04:42:42 PM
Quote
Did I say that adult-child sex is always harmful? No. But such sexual abuse is highly likely to be harmful, which is sufficient reason that it should never be permitted.
You've already said that. I've already disagreed. Nothing new to add.
You were using a strawman. I was pointing that out, and you've ignored it.

And where have you disagreed that CSA is highly likely to be harmful? I must have missed that; in fact, you just said the opposite later on in your post (my bolding):
Quote
My point is simply that there are cases where it is not abuse. I've already said that in most cases it is
=======================================
Quote
You can have all the impure thoughts you like, Joe, and you won't be breaking the law and you won't be arrested. But possesing child porn is an action, not a thought.
They can't punish thoughts because they don't know who's thinking them. But when the thoughts are made known through related actions, they can punish the actions.
Then don't do the actions. Then you won't be caught or punished for the thoughts. It's quite simple, really.

Quote
If it is not thought crime, then why are pornographic drawings and stories of children also illegal when there is no child involved in the production? Who is the victim?
I've already said that fiction/virtual porn should be permitted.

Quote
Quote
Would you keep other teenage boys away from your daughter?
No. I'd keep her away from self-confessed paedophiles. So you don't have a point.
My point is that you don't mind your daughter having sex, you just don't want her having sex with someone older. It's pretty arbitrary in my opinion.
And my point is that my daughter is far more vulnerable to an adult such as yourself than she would be to a boy her own age. That's not arbitrary.

Quote
I'm suggesting you get help regarding your delusional thinking about child sexual abuse.
I'm not deluded at all. I'm being reasonable.
No, you're not, you're trying to exploit the grey areas of sexual development in order to justify paedophiles preying on children. 

Quote
The fact that you are referring to it as 'child sexual abuse' and not 'adult-child sexual relations' indicates that you have concluded that every case is abusive,
Joe, I work in this field, so it's normal for me to refer to CSA as a matter of course. Don't read too much into that. The fact is, most adult-child sexual reationships are harmful.

Quote
It is never OK for a 31-year-old to groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship, because there is a high probability that the child will suffer pervasive harm. If you disagree with that, you are deluded.
I would agree that a 31 year old should not "groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship"
Why not? All along you've been arguing the exact opposite, that a mature adult can teach a child the mysteries of sex. And now you say they shouldn't. Your position keeps moving.   

Quote
...  but I think there are situations where it just happens unintentionally, and it is not always harmful.
That totally misses my point. The reason it's never OK because of the risk of harm.

Quote
There have been many cases where the 'victim' did not want to press charges,
Many abused children love their abusers. Which makes them poor judges of the situation.
Quote
You call me deluded, but I think your black-and-white thinking is very childish and ignores a pretty damn big grey area.
What is childish is calling me names.


So tell us, Joe, why do you think the production of child-porn should be a crime?
On one hand I think the age at which one can participate in the production of pornography should be lowered to the age of consent, because...
And as I keep pointing out, you'd like the age of consent reduced to the age of criminal responsibility, or the onset of puberty:
Quote
I think that if they were able to get pregnant, that proves that they were ready to have sex.
In which case, all post-pubescent child pornography would become legal, wouldn't it?

Quote
However, I think there is a good argument for having the age of participating in pornography higher than the age of consent because making porn can have much more significant and long-lasting ramifications than mere sex. Assuming you've used proper protection, sex can be quite casual and fun with no lasting consequences. Porn on the other hand, once it gets on the internet it will exist forever and can affect your reputation, your relationships, your future career.
No, you're missing the point. All those negative consequences are a result of people possessing the porn. I'm asking you about its production.

If a 30-year-old photographer takes obviously sexual pictures of an 11-year-old girl, that constitutes producing child-porn. Whether he sends the photos to anyone else (i.e. publishes them, so that others may possess them) isn't relevant. You say the production itself should be criminal, and I still don't understand why you say that, given that you think the girl could be old enough to consent to sexual activity.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on July 02, 2012, 03:03:59 AM
There is nothing new to respond to there. I've already explained my positions on all of those questions.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Wrec on July 02, 2012, 09:07:49 AM
Before we decide who can live and who can't, we need to establish a proper authority to preside over the matter. Who do you feel comfortable having sentencing people to death, and who should carry out the execution?

I'm as horrified as any other sane person when it comes to child molesters, but I know I couldn't pull the trigger or turn the knob on anyone while being absolutely sure I wouldn't have to dehumanise the person to be executed, or simply doing it out of vengeance. Which is no proper way to exercise any legal verdict.

I'd much prefer the alternatives before resorting to organised murder. Having said that, if anyone molested my child I'd be the first to advocate his/her death. But that's why I identify it as a dangerous road to take.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on July 02, 2012, 09:27:52 AM
So not only do two wrongs make a right, but I guess a wrong and a much much wronger make a right.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Truth OT on July 02, 2012, 09:44:47 AM
Child as well as adult sexual abusers should not be blanketed with a death sentence. As with most things in life, to come up with the best solutions, we must look at things on a case by case basis. In the cases involving a male assailent and where guilt has been established, it has always been my position that the most reasonably punishment/rehab is castration. We have the technology in place today to do this by chemical means if whacking off the male sex organ is consisted too cruel and unacceptable, but personally, I think the cruel punishment serves as a deterent for many would be abusers that will make them count the costs prior to engaging in sexually abusive activity.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: albeto on July 02, 2012, 05:07:29 PM
I'm as horrified as any other sane person when it comes to child molesters...

Why are you equating pedophilia with molestation? 

The question wasn't "should child molesters be allowed to live?" 

 I think this assumption is no less disrespectful than suggesting homosexuals actively try to "recruit" by molesting children. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jeremy0 on July 04, 2012, 12:47:12 AM
Since this question 'should pedophiles be allowed to live?' has gained so much attention, I'll say the following:

If someone did something terrible, should they be put to death?
What if that person did that in err, i.e. accident?
What if that person changed later in life?
What if that person were you?

I guess the real question that was meant to be asked was 'should we allow people we hate to live?'  And then the resulting question 'what justification do you have for committing as high a crime as murder when 1. it may have been made up and 2. we may have the wrong guy and 3. we are the only developed nation that justifies the death penalty for some given crime?'
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jeremy0 on July 04, 2012, 12:53:26 AM
So not only do two wrongs make a right, but I guess a wrong and a much much wronger make a right.
I don't see how people think they have the winning argument against what you have said here.  In my opinion what you stated was clearly correct.  Even this last statement, made after the fact that nobody is really listening...
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on July 04, 2012, 01:01:22 AM
I think the cruel punishment serves as a deterrent for many would be abusers that will make them count the costs prior to engaging in sexually abusive activity.

It doesn't work that way. Nobody thinks they're going to get caught. In fact, longer sentences lead to higher rates of recidivism as people who could possibly have been rehabilitated through counseling and community service are irreparably damaged by the inhuman prison system. They come out with a chip on their shoulder. Harsher penalties create an "us vs. them" mentality in criminals that makes them view themselves as outsiders and society as the enemy.

Remember that the vast majority of criminals are not going away for life. They will be back out on the streets among us. The question you should be thinking about is, what kind of person do you want living in your neighborhood? Do you want them getting the help they need to understand and correct their behavior, or do you want them getting locked in a cage and treated like an animal?

The kneejerk reaction is to severely punish lawbreakers, but this is stupidity that causes a never-ending cycle of crime. By the way, the government knows this, they've done the studies. They continue to lengthen prison terms because our prison system is a cash cow and our politicians are the biggest shareholders in the privatized for-profit prison system.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jeremy0 on July 05, 2012, 06:06:28 PM
Would that explain why Denmark and Japan also saw reductions in sexual crimes against children after legalizing child pornography?

C'mon, Joe - we all know that americans are always right and we never need to pay attention to other countries.  That's why we don't have universal health care, and are trying to rid ourselves of retirement, pensions, social projects like social security, health insurance (M&Ms), etc.  We want to work until we croak.  We've already realized the we're the best - because we said so![1]

Nah - we just want the food...   :P

My actual answer to this would be that we need to take a closer look at understanding the problem rather than treating it like a life-sentencing criminal offense.  Also, there are many levels of child abuse - as Joe easily pointed out.  AFAIK, being attracted to children may be something caused by some youthful tragedy or trauma.  The fact is it hasn't been studied enough; likely because we're too busy freaking and not busy thinking...
 1. This is a pun on the lack of intelligence of my people, and the lack of recognizing what other countries have done/lack of any real learning from other countries/ total and blatant pride system thinking we're always #1 in spite of evidence to the contrary on many fronts, and the fact that most citizens are poorer than ever before, have lost most of their rights, and the constitution is starting to look like a little parchment of meaningless paper..
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 05, 2012, 07:18:01 PM
There is nothing new to respond to there. I've already explained my positions on all of those questions.
Total dodge. There's plenty new to respond to there, Joe. Specific points, specific questions and requests for you to clarify your position. Which you refuse to do.

Your position is incoherent. You only want to talk about one aspect of all this, the possession of child pornography. You announce your paedophilia, but you don't want to discuss paedophile behaviour. You condemn the production of child pornography (for reasons still unexplained), and then focus on defending its possession. A thin end of the wedge strategy which is going to fool no-one.

Like most deluded paedophiles, you're trying to exploit the grey areas of sexual development in order to justify paedophile behaviour. In your heart you think you're right; you think your friend in prison is the victim.

You're deluded, Joe. I asked you the question:
Quote
It is never OK for a 31-year-old to groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship, because there is a high probability that the child will suffer pervasive harm. If you disagree with that, you are deluded.
And you disagreed, Joe. You wheedled and whined about exceptions - which means you disagreed. You replied:
Quote
I would agree that a 31 year old should not "groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship" but I think there are situations where it just happens unintentionally, and it is not always harmful. Teachers working with students may form a friendship that develops into something more, and find themselves in a sexual relationship that neither one intended.

There have been many cases where the 'victim' did not want to press charges, and when the 'abuser' was released from jail many years later, they resumed their relationship.

You say "it's not always harmful", and I agree with that. But you don't understand that it's always wrong.

It's not always harmful to drive your car at 150 mph on public roads; but it's always wrong.

That's not rocket science; but you still don't get it, do you?

Gnu.

PS As you dodged my last post, I'm not expecting a reply to this one.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on July 05, 2012, 09:42:56 PM
Total dodge. There's plenty new to respond to there, Joe. Specific points, specific questions and requests for you to clarify your position. Which you refuse to do.

My position is clear. Feel free to go back and read through it again.

Quote
Your position is incoherent. You only want to talk about one aspect of all this, the possession of child pornography.

So my position is incoherent yet you seemed to get that I only want to talk about the possession of child pornography. That is awfully coherent incoherence.

Quote
You announce your paedophilia, but you don't want to discuss paedophile behaviour.
That is correct. I have said so many fucking times that taking advantage of children for sexual exploitation is bad. I have said, ad nauseum, that production of child pornography is bad. I have nothing more to say about that.

Quote
You condemn the production of child pornography (for reasons still clearly unexplained), and then focus on defending its possession.
Fixed that for you. I explained it. Multiple times. Pretending I didn't won't win you any points.

Quote
A thin end of the wedge strategy which is going to fool no-one.
Most people recognize that production is worse than possession. Not sure who you think is being "fooled" here.

Quote
Like most deluded paedophiles, you're trying to exploit the grey areas of sexual development in order to justify paedophile behaviour.

For most of human history, literally hundreds of thousands of years, and even still today in many countries, puberty was/is considered the onset of adulthood. The fact that a large portion of the population of developed countries have recently shifted their thinking does not alter that fact.

What was normal is now perverted to you. Sorry if I fail to succumb to society's brainwashing.

Quote
In your heart you think you're right;
I do my thinking in my brain, perhaps you should try that. It may clear up some of your confusion.

Quote
you think your friend in prison is the victim.
Six years in prison for a man who never harmed a child, and never paid for child porn. He is a victim.

Quote
You're deluded, Joe. I asked you the question:
Quote
It is never OK for a 31-year-old to groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship, because there is a high probability that the child will suffer pervasive harm. If you disagree with that, you are deluded.

Well, first, that is not a question...
Quote
And you disagreed, Joe. You wheedled and whined about exceptions - which means you disagreed. You replied:
Quote
I would agree that a 31 year old should not "groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship" but I think there are situations where it just happens unintentionally, and it is not always harmful. Teachers working with students may form a friendship that develops into something more, and find themselves in a sexual relationship that neither one intended.

There have been many cases where the 'victim' did not want to press charges, and when the 'abuser' was released from jail many years later, they resumed their relationship.

You say "it's not always harmful", and I agree with that. But you don't understand that it's always wrong.

I repeat:

Quote
I would agree that a 31 year old should not "groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship" but I think there are situations where it just happens unintentionally, and it is not always harmful.

And that's exactly what I meant to say.

Quote
It's not always harmful to drive your car at 150 mph on public roads; but it's always wrong.

Meh. There are straight stretches of public highway that go on for miles in the desert, sometimes hours go by between cars. It's always illegal, but wrong? Nah, I don't feel guilty. Maybe because my motorcycle only does 130.

Quote
PS As you dodged my last post, I'm not expecting a reply to this one.

And yet you got one! Always expect the unexpected!
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on July 05, 2012, 10:18:54 PM
AFAIK, being attracted to children may be something caused by some youthful tragedy or trauma.  The fact is it hasn't been studied enough; likely because we're too busy freaking and not busy thinking...

It's been studied plenty. The conclusion is that it is an involuntary sexual orientation, like all other sexual orientations. It is not caused by tragedy or trama. Pedophiles are equal or even outnumber homosexuals, and that's just the ones that meet the clinical definition.

People make the same excuses for homosexuals. They can't accept the fact that it is natural.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timtheskeptic on July 05, 2012, 11:50:31 PM
Pedophiles are NOT equal or even outnumber to homosexuals, and that's just the ones that meet the clinical definition.

People make the same excuses for homosexuals. They can't accept the fact that it is natural.

This really irritates me. Homosexuality and pedophilia are mostly different! All LGBT and pedophiles have that is the same is the hate and discrimination, but pedophiles are NOT Equal or the same as homosexuals! You good a good show of "oh we pedophiles wouldn't touch a hair on a child, we're just attracted to them." while in another thread, you went, "Oh mommy was wrong to stop the 15 year old from becoming the legendary awesomeness!" Two men or two women who are adults are capable of healthy, stable relationships. The pedophiles are just one way relationship.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timo on July 06, 2012, 11:47:02 AM
@Tim

Claiming that both pedophilia and homosexuality are similar in that, like heterosexuality, they are not chosen and occur naturally isn't the same as claiming that sexual contact between an adult and a child and sexual contact between two adults of the same gender are morally equal.  There are good reasons for those that are attracted to children to do everything in their power to resist having any sexual contact with children.  These are reasons that most people with those urges find compelling, even many of those that succumb to them.  More importantly, these are reasons that do not apply to sexual contact between consenting adults, regardless of gender.

Also, if you're talking an attraction to 15-year-olds, even a primary attraction to 15 year-olds, you're not really talking about pedophilia.  There are other clinical terms for that.


Peace
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Truth OT on July 06, 2012, 03:30:27 PM
I think the cruel punishment serves as a deterrent for many would be abusers that will make them count the costs prior to engaging in sexually abusive activity.

It doesn't work that way. Nobody thinks they're going to get caught. In fact, longer sentences lead to higher rates of recidivism as people who could possibly have been rehabilitated through counseling and community service are irreparably damaged by the inhuman prison system. They come out with a chip on their shoulder. Harsher penalties create an "us vs. them" mentality in criminals that makes them view themselves as outsiders and society as the enemy.

Let me start by saying that I am not a huge fan of incarceration, the adult version of "time out." For the most part all it does is serve as a melting pot for those with qualities deemed dangerous and unwelcomed in society to spend time together in a toxic and oftentimes zoo-like environment that serves to harden criminals in the long run as opposed to rehabilitation.

With that said, as opposed to incarcerating men that are sexual abusers for years, I would advocate castration by chemical means followed by some levels of counciling. The first level should be done in a medical/prison facility and should last no longer than a year. The second is optional continuing education of sorts that the offender can avail themselves to after their release. This will serves to offer society a degree of protection from the offenders while at the same time both punishing the transgression while promoting better behavior going forward.
I wouldn't even be opposed to allowing the offenders to have the castration proceedure reversed (on their own dime of course), AFTER completing the required post 'societal quaranteen' (sp) counciling programs.

Remember that the vast majority of criminals are not going away for life. They will be back out on the streets among us. The question you should be thinking about is, what kind of person do you want living in your neighborhood? Do you want them getting the help they need to understand and correct their behavior, or do you want them getting locked in a cage and treated like an animal?

The kneejerk reaction is to severely punish lawbreakers, but this is stupidity that causes a never-ending cycle of crime. By the way, the government knows this, they've done the studies. They continue to lengthen prison terms because our prison system is a cash cow and our politicians are the biggest shareholders in the privatized for-profit prison system.

What I want or who I want living in my neighborhood is largely irrelevant because I have very little control of this. People generally realize this and that is why I believe the kneejerk reaction of wanting the criminally undesirables of society removed from society is not irrational or stupid.
We do have a tendancy as people to overstate the positive impact of and need for punishment. The threat of punishment is but a tool used as a deterent to unacceptable behavior and punishment itself serves as a means of following through with the consequences deemed appropriate for detering unacceptable behavior. We would do well as a society if we allowed our ways of thinking to evolve beyond that of taking pleasure in or drawing some sort of satisfaction from the punishment of others.
Our ability and willingness to truly forgive needs to increase. We need to do a better job of promoting forgiving attitudes and mindsets in one another by starting to majorly emphasize this to our young offspring with the hope being a future where society looks to fix and restore as opposed to punishing and satisfying our animalistic desires for vengence.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Nick on July 06, 2012, 04:02:25 PM
If not you would lose over half of the priests in the priesthood.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jeremy0 on July 06, 2012, 04:55:25 PM
OK.  Joe corrected my assumption with factual evidence.  Now I concur that pedopheliacs are a naturally-occuring sexual preference.

So now on to justification of murdering a person based on their sexual orientation.  Clearly that is a losing argument.

Second - we discussed many times child pornography.  Why is this such a high offense?  IF it is in the nature of some individuals to have a sexual preference towards children, then pornography gives them the outlet to pursue that orientation, without doing anybody any harm.  For example - I'm an adult.  I watch pornography to satisfy a sexual NEED.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with what I'm doing.  It's completely legal.

Now take that, and say because the person is gay and watching pornography, that it is somehow a crime.  Now say it's child pornography.  See any difference?  I do not.  The fact is everyone is persuing a sexual need, and doing it in a healthy manner that doesn't harm anyone, except for maybe the individual themself.  They are not pursuing said sexual act on real individuals.

Now look at homosexuality.  Two men having sex isn't a crime, we know it isn't a condition of the brain.  Joe pointed out that numerous research has been done that indicates pedopheliacs merely have a sexual preference towards younger individuals.

That said - why would possessing child pornography be considered a crime?  Additionally, if two people were concentually having sex - a 13 year old and an adult, does that constitute a crime?  Not in Kansas, apparently.  There is no difference past that.  Joe is also exactly correct - in the 'older days', this was not considered unusual.  Now we consider it a crime, and further state that it has various negative rammifications on the child. 

Sometimes child rape does cause drastic negative symptoms later in life.  That we know.  However, if the child was concenting, then what distinction does that make from forceable rape?  It makes a big distinction..

That said, I do not see any reason for the rest of your statements like 'Should we kill these people', 'should we have the death penalty', 'should we percieve it as a justifiable reason for long prison sentences', 'what level of crime is this', 'I don't want these people living in my neighborhood', etc, etc...

Statements like that clearly show that none of you are understanding what Joe B. is putting forward to you.  He has given you clear studies, facts, and information.  That's not to say that me and Joe get along and always agree - it means as a third party I'm reading both sides of this token and there is:

NO justification for the OP subject line, no justification for your arguments, given the evidence, that this should be considered a large crime unless the child happens to be forceably raped.  period.  In this one forum topic, at this point you all should have concluded that child porn is not a bad thing, and serves a purpose to fulfill a natural human need.  That means our high punishments on child pornography are invalid.  It also invalidates most of your other claims, contradictory to what Joe has been trying to say to you.

I would have quoted a lot of this just to make it clearer, however I cannot go back far enough to spell it out for you.  As opposed to facing the facts and an opinion from someone vastly more intelligent than the rest of you, you fail to understand his points, refer to arguemnt-based strategies just to win a fucking argument, and you have reached no level of understanding that Joe is trying to bring to you.

Now, continue; only this time when you argue use your brains...

Joe:  Good argument.  These are, in fact, clear points.  Thanks for sharing.  The rest of you - just because you can't understand what someone more intelligent than you is trying to say doesn't mean you are correct.  Thank you.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Truth OT on July 06, 2012, 05:51:18 PM

 In this one forum topic, at this point you all should have concluded that child porn is not a bad thing, and serves a purpose to fulfill a natural human need.  That means our high punishments on child pornography are invalid.  It also invalidates most of your other claims, contradictory to what Joe has been trying to say to you.

I would have quoted a lot of this just to make it clearer, however I cannot go back far enough to spell it out for you.  As opposed to facing the facts and an opinion from someone vastly more intelligent than the rest of you, you fail to understand his points, refer to arguemnt-based strategies just to win a fucking argument, and you have reached no level of understanding that Joe is trying to bring to you.


I have never met such a person as described by you the the bold font above..........

Child porn is not a bad thing as it pertains to being an outlet for those who "get off" on sex involving non adults. To that I guess we can agree, however, that is not the be all and end all to it. We must also take into consideration other factors like whether or not the availibility of child porn would serve to increase pedophiles acting upon their internal desires putting children at risk of emotional/sexual assualt because of its pervasiveness. In addition, in order for child porn to be readily available, there will need to be many recordable incidents of sex with children. I cannot see how that is a good thing for the children or the society which the children are a part of.
More access leads to more curiousity, and more curiousity leads to an increased likihood of incident, and that is problematic!

Like it or not, the reality is that pedophilia may be as much about attraction as it is about being able to control and manipulate a vulnerable mind; and that is the problem with having adults act out their sexual desires with children.

The individuals that "suffer" from being attracted to kids needs to make it a point to hold themselves accountable to the society to which they are apart of and refrain from acting out their desires out of RESPECT for the long term well being of the children they are attracted to as well as the desires of the families that take care of and have to deal with raising, supporting, teaching, and loving these young people.
That said, if a grown man were to touch my 11 year old neice, he's gonna have some issues with Uncle D, the police, and society as a whole. She lacks the life experience and the maturity that comes from it and she has not been blessed with a level of wisdom beyond her pre-adolecent years that equips adults to make sound relationship and sexual decisions. Because of this, having a man attempt to get her into a sexual situation is not only mental and emotional manipulation, it's also predation that is not tolerable!
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 06, 2012, 05:57:27 PM
Let's not forget about how child pornography is created.  If it's made using an actual child, then it is very easy to argue that it is harmful and damaging to that child.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: One Above All on July 06, 2012, 05:59:17 PM
<snip>
someone vastly more intelligent than the rest of you
<snip>
someone more intelligent than you
<snip>

You must point out this individual to me.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timtheskeptic on July 06, 2012, 06:58:49 PM
<snip>
someone vastly more intelligent than the rest of you
<snip>
someone more intelligent than you
<snip>

You must point out this individual to me.

I agree. It's not only insulting, but ignorant.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 06, 2012, 07:11:42 PM
Quote
Like most deluded paedophiles, you're trying to exploit the grey areas of sexual development in order to justify paedophile behaviour.
For most of human history, literally hundreds of thousands of years, and even still today in many countries, puberty was/is considered the onset of adulthood.
You're merely proving my point.

Quote
What was normal is now perverted to you. Sorry if I fail to succumb to society's brainwashing.
Oh sure, we're all brainwashed and you can see clearly. Most paedophiles believe the same.

Quote
Quote
You're deluded, Joe. I asked you the question:
Quote
It is never OK for a 31-year-old to groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship, because there is a high probability that the child will suffer pervasive harm. If you disagree with that, you are deluded.
<snip>
Quote
I would agree that a 31 year old should not "groom an 11-year-old into a sexual relationship" but I think there are situations where it just happens unintentionally, and it is not always harmful.
And that's exactly what I meant to say.
Thus again proving my point. "Happens unintentionally"? Oh sure, that's how it happens...

Quote
Quote
It's not always harmful to drive your car at 150 mph on public roads; but it's always wrong.
Meh. There are straight stretches of public highway that go on for miles in the desert, sometimes hours go by between cars. It's always illegal, but wrong? Nah, I don't feel guilty. Maybe because my motorcycle only does 130.
It's always wrong because of the high risk of causing harm, regardless of whether any harm is actually caused in any particular instance. Same with adult-child sex.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on July 06, 2012, 11:53:37 PM
Additionally, if two people were concentually having sex - a 13 year old and an adult, does that constitute a crime?  Not in Kansas, apparently.  There is no difference past that.  Joe is also exactly correct - in the 'older days', this was not considered unusual.  Now we consider it a crime, and further state that it has various negative rammifications on the child.

In the 'older days', it was legal and commonplace to enslave children to work in factories.  Now we consider it a crime, and further state that it has various negative rammifications on the child.  Hence the laws against child labour.

Sometimes child rape does cause drastic negative symptoms later in life.  That we know.  However, if the child was concenting, then what distinction does that make from forceable rape?  It makes a big distinction..

Hence it should be a different crime.  Isn't it already?

I would have quoted a lot of this just to make it clearer, however I cannot go back far enough to spell it out for you.  As opposed to facing the facts and an opinion from someone vastly more intelligent than the rest of you, you fail to understand his points, refer to arguemnt-based strategies just to win a fucking argument, and you have reached no level of understanding that Joe is trying to bring to you.

Now, continue; only this time when you argue use your brains...

This text is comprised solely of insults.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on July 07, 2012, 12:27:35 AM
Pedophiles are NOT equal or even outnumber to homosexuals, and that's just the ones that meet the clinical definition.

People make the same excuses for homosexuals. They can't accept the fact that it is natural.

This really irritates me. Homosexuality and pedophilia are mostly different!

Not only did you not understand why I was saying that homosexuality and pedophilia are similar, but the part of my quote that you "corrected" was only comparing their numbers.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on July 07, 2012, 12:32:16 AM
Sometimes child rape does cause drastic negative symptoms later in life.  That we know.  However, if the child was concenting, then what distinction does that make from forceable rape?  It makes a big distinction..

Hence it should be a different crime.  Isn't it already?

I don't think it is in most states, or even on a federal level. From my understanding the punishment for statutory rape (ie. consensual sex with a minor) is the same as for forcible rape with a minor. I think they are the same class of felony, though I'm not sure.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Samothec on July 08, 2012, 11:56:36 PM
Several points.

Child porn is a thought crime - at least in part. That child porn CGI and illustrations are illegal proves that.


I'm curious as to the math used where 3-9% (supposed %age of pedophiles among the population) is greater than 4-10% (%age of homosexuals among the population). Also, where does the 3-9% statistic come from?


In a rational society we could collect all existing child porn and catalog it. Inform all pedophiles that if they register and turn over copies of the existing porn for cataloging they will not be imprisoned. That will also register them for a web connection to the catalog and an allotment of 2-5 pics per day download. Videos would 'cost' a number of pics based on the length of the video. Download frequency would be tracked and changes (mainly a drop-off) would be a red-flag for surveillance to determine if the pedophile had moved on to actual contact. The database would also be a resource for finding the victims. And new materials submitted by pedophiles (who would also be required to report their acquisition source) could be used to more quickly track down new producers. The registered pedophiles would also be a research resource for determining the causes of pedophilia.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jeremy0 on July 09, 2012, 07:21:51 PM
<snip>
someone vastly more intelligent than the rest of you
<snip>
someone more intelligent than you
<snip>

You must point out this individual to me.

I agree. It's not only insulting, but ignorant.
In an earlier post, I targeted your collective IQ.  The majority of you, not selecting anyone out, scored rather poorly.  I score absolutely perfect in 3 areas, meaning in 3 areas you cannot measure my actual IQ.  Joe happens to score almost perfect in almost every category.  IQ scores are a measure of your intelligence potential.  The areas I score poorly are in social situations.  It seems Joe rather enjoys a fun argument...

That said, unless you prove to me you can at least understand what Joe was saying, then yes, since you cannot understand what he is saying or just what I was saying, it would indicate that your own intelligence is lacking.  Period.  Yes, insulting.  But you don't realize the level of dumb that I have to put up with, and I don't consider most of you in the dumb department.

Unless you can score absolutely perfect on the classical IQ test that I reference (not some watered-down test), I don't feel I should have to place you all in the same intelligence category as Joe B.  Enough said.

Case-in-point:  Just looking at your responses to my post, you missed several points Joe B made.  One was that studies have been done in other countries that utilize child pornography, and it is not as big of a problem in those countries.... .... need I continue?

And another example - scientists predict that in our own lifetimes, definitely in our childrens' lifetimes, that drought conditions and heat waves will be the norm in the us.  water will be a scarce resource.  I'm talking 30-50 years down the road.  What are you going to do about that?  Because the government's position is to evacuate you all somewhere.  I hope you can buy a ticket to get aboard that train..  We've had 100 years to do something about this, you all think that your economic advisors and political leaders are the smartest and best, and yet you've led yourselves into collapse after collapse, in the foreseeable future.  That level of dumb that I'm trying to fix is uncomperable.................. !

You people are looking at the failure of your economy, the end to retirement, the end of affordable healthcare, the end of affordable education (maybe - that may fix itself), the end of affordable rent or housing, and the end of most of the globe's habitat - your habitat - in the foreseeable and looming future; and you're too fucking busy arguing about whether or not you think something unnatural should be taken as a good excuse to kill somebody.  THAT IS FUCKING RETARDED IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.....
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jeremy0 on July 09, 2012, 07:24:11 PM

This text is comprised solely of insults.
I felt insulted just reading through all of this.  Point taken.  Yes, it was to be taken as an insult.  But not necessarily to some of you who decided to reply...
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on July 09, 2012, 07:57:37 PM
If you do not mean to insult everyone, but only certain people, then you would do better not to insult everyone, but to only insult certain people.

Just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 10, 2012, 09:52:11 AM
In an earlier post, I targeted your collective IQ.  The majority of you, not selecting anyone out, scored rather poorly.  I score absolutely perfect in 3 areas, meaning in 3 areas you cannot measure my actual IQ.  Joe happens to score almost perfect in almost every category.  IQ scores are a measure of your intelligence potential.  The areas I score poorly are in social situations.  It seems Joe rather enjoys a fun argument...
And how, precisely, did you manage to actually rate the IQs of the various people you were criticizing here?  I don't see how anyone can accurately measure any category of IQ from what amount to forum posts, and it is looking seriously like you used just that benchmark here, since I doubt you know any of the posters you just got done talking about.

To put it very bluntly, I don't trust your ability to rate IQs.  There's a truism that we tend to consider people who agree with us to be intelligent, and people who disagree with us to be stupid (or at least not intelligent).  That's what I'm seeing here from you.  I am not going to comment on what you said your own IQ to be except to say that if you're correct in what you said, then this post stands as proof that even highly-intelligent individuals can act pretty stupidly at times.

Quote from: jeremy0
That said, unless you prove to me you can at least understand what Joe was saying, then yes, since you cannot understand what he is saying or just what I was saying, it would indicate that your own intelligence is lacking.  Period.  Yes, insulting.  But you don't realize the level of dumb that I have to put up with, and I don't consider most of you in the dumb department.
The fact that you have to deal with "dumb" people, I presume in real life, is no excuse for being so insulting and crude to the people here, most of whom are anything but "dumb".  Furthermore, it strongly contradicts your statement about not considering most of the people here in the "dumb department"; your actions belie your words, because if you didn't consider the people here in general to be dumb or at least not intelligent, you wouldn't be talking down to us like you are.  Most of what you can determine from the way people post is how much you agree (or don't agree) with them, which most people tend to use unthinkingly as a substitute for how intelligent someone is.

Quote from: jeremy0
Unless you can score absolutely perfect on the classical IQ test that I reference (not some watered-down test), I don't feel I should have to place you all in the same intelligence category as Joe B.  Enough said.
Unless you have access to a person's IQ test scores (and I am quite sure you don't in virtually all cases), you simply cannot use this as a benchmark.  I doubt you have access even to Joe's, so where do you get off talking down to everyone about how you shouldn't have to consider them anywhere near Joe's intelligence level?  I strongly suspect that most of your judgment of his intelligence is because you agree with him rather than because you reviewed his IQ scores, and that's almost completely worthless for judging how smart a person really is.

Quote from: jeremy0
Case-in-point:  Just looking at your responses to my post, you missed several points Joe B made.  One was that studies have been done in other countries that utilize child pornography, and it is not as big of a problem in those countries.... .... need I continue?
I'm calling you on this, because I suspect you did not actually review the studies in question, but instead took Joe's statement at face value because you agree with him in general.  One of the easiest ways for someone intelligent to screw up is with statistics, because they're screwy and non-intuitive, and it's easy to think they say one thing when they in fact say something else.  I'd strongly suggest that you go and actually review the studies in question (and by that I mean critically review), and not simply rubber-stamp them because you happen to think Joe is a top-level genius.

Quote from: jeremy0
And another example - scientists predict that in our own lifetimes, definitely in our childrens' lifetimes, that drought conditions and heat waves will be the norm in the us.  water will be a scarce resource.  I'm talking 30-50 years down the road.  What are you going to do about that?  Because the government's position is to evacuate you all somewhere.  I hope you can buy a ticket to get aboard that train..  We've had 100 years to do something about this, you all think that your economic advisors and political leaders are the smartest and best, and yet you've led yourselves into collapse after collapse, in the foreseeable future.  That level of dumb that I'm trying to fix is uncomperable.................. !
So what does this have to do with the question of pedophiles?  This sounds like an attempt to justify your own, unsupportable opinion on how intelligent the members of this forum are in general, and to be blunt, it doesn't, because you simply can't determine how intelligent the people here are in any reliable fashion.  Your opinion is not sufficient for that.

Quote from: jeremy0
You people are looking at the failure of your economy, the end to retirement, the end of affordable healthcare, the end of affordable education (maybe - that may fix itself), the end of affordable rent or housing, and the end of most of the globe's habitat - your habitat - in the foreseeable and looming future; and you're too fucking busy arguing about whether or not you think something unnatural should be taken as a good excuse to kill somebody.  THAT IS FUCKING RETARDED IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.....
Another attempt to justify your own unsupportable opinion on how intelligent the members of this forum are in general.  Plus, you're ranting.  If you want to rant about stupid people, go make a thread about it (I'd suggest Chatter, personally) and rant to your heart's content.  Just don't let your opinion of yours and Joe's intelligence lead you into making the rather stupid mistake of underestimating how smart the people here are.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Graybeard on July 10, 2012, 10:09:13 AM
In an earlier post, I targeted your collective IQ.  The majority of you, not selecting anyone out, scored rather poorly.  I score absolutely perfect [edit, that should be "perfectly", you are qualifying "scored" and therefore need an adverb.] in 3 areas,

Quote
meaning in 3 areas you cannot measure my actual IQ.
I tried it on my dog and I couldn't measure hers either.

Quote
You people are looking at the failure of your economy, the end to retirement, the end of affordable healthcare, the end of affordable education (maybe - that may fix itself), the end of affordable rent or housing, and the end of most of the globe's habitat [edit, I think you mean "habitats" Habitat in the singular seems to make it appear that it where the globe lives; I don't think you mean that.] - your habitat [edit, see you used the singular correctly there]- in the foreseeable and looming future; and you're too fucking busy arguing about whether or not you think something unnatural should be taken as a good excuse to kill somebody.  THAT IS FUCKING RETARDED IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.....
This shows the inability to realise that coming to an atheist website and expecting discussions on "the failure of your economy, the end to retirement, the end of affordable healthcare, the end of affordable education, the end of affordable rent or housing, and the end of most of the globe's habitat . is not a very intelligent move.

From my own IQ's humble position may I suggest you Google a few of those terms followed by "forum."?

For someone who claims to be quite bright, I don't think you did too well there.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on July 11, 2012, 05:17:33 AM
I'm curious as to the math used where 3-9% (supposed %age of pedophiles among the population) is greater than 4-10% (%age of homosexuals among the population).

Obviously because of the margin of error. 3-9% would be more than 4-10% if the estimate of the percentage of pedophiles is more accurate to the higher end, say 7-9% and the estimate of the percentage of homosexuals is more accurate to the lower end, 4-6%. That's why I said equal to or possibly outnumber.

Also, where does the 3-9% statistic come from?

Ahlers, C. J., Schaefer, G. A., Mundt, I. A., Roll, S., Englert, H., Willich, S. N. and Beier, K. M. , How Unusual are the Contents of Paraphilias? Paraphilia-Associated Sexual Arousal Patterns in a Community-Based Sample of Men. The Journal of Sexual Medicine

Seto MC.(2009) Pedophilia. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 5:391-407.

In a rational society we could collect all existing child porn and catalog it.
<snip>

This is just ridiculous. The control you're suggesting is far stricter than handguns. It's quite insulting to say that people who have never even touched a child should have to register and submit to intense scrutiny and regulation of their masturbatory habits. That is thought crime. You are ruling out any possibility of self-control and convicting and punishing without any evidence that the person would even commit a crime.

It would be like automatically suspending drivers' licenses for anyone who buys alcohol, on the assumption that they will drink and drive.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on July 11, 2012, 05:32:17 AM
In an earlier post, I targeted your collective IQ.  The majority of you, not selecting anyone out, scored rather poorly.  I score absolutely perfect [edit, that should be "perfectly", you are qualifying "scored" and therefore need an adverb.] in 3 areas,

Not necessarily. If he were describing the manner in which he scored a goal, such as in basketball, it would be correct to say "I scored perfectly". But he is using "perfect" as a rank, such as one would say "I scored a perfect on my exam." It would not be an adverb then, but a noun. Perhaps he should have used "an" before "absolutely perfect" but it's quite common to say it the way he used it.

Quote
You people are looking at the failure of your economy, the end to retirement, the end of affordable healthcare, the end of affordable education (maybe - that may fix itself), the end of affordable rent or housing, and the end of most of the globe's habitat [edit, I think you mean "habitats" Habitat in the singular seems to make it appear that it where the globe lives; I don't think you mean that.]

"Habitat" is most often used as an uncountable noun. Habitat for Humanity, for example.

Quibbling over minor grammatical disagreements in an attempt to marginalize his intelligence doesn't make his point any less valid. It just makes you look like an ass.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on July 11, 2012, 07:23:36 AM
It would be like automatically suspending drivers' licenses for anyone who buys alcohol, on the assumption that they will drink and drive.

In law, by the way, the term for this is "prior restraint".  To take a more commonly used example: it's illegal to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but that doesn't mean that it would be lawful or proper for anyone admitted to a theater to be required to wear a gag as a condition of entrance.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jeremy0 on July 12, 2012, 01:45:29 PM
BTW - my lowest intelligence is in the form of social siturations.  i.e.writing, grammar, punctuation, vocabulary, etc.  This doesn't mean I can't understand what I am writing, it also doesn't mean that I can't understand what I'm reading.  It just means that I am a poor writer, have poor command of english, and can't argue my points clearly enough to win any arguments.

The fact remains - none of you are listening to anyone but yourselves.  If you want a debate, at least consider the opinion of the other side.  I read through all 16 pages of this at the time, and was insulted by the fact that none of you made progress on this topic.  You just kept arguing as if you were correct the whole time.

And no, I don't require Joe to point out where exactly he got his statistical information when I can look it up myself if I'm interested.  The things I take at face value I do so because it makes sense in that situation to do so - obviously he wouldn't have said it if he didn't have the information at some point in time.  And quite frankly, it's sad that we have to absolutely prove things to you in order for you to accept anything. 

Yes, I measured your IQ scores as a group.  The response from that topic was 'this is bullshit'.  Joe scored 150 on my IQ test link.  It was one of the more challenging classical IQ tests that you can take.  Just the score alone (highest possible is 155) means he scores around as high as me or higher in almost every category.  And yes, IQ scores are a very good indicator of how intelligent you are.  I regard them higher than any test score you can achieve in college.  It is a measure of your actual intelligence, not an indicator of how well you can memorize crap and regurgitate.

The way I see it, you all are just pissed that I called you out on your BS, and resorted to putting you down as a result of your lack of intelligence, clearly displayed by your argumentative strategies instead of a debate that produces any real or tangeable consensus..

No, I don't care about my grammar, punctuation, spelling, or vocabulary.  I don't feel I need to carry a freaking dictionary in order for you idiots to understand what I'm saying.

However, had you actually read and understood all of these posts, you would have already realized everything I have said to this point...  this tells me you are either ignorant, or you don't actually give a damn, or both.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on July 12, 2012, 02:12:03 PM
...Yes, I measured your IQ scores as a group.  The response from that topic was 'this is bullshit'.  Joe scored 150 on my IQ test link.  It was one of the more challenging classical IQ tests that you can take...

What the hell are you talking about?  You can't test IQ from people's posts on the internet?!?!?  :o  Or are you trying to be funny? FYI, if you intended the latter, it isn't working.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 12, 2012, 04:29:21 PM
jeremy0:  I can believe you aren't especially good in social terms, because the whole of your latest post is practically a textbook example of "open mouth, insert foot".  For one thing, no matter how intelligent you think you are, you have no way to tell how intelligent the people who've posted here (and who don't agree with you) are.  You can't accurately rate a person's intelligence based on forum posts, and you certainly can't rate a group's intelligence that way.  If I were to make that sort of judgment about you, from the content of your posts, I can't say I would give you a very high IQ score.  Good thing that I know better than that, since that kind of judgment would reflect far more poorly on me than it ever would on you.

Quote from: jeremy0
And no, I don't require Joe to point out where exactly he got his statistical information when I can look it up myself if I'm interested.  The things I take at face value I do so because it makes sense in that situation to do so - obviously he wouldn't have said it if he didn't have the information at some point in time.  And quite frankly, it's sad that we have to absolutely prove things to you in order for you to accept anything.
It's called being a skeptic, and to be blunt, one of the biggest problems with human society is the fact that people are willing to accept what other people say at face value without checking it out because they feel the other person is an expert or knows what they're talking about.  Sure, he had the information at some point in time, but that doesn't justify blowing off your own responsibility to make sure that he cited it correctly, or that his interpretation was correct, or whatever.  If you want to do that, that's your problem, but you don't then get to complain because other people are not willing to accept his statements at face value.

Quote
The way I see it, you all are just pissed that I called you out on your BS, and resorted to putting you down as a result of your lack of intelligence, clearly displayed by your argumentative strategies instead of a debate that produces any real or tangeable consensus.
The fact that you decided that what we were saying was BS, and that you could thus justify put-downs because you didn't think we were intelligent, is a pretty clear measure of your unwillingness or inability to consider what other people are saying rationally.  Don't you realize how you're coming across?  Do you even care?  Because right now, it seems to me that it's far more important to you that you can preserve your own self-image of being highly-intelligent, and that other people who you agree with must also be highly intelligent, and thus people who don't agree must be less intelligent, if not plain stupid.

Think about it...

Incidentally, this "classical IQ test" you were talking about, I'd like to see the details on it.  If you would be so kind as to provide the link, since I have no idea where you linked it last, I would appreciate it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jeremy0 on July 12, 2012, 04:50:59 PM
...Yes, I measured your IQ scores as a group.  The response from that topic was 'this is bullshit'.  Joe scored 150 on my IQ test link.  It was one of the more challenging classical IQ tests that you can take...

What the hell are you talking about?  You can't test IQ from people's posts on the internet?!?!?  :o  Or are you trying to be funny? FYI, if you intended the latter, it isn't working.
What are you retarded?  I said I started a post.  In that post, I said I 'wanted to put it to the test'.  I had several of you post your IQ scores from the IQ test that I linked to.... 

Hello?  I'm earth - have we met?  Jeebus fucking H christ.  Yes - I took a sample of your collective IQ scores, the sample being the ones that responded to that forum topic.  Get off the stupid chair - I'm putting you in time-out...
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jeremy0 on July 12, 2012, 04:59:27 PM
You can't accurately rate a person's intelligence based on forum posts, and you certainly can't rate a group's intelligence that way.  If I were to make that sort of judgment about you,
Again - I never said I was basing your IQ scores off of your posts here on the internet.  Retards...

I said I posted a topic that asked you to post your IQ scores from a test that I referenced.  It's called a 'classical IQ test'.  The one I wanted you all to take was a particularly challenging one.  Some of these online tests are watered down to make you feel good.  You can look up my own IQ scores simply by googling my name, and the fact that you are judging my IQ based on mis-understandings by the rest of you is rather foolish.

Quote
It's called being a skeptic, and to be blunt, one of the biggest problems with human society is the fact that people are willing to accept what other people say at face value without checking it out because they feel the other person is an expert or knows what they're talking about.  Sure, he had the information at some point in time, but that doesn't justify blowing off your own responsibility to make sure that he cited it correctly, or that his interpretation was correct, or whatever.  If you want to do that, that's your problem, but you don't then get to complain because other people are not willing to accept his statements at face value.
If you want us to start citing every fucking thing you say with some reference to someone else's opinion or studied statistics or research on the internet, we can.  however, I don't have time to baby sit you fucks.  So in other words, sometimes you are going to have to take me at face-value..  I have no reason to doubt that Joes original statement was backed by realistic data, because I have heard of studies like that myself.  If I want to know more - if you want to know more, look it up yourself.  you will find a miriad of varying opinions just on google, based on scientific studies on the topic.  Now, I know I can find that - why are you requiring people like Joe to do the extra work for you, just so you can understand the posit of his explanation...

Quote
The fact that you decided that what we were saying was BS, and that you could thus justify put-downs because you didn't think we were intelligent, is a pretty clear measure of your unwillingness or inability to consider what other people are saying rationally.  Don't you realize how you're coming across?  Do you even care?  Because right now, it seems to me that it's far more important to you that you can preserve your own self-image of being highly-intelligent, and that other people who you agree with must also be highly intelligent, and thus people who don't agree must be less intelligent, if not plain stupid.
No - I'm merely looking at all of your rebukes with irritability in the fact that you're missing the entire point, and arguing worthlessly on technicalities, trying to make me look stupid, and trying to really piss me off.  Yes, I mean to insult you, and yes - I consider your responses to this entire series of posts to be meaningless, thoughtless, and well, rather stupid.  period.  I don't care if I'm offending you.  Read books.  Get online and do some research if you aren't sure.  Then, maybe, you might not post the same stupid shit over and over.

Think about it...
dick.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on July 12, 2012, 05:01:46 PM
What are you retarded?  I said I started a post.  In that post, I said I 'wanted to put it to the test'.  I had several of you post your IQ scores from the IQ test that I linked to....

You never included a link to an IQ test, or to anything else,[1] in any of the posts you made in this thread.

So...why state such an obvious untruth?
 1. Aside from the quote-links of the peoples' posts you were replying to, I mean.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jeremy0 on July 12, 2012, 05:03:55 PM
What are you retarded?  I said I started a post.  In that post, I said I 'wanted to put it to the test'.  I had several of you post your IQ scores from the IQ test that I linked to....

You never included a link to an IQ test, or to anything else, in any of the posts you made in this thread.

So...why state such an obvious untruth?
Do you know what 'another forum topic or another forum post' means?  I didn't say I posted that link in this thread.  I said I did it in another thread.  Look, this isn't rocket science - clearly you aren't even listening.  You hear only what you are wanting to hear, it's going in one ear and out the other, and really, really pissing the holy shit out of me...

There is no 'obvious untruth' here except the obvious untruth that you are creating on your own and stating in your attempt to place yourself on a pedistal.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on July 12, 2012, 05:12:01 PM
What are you retarded?  I said I started a post.  In that post, I said I 'wanted to put it to the test'.  I had several of you post your IQ scores from the IQ test that I linked to.... 

Hello?  I'm earth - have we met?  Jeebus fucking H christ.  Yes - I took a sample of your collective IQ scores, the sample being the ones that responded to that forum topic.  Get off the stupid chair - I'm putting you in time-out...

jeremy0, this is uncalled for.  Rein it in.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on July 12, 2012, 05:13:20 PM
Wait, you mean this thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22256.0.html)?  The one in which a grand total of 3 people reported IQ scores (you, joebbowers, and Whateverman)?  Is that your source of statistical data on this forum's collective IQ?

Incidentally, you did not actually provide a link to an IQ test in that thread; you only referred to one.  Is there another thread in which you did link to an IQ test?  Because if you're going to reference the results posted in other threads,[1] then it might be helpful to actually link to those other threads.
 1. At least one of which is several months old.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 12, 2012, 05:17:05 PM
If I want to bash on people, I will.  I recently did that - and it just proved my point.  They resorted to picking apart technicalities in grammar and use of language to try and say that I wasn't intelligent.  I just laughed - that's pretty stupid.  Also, I pointed out that my intelligence is rather average in that area, but they didn't listen to that before or after the fact.
Quote
Yes, I measured your IQ scores as a group.

I note that jeremy0 seems to think in very black-and-white terms. On the one side, the fabulously intelligent Joe (with whom he appears to be in love), and on the other, a bunch of indistinguishable idiots. Thus he says, they resorted to picking apart technicalities, when actually only one person did.

But he doesn't seem to have anything to say beyond, ner-ner, you're all stupid.

Which hardly qualifies as an intelligent contribution to the discussion. Though it qualifies as irony, I suppose...
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jeremy0 on July 12, 2012, 05:29:43 PM
To sum up, I've wasted my time on this forum, which appears to me to be more of a social club than producing any real, tangeable benefit to society.

If you all had an achievable goal, which would be to enlighten the rest of the population on the basis of religion, then stick to that.  Otherwise, I've noticed that most of you are very skewed when it comes to knowledge about topics other than religion.  And it turns into an argument, whereas instead of noting the information both sides has to give, you instead argue your point as if you are the end-all authority on the topic.  But you are not.

I can point to countless mis-understandings about a large number of topics and posts on this forum - however none of you change your minds.  You still base your information on emotion, intuition, the media, feelings, and social status rather than scientific study and information.

I can't force you all to sit down and watch science films and read countless articles just to get you on the same page of information that I have on the topics that interest me, to which I feel are much more important than this one.

What I'm saying is, this has become a social gathering - a place to pat yourselves on the back.  And you're wasting my time.  That is all.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 12, 2012, 05:36:55 PM
Oh, I see, the whole thing is a histrionic exit-manoeuvre.

That makes more sense...
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Azdgari on July 12, 2012, 05:37:41 PM
Dude, cool off and come back when you've shed the attitude that anyone who disagrees with you on any topic must be stupid.  You didn't start out on here with that attitude.  I know it's not a necessary component of your conduct.

I share your (apparent) concern about the lack of pro-science,[1] pro-rationality activities in the real world.  But this is just a forum.  It's not necessarily suited to those tasks.  And members of this forum have lives outside of this forum.[2]

What were you hoping that this forum would do, specifically?
 1. Not that you've demonstrated any kind of respect for scientific reasoning or methodology recently.  Instead you've shown only contempt for those things.
 2. Even if only recently, as in the case of HAL.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timtheskeptic on July 12, 2012, 06:56:26 PM
Joe: Here's my opinion, here's what I think!
many posters: Well, we disagree and here's why!
Jeremy: OMG UR DUMBZ LOLZ! Me and Joe have higher IQ points than you! He's right you're all wrong and stupid!!

Jeremy, please take a time out, cool your head, and realize what you're saying. You're being aggressive and arrogant. I don't understand why you think Joe is right or that the rest of us are stupid, but you're pretty much being irrational and unreasonable. Really, cool off.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jeremy0 on July 12, 2012, 07:11:28 PM
Ok fine.  My apologies.  It was basically an exit.  I was frustrated from what I was seeing even on this forum, it seems we aren't even making any real progress on educating others about the fallacies of religion.  To me, it all looks like stupidity.  As I have shown by me provoking you and you provoking me, we can all be stupid.  So my apologies for the insults at this point - it was uncalled for.  That doesn't mean I will stay with attention on this site, as the last poster noted...

What I came here expecting was a forum of intellectuals that could discuss topics with a very intelligent nature about it.  To be able to speak intelligently on almost anything, share ideas and reach a common understanding on a number of topics.

You have to understand that some of us in America see so many problems facing our society today, many of us have some pretty good solutions if we would just put our heads together.  But we're going in the wrong direction, and basically seeing the fall of an empire.  This is the way a lot of us see America today - and when we get vocal, scientists included, we get some snappy response that either breaks people away from the information we tried to present or puts something in its place.  Like climate change.  We have been trying to convince people that this scientific finding is not based on myths - for over 100 years.  Just now we are starting to see the drought trend that we were expecting to see - along with the more extreme weather patterns.  Because we are now at a level never seen before by this earth, we aren't sure it's going to fix itself naturally with an ice-age.  My frustration with that is the government instead of fixing the problem just says 'we don't believe in it', or falsifies reports and information, and instead plans to evacuate everyone somewhere should the worst happen.  That sucks - especially when the recent stimulus spending alone could have been utilized with real ideas on ways to not only reduce CO2 levels but also create new industries as a result.

While i would also blame that on ignorance, as Greybeard, who usually has something intelligent to say to all parties on a subject when he's not duping somebody, pointed out to me recently..  something I noted just overseeing the threads discussed on this forum.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,23193.0.html (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,23193.0.html)

This led me to believe that we are all ignorant in a wide variety of issues.  I take it to mean that we have an education problem.  Or maybe we just aren't thinking for ourselves.  Or perhaps that since we are all basically information and processors of information, that we just don't have the right information.  At any case, I can't put my head around why we are ignoring the most important things, and acting like such small things that we just have emotion about are instead so important.  Like the economy vs. telling some rape victim they have to bear that child, because even though its unborn, we consider it a crime.  Why aren't we focusing that kind of care and attention on people that are already living?  I mean look at the legislation the past several years and the proposals.  We're talking serious stuff..  It leads me to believe that everyone is driven by emotion, and not intelligent thought, as our species would suggest...

So I've been spending my time trying to get people to at least recognize what we are going to be facing as a society.  Maybe prepare themselves or maybe answer some things before it becomes a problem.  But what I get is nobody seems to care about that stuff, and instead we all talk about small potatoes...

The problem I had with religion is that they are so stuck on religion, that any other topic just relates to that religion in some way, and so you don't end up with an intelligent conversation, and you don't end up reaching any common understanding.  I feel it is detrimental in our society today, given what we are going up against.  The problem is, nobody is recognizing what is really going on, even in this country.

At first, I thought it was just because religion was so prevalent.  I later found that it was due to a lack of information on really many topics.  What really got me was when we would talk about these things, nobody was willing to listen to anybody but themselves, as if they already had all the answers.

Take the empty glass argument against you guys for an example.  The argument was - can you make it any more empty?  Then you would say, well, no.  But that's not the truth.  The truth is that glass is always full - even in the absence of things.  When you take all the air out of a drum, it collapses.  The same is true of a void - stuff fills that void at all times (citing nothing is actually filled with dark energy).  So what I'm getting at is I can apply that knowledge to a number of things - like ignorance.  People have an absence of knowledge and information, thereby an absence of logical reasoning and understanding on so many things.  But they're not actually stupid, it just means at that point in time they aren't using their brains, and are running off of emotion, like we just demonstrated.

So I came here expecting that people could discuss the real issues facing society, and found that even numerous people on this site can't really agree on much, and care more about things that affect them personally, even inadvertantly, based on how they feel about a subject.  And that emotion is what is driving their decisions on a variety of issues.  When presented with new information - it gets passed off unless you finally hear it from an expert.  When presented with new ideas - it gets declined just because it hasn't been tried yet.  Hell, in my profession when I do new stuff that has benefit, it usually gets backlash from people higher up than me just because they haven't kept up-to-date on their own information and training with programming topics. 

So now you can see why I'm frustrated.  I see so many problems, and so many various solutions to those problems.  But the problems that other people see (like congress), isn't real identification of the problem - and then when they apply some solution it's almost guaranteed to be incorrect.

So I guess I came here to see if I was right that the problem was religion.  I would say the real problems facing our society is that we just don't understand the problems as they come along - everything hits us like it's some kind of surprise.  The last 'great recession', even though I was just starting my career, didn't surprise me at all.  We have income inequality that only happened the same way back in the 30s - no other time.  That alone said we were headed for a major recession.  I even had arguments with my professor about it in economics - and I turned out to be right, just two years later.

So when I see problems jumping out at me just reading through the news, it makes me frustrated that it seems like nobody else has the same information.  That's just me - maybe I'm a little out of proportion, but I see so many things as highly important to several groups of people, and people act like they are powerless to do anything about it.  And we're not talking 1% of the population - more like 50-60% groups - several millions of people.  How can that many people feel so comfortable about things today when clearly we don't live anywhere close to as good a life as we did back in the 70s and 80s?  How can one presidential term like the Clintons shed so much intelligence on how to deal with things like the economy, just to have people forget all about it and create such a mess everywhere in just 4 years?  How can we see what happened in the 30s and learn not really anything about it? 

What I mean is I'm frustrated because we keep dragging ourselves down off of the cliff - and we don't really need to.  I feel if people just knew a little more, or were just a little better educated on things, that so many of us would be better off.  But we're not even talking about that stuff.

So that's just it - just frustration on so many levels.  You have to understand that there's people like me that I talk to, seeing the same information and problems by staying informed, with just as much frustration seeing better solutions than what people in charge are doing; only saying 'you can't change anything'.  I wish that were BS...
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 12, 2012, 08:07:48 PM
You can't accurately rate a person's intelligence based on forum posts, and you certainly can't rate a group's intelligence that way.  If I were to make that sort of judgment about you,
Again - I never said I was basing your IQ scores off of your posts here on the internet.  Retards...
Maybe you didn't explicitly say that, but your attitude sure shows it.  Especially when you start accusing people of being 'retards' based on the content of their posts.  I mean, mental retardation starts at an IQ of 69 and becomes more pronounced the lower it goes.  So if you don't have access to my IQ score - and you don't - then how, exactly, are you basing your evaluation of me as a 'retard', if not on a forum post?

And incidentally, you only intimated that there was some forum topic involved in this in the post I was responding to.  Before that, you talked about a previous post[1] - implying that it was a post in this thread.  And that was the first time you talked about measuring IQ scores.  You gave no information other than that.  You didn't even tell us who you based our "group IQ" off of or what test you used.  I know you didn't base it off of me, because I didn't participate in any such topic, and I'd suspect that the same is true of most of the people participating in the thread.  The only people we know participated are you and Joe.

Quote from: jeremy0
I said I posted a topic that asked you to post your IQ scores from a test that I referenced.  It's called a 'classical IQ test'.  The one I wanted you all to take was a particularly challenging one.  Some of these online tests are watered down to make you feel good.  You can look up my own IQ scores simply by googling my name, and the fact that you are judging my IQ based on mis-understandings by the rest of you is rather foolish.
So, which "classical IQ test" are you talking about?  Surely you still have a link to it?  Also, I don't know your name.  Did you mean your forum handle?

By the way, I'm not judging your IQ.  What I said was, "If I were to make that sort of judgment about you, from the content of your posts, I can't say I would give you a very high IQ score.  Good thing that I know better than that, since that kind of judgment would reflect far more poorly on me than it ever would on you."

Quote from: jeremy0
If you want us to start citing every fucking thing you say with some reference to someone else's opinion or studied statistics or research on the internet, we can.  however, I don't have time to baby sit you fucks.  So in other words, sometimes you are going to have to take me at face-value..  I have no reason to doubt that Joes original statement was backed by realistic data, because I have heard of studies like that myself.  If I want to know more - if you want to know more, look it up yourself.  you will find a miriad of varying opinions just on google, based on scientific studies on the topic.  Now, I know I can find that - why are you requiring people like Joe to do the extra work for you, just so you can understand the posit of his explanation...
Why am I requiring people like Joe and yourself to do that work?  Maybe because you're the ones trying to convince me (and others) that your position is right.  Like it or not, a person who's trying to make a point, especially when it's not one that a lot of people agree with, has to go the extra mile to convince others about it.  But I won't accept being told "well, go look it up yourself, don't make me do all the work".  If you aren't willing to go to the effort to convince me of something I disagree with, even if it takes more effort than you want to give, you effectively lose the argument (with me, at least).  If you're okay with that, then that's your business, but you really should refrain from poisoning the well by yelling at the "stupid idiots" who you don't agree with.

Quote from: jeremy0
No - I'm merely looking at all of your rebukes with irritability in the fact that you're missing the entire point, and arguing worthlessly on technicalities, trying to make me look stupid, and trying to really piss me off.  Yes, I mean to insult you, and yes - I consider your responses to this entire series of posts to be meaningless, thoughtless, and well, rather stupid.  period.  I don't care if I'm offending you.  Read books.  Get online and do some research if you aren't sure.  Then, maybe, you might not post the same stupid shit over and over.
I'm not trying to make you look stupid, and I'm certainly not trying to piss you off.  I don't really care how intelligent you are, and I have no interest at all in wasting my time getting into a "my IQ is higher than your IQ" contest.  What I care about is how convincing your arguments are, and from the post of yours I noticed - where you ended with bragging about how much more intelligent Joe was than the collective forum - on, your arguments simply weren't very good in that regard.

As far as trying to piss you off, did you consider that perhaps you're getting pissed off not because I'm trying to get your goat, but because you're upset about other things?  I know very well from personal experience that when you're angry about one thing, it's very easy for that to bleed over and hit other things.  I suspect that's why you're getting pissed off so easily.  In fact, from other posts you've made in this topic, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet.

Really, take a bit and stop to consider why people might be disagreeing without Joe about pedophilia.  And note that I don't consider "attraction to pubescent individuals" to be pedophilia.  Pedophilia, to me, is attraction to prepubescent children, and I have a very strong problem with that, or with child porn to that effect.  It's going to take some serious convincing for me to change my mind on it.
 1. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg518623.html#msg518623 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg518623.html#msg518623)
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on July 12, 2012, 09:46:31 PM
Do you know what 'another forum topic or another forum post' means?  I didn't say I posted that link in this thread.  I said I did it in another thread.  Look, this isn't rocket science - clearly you aren't even listening...

No, clearly you are not communicating clearly. Many of us thought you were saying that you were GUESSING our IQs based on our input to this forum topic. Perhaps you are assuming that all of us read every single thread in here. False assumption. Perhaps you are assuming all of us remember every thread in this entire forum. Another false assumption. Perhaps you assume we can read your mind. Another false assumption.

I'm glad we've finally straightened out your point, because clearly there was a communication breakdown, and I can guarantee you that it was not all our fault.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on July 12, 2012, 11:55:13 PM
People make the same excuses for homosexuals. They can't accept the fact that it is natural.

Being natural doesn't equal "good" or beneficial. Birth defects are natural. Mental disorders are natural. Having a predisposition to believe in a higher being is natural. Everything in this universe is natural.

Mutations are natural. The gene/s responsible for triggering a natural predisposition towards taking advantage of weaker people through sexual fantasy fulfillment should be truncated[1] via the act of murder, which is also perfectly natural. 

Think of it as natural selection.
 1. I know,I'm using an adjective as a verb...deal with it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on July 13, 2012, 02:35:12 AM
I never said it was good or beneficial. I said it was natural, and not the result of childhood abuse or, as was laughingly suggested, a brain tumor.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Graybeard on July 15, 2012, 01:24:03 PM
Quibbling over minor grammatical disagreements in an attempt to marginalize his intelligence doesn't make his point any less valid. It just makes you look like an ass.
As usual, your wider view fails you but on the other hand, your apologist grammar, does come as a surprise.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on July 16, 2012, 07:57:17 AM
Is there a relevant point buried in there somewhere?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 16, 2012, 09:36:28 AM
I think I need to clarify terminology.

[wiki]Pedophilia[/wiki] refers to sexual interest in pre-pubescent (not sexually developed) children.  [wiki]Hebephilia[/wiki] refers to sexual interest in pubescent (sexually maturing) adolescents, usually from the start of puberty to 13-14 years old.  [wiki]Ephebophilia[/wiki] refers to sexual interest in post-pubescent (sexually mature) adolescents.  And [wiki]teleiophilia[/wiki] refers to sexual interest in adults.

It's important to not mistake pedophilia for those attracted to sexually maturing or sexually mature individuals.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: screwtape on July 16, 2012, 09:44:25 AM
For all practical matters, ephebophilia and teleiophilia seem to be 99% the same thing.  The objects of attraction have adult characteristics, only the age is at issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia#Characteristics
Quote
Because mid-to-late adolescents may have physical characteristics near (or in some cases, identical) to that of full-grown adults, some level of sexual attraction to persons in the age group is common among adults.


I'm not sure why it is even a category. 
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on July 16, 2012, 09:51:58 AM
For all practical matters, ephebophilia and teleiophilia seem to be 99% the same thing.  The objects of attraction have adult characteristics, only the age is at issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia#Characteristics
Quote
Because mid-to-late adolescents may have physical characteristics near (or in some cases, identical) to that of full-grown adults, some level of sexual attraction to persons in the age group is common among adults.

I'm not sure why it is even a category.

Me, neither.  As I've said in the past, our society (American, at least, not sure about others) has this weird notion that it's sick or depraved to be sexually attracted to someone who's sixteen years old, when in fact it's perfectly normal.  On the [wiki]Tanner Scale[/wiki], a typical sixteen-year-old girl is a Tanner Five (full sexual development).  There are probably a minority who are still at Tanner Four, but it's highly unlikely that any girl that age would be a Tanner Three or below unless she had some kind of physiological developmental disorder.

This kind of attitude isn't harmless.  It creates a society full of people -- mostly men, but probably some women, too -- who go thru their day-to-day lives secretly thinking to themselves that they must be twisted and perverted, when there's actually nothing wrong with them.  I can't practice psychiatry, but to me this sounds like an excellent formula for some pretty severe neurosis.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 16, 2012, 10:50:28 AM
Right.  Regardless of that, the main point is that there's a difference between being attracted to a child and being attracted to an adolescent.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: naemhni on July 16, 2012, 11:03:13 AM
Right.  Regardless of that, the main point is that there's a difference between being attracted to a child and being attracted to an adolescent.

Yes, there is -- but the weird thing about our society is, everyone seems to presuppose that they're the same thing.

"Law and Order: Special Victims Unit" is fiction, of course, but even so, opinions expressed by characters on the show are usually reflective of attitudes in American society (the writers do that on purpose, using the show as a pulpit -- separate discussion though).  For example, there was one episode once where a middle-aged man was married to a seventeen-year-old girl.  The captain of the SVU called this "legalized pedophilia", which is absurd.  (Aside, by the way, seventeen is the age of consent in the state of New York.)
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on July 16, 2012, 10:23:09 PM
I think I need to clarify terminology.

This has already been discussed. What I said before is that the clinical definitions are only useful in an academic discussion. In practice, society has it's own definition of pedophilia, which is generally considered to be the attraction to anyone under 18. I do not fit the clinical definition of pedophile, yet regardless I have been labeled one by the government, and subsequently by my former family and friends.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Timtheskeptic on July 17, 2012, 09:28:57 AM
ah, so you're not a pedophile, you're just called by because of what some government considers you to be. Well, i think the idea of seventeen or sixteen is clearly not pedophilic because they're practically almost adults themselves. I think some people look at sixteen year olds and seventeen year olds like they have a mindset of 12 year olds.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 17, 2012, 10:25:54 AM
This has already been discussed. What I said before is that the clinical definitions are only useful in an academic discussion. In practice, society has it's own definition of pedophilia, which is generally considered to be the attraction to anyone under 18. I do not fit the clinical definition of pedophile, yet regardless I have been labeled one by the government, and subsequently by my former family and friends.
If you don't fit the clinical definition of pedophile, then you aren't a pedophile.

Both of the criteria you state above are based on societal prejudices, which can and have been wrong.  For example, black people were long considered to be lazy stupid brutes because they had to be forced to work by their white overseers.  The fact that there were other reasons which far more accurately explained this behavior were ignored by most people because it was easier for them to cater to their prejudices.

If you know you aren't a pedophile (attracted to prepubescent children), then why are you tacitly accepting being called one just because "society" and "government" claim you are?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Traveler on July 17, 2012, 10:46:46 AM
What j said.

You are not a peadophile. You are not a child molester. One has to wonder if you're deliberately trying to be misunderstood and judged harshly by us. A simple attraction to young (seemingly) adult women is one thing. But you seem not to mind letting people assume the worst of you in order to, what? Get a rise out of us? Get to tell us we're wrong about you? I don't get it.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Samothec on July 17, 2012, 10:28:08 PM
If you look at the news reports, anyone accused of sexual contact with teens is wrongly labeled a pedophile. Sadly, this is true of even the 'better' news agencies.

Obviously because of the margin of error. 3-9% would be more than 4-10% if the estimate of the percentage of pedophiles is more accurate to the higher end, say 7-9% and the estimate of the percentage of homosexuals is more accurate to the lower end, 4-6%. That's why I said equal to or possibly outnumber.

After looking at the source material, I see the source of the numbers:
Quote
Pedophilic [paraphilias] in sexual fantasies and in real-life sociosexual behavior was reported by 9.5% and 3.8% of participants, respectively.
So, not because of the margin of error.

The 3.8% would be compared to the 10% number I gave at the very least. Possibly comparable to 37% depending upon the minimum requirements to qualify as part of the 3.8%. As for the 9.5%, I do not know of a comparable number for homosexuals but it would be a minimum of 37%. The 4% for homosexuals would be compared to a value of nearly 0% for pedophiles.



In a rational society we could collect all existing child porn and catalog it.
<snip>

... The control you're suggesting is far stricter than handguns. It's quite insulting to say that people who have never even touched a child should have to register and submit to intense scrutiny and regulation of their masturbatory habits. That is thought crime. You are ruling out any possibility of self-control and convicting and punishing without any evidence that the person would even commit a crime.

What you claim would happen with my suggested system is what is happening right now for real. And people are considering ways to lock pedophiles up for life either in prison or in a mental health facility.

With my suggested system, pedophiles would get to live a more normal life unsupervised and unregulated unless they stop participating in the website for more than a brief period.

An accurate comparison would be giving self-admitted alcoholics who have not commited vehicular murder manslaughter a small amount of free alcohol each day and only scrutinizing them if they stop taking the free alcohol.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on July 18, 2012, 05:29:04 AM
An accurate comparison would be giving self-admitted alcoholics who have not commited vehicular murder manslaughter a small amount of free alcohol each day and only scrutinizing them if they stop taking the free alcohol.

And you don't see how that's ridiculous?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on July 19, 2012, 03:55:53 AM
You are not a peadophile. You are not a child molester. One has to wonder if you're deliberately trying to be misunderstood and judged harshly by us. A simple attraction to young (seemingly) adult women is one thing. But you seem not to mind letting people assume the worst of you in order to, what? Get a rise out of us? Get to tell us we're wrong about you? I don't get it.

Tomatos are not vegetables. Yet they are in the vegetable section of the supermarket. That is the difference between how things should be and how they are.

The government has labeled me a pedophile and told my friends and family to keep their children away from me. Yet I am not attracted to pre-pubescent children. No competent therapist would consider me a danger to any child. I am not a pedophile.

My best friend was labeled a pedophile in the media, is serving 6 years for possession of child porn despite never harming a child, and will have to register as a sex offender. He, also, it not a pedophile.

If you don't fit the clinical definition of pedophile, then you aren't a pedophile.

And yet we're both in the pedophile section of the supermarket.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 19, 2012, 09:30:15 AM
For all practical matters, ephebophilia and teleiophilia seem to be 99% the same thing.  The objects of attraction have adult characteristics, only the age is at issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia#Characteristics
Quote
Because mid-to-late adolescents may have physical characteristics near (or in some cases, identical) to that of full-grown adults, some level of sexual attraction to persons in the age group is common among adults.


I'm not sure why it is even a category.
Screw, technically in order to qualify for a psychiatric diagnosis of paedophilia, hebephilia or ephebophilia, the attraction has to be primary or exclusive. As the wiki article says:
Quote
Ephebophilia refers to a primary or exclusive sexual interest of adults in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19

So, an 18-year-old ephebophile might marry a woman his own age, and start a family. Ten years later, his sexual desire for his wife evaporates and they get divorced. He falls in love with another 18-year-old, they get married and start a family. Ten tears later, his desire for her disappears, and the cycle repeats.

That's dysfunctional and very painful for all involved, particularly for the women and children.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Samothec on July 19, 2012, 09:50:58 AM
And you don't see how that's ridiculous?

So our current system is better? You used to be arguing against our current arrangement which would be equivalent to anyone found in possession of alcohol is arrested, thrown in jail and when eventually released labeled an alcoholic for life. That’s better?

Or do you really think that child porn will be decriminalized worldwide any decade soon? That’s the ridiculous idea.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 19, 2012, 01:30:23 PM
ah, so you're not a pedophile, you're just called by because of what some government considers you to be.
If you don't fit the clinical definition of pedophile, then you aren't a pedophile.
You are not a peadophile.

As Joe said, we covered this. His first words on this thread were:
I'm a pedophile
And my first reply to him gave the definitions of paedophilia, hebephilia and ephebophilia just cited by Jaime, and I continued:
You clearly state several times that you're not attracted to prepubescent children. So no psychiatrist would diagnose you as a paedophile.

Joe still chooses to label himself a paedophile, even though he knows that technically he isn't. It's a little confusing, but as long as we know what definitions we're using, we can still communicate.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: jaimehlers on July 19, 2012, 01:51:33 PM
And yet we're both in the pedophile section of the supermarket.
I hope you're not saying you're content with this state of affairs.  Because when you play word games that seem to excuse the way other people think and act, that's how it comes across.

The fact that you don't consider yourself a pedophile, and that you don't fit the clinical definition of a pedophile, means you aren't one.  Now you just have to get that through to the people who don't comprehend that.  As for your friend, that's not so cut and dried, because it seems he does does fit the clinical definition.  The fact that he hasn't harmed any children is good; but I don't know what kind of child porn he possessed.  Some kinds are far more heinous than others.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Kimberly on July 19, 2012, 07:42:33 PM
I'm confused.... I thought Joe's main physical requirement was "budding breasts" as a justification for his attraction? As Quesi pointed out this can happen rather early. I wonder... if you met a chubby 8 year old who had breasts due to being obese if that would be a "good enough" justification? I'm almost certain you haven't said anything about menstruation. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I could have sworn some where in the middle of this conversation you admitted to your main physical qualifier being budding breast. Given that Quesi clearly documented factual evidence that this happens rather early at times, and you never said she was incorrect, or refuted/rejected an attraction to children with early onset puberty I don't think we can say you don't meet the clinical standard for being a pedophile. Anyone is free to correct me if I've missed something but I've now read every single post in this thread. If I've missed it I'd like to know where please.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 19, 2012, 10:00:11 PM
^^^

Kimberly, Joe mentioned budding breasts in his first post:
I'm sexually attracted to young teenagers especially but sometimes even younger if they've developed a bit. Budding breasts, long legs. What's not to like?

The next day, he clarified that he's not interested in prepubescents:
I think an attraction to girls who have reached puberty and begun to develop secondary sex characteristics (breasts, pubic hair, etc.) is normal and healthy. However, society in general would still label these men pedophiles,

Does that resolve your confusion?

Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Kimberly on July 19, 2012, 10:01:44 PM
Partially. What about early onset puberty. Did he address that?

Edit to add: I could only read about 2-3 pages of this thread every 2-3 days. So to get caught up took almost two weeks or more. So I'm sorry for missing that, I guess that first point stuck out more.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 19, 2012, 10:17:52 PM
Partially. What about early onset puberty. Did he address that?
Not as far as I know.

Quote
Edit to add: I could only read about 2-3 pages of this thread every 2-3 days.
May I ask why, Kimberly?
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Kimberly on July 19, 2012, 10:36:27 PM
Several reasons. Primarily the time it took and how far behind I was. I stopped following this thread after the drive by poster left. I work during the day so I only had time to read it after I got off of work.[1]. The baby just so happens to eat right after I get off work, is cutting teeth, and typically needs me until about 8 when she takes a short nap and wakes up again around 10-11. I also care for my oldest daughter who talks alot and distracts me while I'm reading.

It's also the same reason I limit how many Law & Order SVU marathons I watch. Too much exposure to this topic makes me sad. I prefer it in small doses. I don't enjoy this side of humanity. I've never been assaulted by a pedophile but I was a victim of child abuse. So while I want to learn more to help cope as well as understand abuse, I don't wish to think about it too much at once. I do find the concept of pedophilia interesting and I also am intrigued by how it affects the mind. I also enjoy understanding the social dynamics it creates, and the moral quandaries about how we address them. So, I worked through it in doses that suited my lifestyle as well as the personal boundaries I set up about how much time I spend reading and/or watching things about child abuse in general.

TLDR = Because I didn't have the time.

Was that what you needed to know?
 1. I wanted to pay attention to detail and not have to read it while distracted by my job.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on July 20, 2012, 02:03:34 AM
So our current system is better? You used to be arguing against our current arrangement which would be equivalent to anyone found in possession of alcohol is arrested, thrown in jail and when eventually released labeled an alcoholic for life. That’s better?

This argument assumes your idea and the status quo are the only two options.

Or do you really think that child porn will be decriminalized worldwide any decade soon? That’s the ridiculous idea.

I absolutely think so. As I've pointed out, many experts and authorities have argued for that position, and federal judges are breaking their sentencing guidelines because they believe the punishment doesn't fit the crime. The ACLU is in favor of decriminalization and defends people caught in possession. The ball is rolling.
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: joebbowers on July 20, 2012, 05:58:01 AM
Screw, technically in order to qualify for a psychiatric diagnosis of paedophilia, hebephilia or ephebophilia, the attraction has to be primary or exclusive.

Just a note here, hebephilia or ephebophilia are not considered disorders, and you can't be diagnosed with them. An attempt was made to classify hebephelia as a disorder akin to pedophilia, but it was struck down by a vote of the American Association of Psychiatry and Law. Twice.[1]

 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebephilia
Title: Re: should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 20, 2012, 06:48:46 AM
^^^

That is correct at the moment, I was getting ahead of myself. As I said in my first post:
You clearly state several times that you're not attracted to prepubescent children. So no psychiatrist would diagnose you as a paedophile.

This definition is going to be clarified in the next edition of DSM-4, by the way; it's going to incorporate the conditions of hebephilia (primary sexual attraction to early-pubescent children), and ephebophila (primary sex