whywontgodhealamputees.com

Dead Zone => The Bottomless Pit => Topic started by: Gnu Ordure on July 14, 2012, 11:22:31 AM

Title: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 14, 2012, 11:22:31 AM
Joe, I'm curious; when you adopted your daughters, did you tell the adoption authorities that you're a paedophile?

[split from another topic]
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: albeto on July 14, 2012, 12:45:34 PM
Joe, I'm curious; when you adopted your daughters, did you tell the adoption authorities that you're a paedophile?

Perhaps it's a terribly naive question, but why would someone do that?  I'm a woman attracted to men and I have no problem knowing how to reign in my sexual impulses, even in the presence of men I find particularly yummy.  Is it naive for me to separate pedophilia from abuse and assume abuse is more likely to be a matter of poor sympathetic social skills than sexual attraction? 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 14, 2012, 12:58:01 PM
If I'm a recovering addict I'm not going to keep my drug of choice around. While it's not the same thing I don't see the point in flirting with disaster. I have an addictive personality so I set up boundaries for myself to prevent bad choices from being easier to make. If I was attracted to young girls I would adopt sons to prevent any possible abuse on my part. Perhaps I'm too cautious but when you are talking about the emotional and mental welfare of children I think erring on the side of caution is the best policy.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 14, 2012, 02:30:06 PM
Joe, I'm curious; when you adopted your daughters, did you tell the adoption authorities that you're a paedophile?
Perhaps it's a terribly naive question, but why would someone do that?
Because they were asked that specific question.

Here in the UK, the lengthy screening of prospective adoptive parents includes asking about their sexual orientation and their sexual behaviour.

Quote
Is it naive for me to separate pedophilia from abuse and assume abuse is more likely to be a matter of poor sympathetic social skills than sexual attraction?
Is it naive of me to think that a mother giving up her daughter for adoption wouldn't want her to be adopted by paedophiles, even if they claim to be non-practising? Would you be cool with that, Albeto, if it was your daughter? 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 14, 2012, 03:42:42 PM
Joe, I'm curious; when you adopted your daughters, did you tell the adoption authorities that you're a paedophile?

Isn't that question more on-topic to the thread where Joe's sexuality was already being discussed?  Given the purpose of this thread, it seems pretty tasteless to me.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Seppuku on July 14, 2012, 04:53:47 PM
Quote
Is it naive of me to think that a mother giving up her daughter for adoption wouldn't want her to be adopted by paedophiles, even if they claim to be non-practising? Would you be cool with that, Albeto, if it was your daughter?

One could reword that question and discrimination laws would come into play.

Of course, I would prefer it if people were up front and honest about it. But ideally I would like it so a child would go to somebody who is loving and will not hurt them, regardless of any traits they may be born with and unfortunately, it's not an ideal world and it's not how people always see it.

Sexual attraction to a child does not equal child rapist nor does it mean they're leering sexually at the child. Of course, it's difficult to know, but it's difficult to know whether or not a heterosexual male is going to rape a woman or abuse her in other ways. Or for somebody sexually attracted to elderly ladies to go out and attack an old person. I suspect there are people sexually attractive to old ladies working in elderly care or looking after their own grandmothers, these people may not take advantage of old ladies in vulnerable situations or sitting there staring. I've never sat and stared at my own relatives, even those who aren't related by blood in that way.

And a mother of a child may not want their kid go to Mexicans, black people, homosexuals, liberals, conservatives, communists, atheists, Muslims, Hindus or whatever. Where do we draw the line when it stops being discrimination and an issue of the child's safety?

Of course, it would make most uneasy if a pedophile was taking care of their child, but I think the important question is not whether or not people are comfortable with it, but whether or not that person is genuinely suitable to love and take care of that child. Unfortunately that's the much harder question to answer because how much can you determine about a person? Even prejudices come into play, though ideally they shouldn't.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 14, 2012, 08:44:02 PM
Quote
Is it naive of me to think that a mother giving up her daughter for adoption wouldn't want her to be adopted by paedophiles, even if they claim to be non-practising? Would you be cool with that, Albeto, if it was your daughter?

One could reword that question and discrimination laws would come into play.
Sure. Some people think that convicted paedophiles should have the right to adopt children:

December 2010: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8201521/Sex-offenders-including-paedophiles-should-be-allowed-to-adopt-Theresa-May-told.html)
Quote
Helen Reece, a reader in law at the London School of Economics, called on Theresa May, the Home Secretary, to relax rules which automatically ban sex offenders from caring for children, saying that this could breach their human rights.
Do you agree with her, Sepp?

Quote
And a mother of a child may not want their kid go to Mexicans, black people, homosexuals, liberals, conservatives, communists, atheists, Muslims, Hindus or whatever. Where do we draw the line when it stops being discrimination and an issue of the child's safety?
Wherever we want.

Quote
Of course, it would make most uneasy if a pedophile was taking care of their child,
Indeed; that's why I asked how Albeto would feel if it was her daughter.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 14, 2012, 11:09:07 PM
Joe, I'm curious; when you adopted your daughters, did you tell the adoption authorities that you're a paedophile?

There were no adoption authorities. One is my wife's daughter from a previous relationship, the other was abandoned by her parents. I don't mean put up for adoption I mean dumped on the streets. My wife took her in when she was still a baby.

If we had gone through the proper adoption channels and someone did ask me, I would say no, for two reasons. First, it is a stupid question based on ignorance and prejudice. It would be the same as denying gay men the opportunity to adopt little boys, or denying lesbians the opportunity to adopt little girls. While a think a lot of people think this should be the rule, I think many realize that would be ridiculous.

Second, when someone asks if you are a pedophile, they are not really asking if you are attracted to little kids, they are asking if you have sex with little kids. And the answer to that question for me at least is no.

Is it naive of me to think that a mother giving up her daughter for adoption wouldn't want her to be adopted by paedophiles, even if they claim to be non-practising? Would you be cool with that, Albeto, if it was your daughter? 

It's pretty naive of you to think that I give a fuck what a woman who abandons her child wants. Whether that means given up for adoption or dumped on the street, the mother loses the right to make any decisions about how or with whom their child is raised.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Seppuku on July 15, 2012, 05:46:40 AM
Quote
Sure. Some people think that convicted paedophiles should have the right to adopt children:

A convicted paedophile has already demonstrated that they cannot be trusted around children. Can't do the time? Don't do the crime. They've commited the crime, no we don't know for certain if they'll re-commit the crime, but we CRB check anybody who works with vulnerable people or handles sensitive information, we consider a person's criminal record in determining whether they're suitable for a job and can be considered trust worthy to not take advantage of a situation. It's very difficult to tell what a person will or will not do, but if a person has done it before then they've already broken that trust. If they want to work with children or adopt, then they should have thought about that before going out and sexing a child.

 Somebody who only has these sexual urges but doesn't act on them is not the same as being a convicted paedophile. The urges are natural and cannot be helped, you might be able to repress them and pretend they're not there by repression isn't exactly healthy (are gay healings healthy?). Why should somebody who doesn't act upon them and in every way demonstrates themselves to be an upstanding citizen be discriminated against?

Quote
Do you agree with her, Sepp?

Depends on the charges. If the person had sex with child then sex, yes the law is right. If the person had sex when they were themselves underaged (which counts as a sex offense) then no, it isn't. If you have no reason to believe that this child will come to harm, then what's the problem?

Quote
Wherever we want.

Unfortunately it should be based on something a little more significant and not people's prejudices.

Quote
Indeed; that's why I asked how Albeto would feel if it was her daughter.

I think how the old parent 'feels' is irrelevant. It should be about the child and the new parent. The important thing is that the child goes to a loving home with family who'll take good care of them and not harm a child. For example (hypothetically speaking): you give up your child for adoption, but don't want Joe getting his hands on her because he has a sexual attraction to child, despite him believing he should not ever harm a child and instead enjoys sexual relations with his wife. Then the child ends up going a father who turns out to be abusive, violent and somebody who doesn't care about the child, but merely adopted to claim the benefits or his wife wears the child like an accessory.

If the latter has no tell-tale signs, they might not even be abusive on the day of wanting the child, something like that could develop later in life, but this is something we can't just tell about a person.

But the former, we decide is unfit to adopt a child, even if they could be a loving and caring parent who'd never hurt a child.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 15, 2012, 04:56:28 PM
Joe, I'm curious; when you adopted your daughters, did you tell the adoption authorities that you're a paedophile?

There were no adoption authorities.
I'm not surprised to hear this.

Quote
If we had gone through the proper adoption channels and someone did ask me, I would say no, for two reasons.
I'm not surprised to hear that you'd lie, either.

Quote
First, it is a stupid question based on ignorance and prejudice. It would be the same as denying gay men the opportunity to adopt little boys, or denying lesbians the opportunity to adopt little girls.
Here in the UK, gays and lesbians can adopt children, so they don't need to lie about their sexuality. 

Quote
Second, when someone asks if you are a pedophile, they are not really asking if you are attracted to little kids, they are asking if you have sex with little kids.
Sometimes the person asking may understand the distinction between orientation and behaviour. 

Quote
Is it naive of me to think that a mother giving up her daughter for adoption wouldn't want her to be adopted by paedophiles, even if they claim to be non-practising? Would you be cool with that, Albeto, if it was your daughter? 
It's pretty naive of you to think that I give a f**k what a woman who abandons her child wants. Whether that means given up for adoption or dumped on the street, the mother loses the right to make any decisions about how or with whom their child is raised.
It's not a matter only of what the mothers might want, but what we as a society want, and what risks we're willing to to take with our children's lives.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Seppuku on July 15, 2012, 05:50:35 PM
Quote from: Gnu Ordure
If we had gone through the proper adoption channels and someone did ask me, I would say no, for two reasons.

I'm not surprised to hear that you'd lie, either.

What would you do if you really wanted to adopt a child, but knew you'd be turned away because of something you were born with? When you'd know you'd love, care for and cherish this child and never bring them to harm and certainly would do nothing to abuse them. But society says this particular trait makes you a bad person, it makes you unfit as a member of society, it makes you unfit to work with children and unfit to be a parent.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Zankuu on July 15, 2012, 05:57:51 PM
Gnu, if it makes you feel any better Joe has stated that he's not attracted to infants or prepubescent children.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Timtheskeptic on July 15, 2012, 06:03:07 PM
Quote from: Gnu Ordure
If we had gone through the proper adoption channels and someone did ask me, I would say no, for two reasons.

I'm not surprised to hear that you'd lie, either.

What would you do if you really wanted to adopt a child, but knew you'd be turned away because of something you were born with? When you'd know you'd love, care for and cherish this child and never bring them to harm and certainly would do nothing to abuse them. But society says this particular trait makes you a bad person, it makes you unfit as a member of society, it makes you unfit to work with children and unfit to be a parent.

That is a good point, and sadly people views things like your sexuality, your race, and so on and determine how they think you would raise them. There is no reason to deny someone the right to adopt children unless they are proven unfit to be parents. I know some people who are gay who adopted children. Some people thought that gays and lesbians were unfit because they might harm children physically or pshycologically. As for pedophiles, it's really, really difficult, even for me i'll admit, to allow them to adopt children. I can understand some people feeling uncomfortable with the idea of pedophiles raising kids, but if all they're going to do is make a slippery slope argument, they'll get nowhere.


Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 15, 2012, 06:45:41 PM
Sometimes the person asking may understand the distinction between orientation and behaviour.

Which is the safer assumption to make, from Joe's perspective?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Seppuku on July 15, 2012, 06:49:53 PM
It's a difficult one for me too, I admit, but ideally I want to see it that people's ability to parent is based on their ability to parent. The rest to my mind is irrelevant when it comes to caring for a child. When it comes to putting it into practice, there are other issues to consider and I'm not knowledgeable enough to say how I'd put my ideals into practice or how I'd like to see them put into practice.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 15, 2012, 07:11:29 PM
Quote from: Gnu Ordure
I'm not surprised to hear that you'd lie, either.
What would you do if you really wanted to adopt a child, but knew you'd be turned away because of something you were born with? When you'd know you'd love, care for and cherish this child and never bring them to harm and certainly would do nothing to abuse them. But society says this particular trait makes you a bad person, it makes you unfit as a member of society, it makes you unfit to work with children and unfit to be a parent.

Sepp, do you think that formal decisions about the adoption of children should be made by an authorized lawful organization or by the prospective adoptive parents themselves?

If the former, do you think that the authorities should have the right to ask whatever questions they want in order to inform their decisions, in the expectation that those questions will be answered honestly?

If so, do you think that anyone found to have deliberately answered those questions dishonestly, should be disqualified from the process?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 15, 2012, 07:52:25 PM
Sometimes the person asking may understand the distinction between orientation and behaviour.

Which is the safer assumption to make, from Joe's perspective?
From anyone's perspective, one might safely assume that professional risk-assessors understand the distinction.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 15, 2012, 08:12:38 PM
From anyone's perspective, one might safely assume that professional risk-assessors understand the distinction.

Maybe people are more professional in Britain than elsewhere.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Seppuku on July 15, 2012, 09:09:02 PM
Quote from: Gnu Ordure
I'm not surprised to hear that you'd lie, either.
What would you do if you really wanted to adopt a child, but knew you'd be turned away because of something you were born with? When you'd know you'd love, care for and cherish this child and never bring them to harm and certainly would do nothing to abuse them. But society says this particular trait makes you a bad person, it makes you unfit as a member of society, it makes you unfit to work with children and unfit to be a parent.

Sepp, do you think that formal decisions about the adoption of children should be made by an authorized lawful organization or by the prospective adoptive parents themselves?

If the former, do you think that the authorities should have the right to ask whatever questions they want in order to inform their decisions, in the expectation that those questions will be answered honestly?

If so, do you think that anyone found to have deliberately answered those questions dishonestly, should be disqualified from the process?

I feel that the adoptive agency should determine whether or not a child should go to an adoptive parent. However, I would like that decision to not be based on any discriminatory grounds.

Should they be able to ask whatever they feel is necessary in order to be able to make a clear assessment? Of course. If somebody is found to have deliberately answered dishonest, should the person be disqualified from the process? I think that should depend. If the process itself is in itself flawed and decisions are based on discriminatory factors, then I could not fault the person for lying. I suspect before it was okay for gays to adopt that there were people who lied about their sexuality so they could adopt. What shouldn't hapeen is for the situation to occur where these people would have to lie.

If the person was lying when knowing full well that their sexuality didn't matter to the agency and that the question wanted to address the issue of  whether or not you act upon those urges, then it would look suspicious and this would be a different situation.

If the system is going to say "no" on discriminatory grounds, yet you know you're not going harm the child and that you'll try to be the best possible father you could and had that ability, would you still tell the agency the truth? No matter how much you and your wife want to adopt?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: albeto on July 18, 2012, 10:52:39 AM
Is it naive of me to think that a mother giving up her daughter for adoption wouldn't want her to be adopted by paedophiles, even if they claim to be non-practising? Would you be cool with that, Albeto, if it was your daughter?

I see that by the time I've found this thread, many of my thoughts have already been expressed.  The assumption that an attraction to young adults (which is what young teens are, and what we're talking about here, right?) is synonymous with an instinct to coerce sexual behaviors is an idea I no longer find persuasive. The thing is, if we strip away assumptions and stick to known facts, how much evidence is there for the claim that people who are attracted to very young adults coerce these people?  It used to be thought that homosexuals  "groom" young adults for their own sexual gratification, and I see the same assumption being applied here.  I just wonder if it has merit or if it's an appeal to tradition, a tradition based on ignorance and prejudice

.  Now that human behavior is being studied with a scientific methodology, I suspect these answers will become available.  I just don't know that we can assume it just because we always have because ultimately, what we're talking about is sexual attraction.  Most of us are perfectly capable of reigning in our biological urges when faced with people we find sexually attractive.  I suspect what you are referring to is more a matter of sociopathy - an inability to recognize and respond with empathy to the sufferings of another. 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 18, 2012, 02:29:51 PM
I feel that the adoptive agency should determine whether or not a child should go to an adoptive parent. However, I would like that decision to not be based on any discriminatory grounds.
Is there any evidence that paedophiles are discriminated against? Perhaps that should be established before the lying starts. (I've been trying to find out if this is the case in the UK, but without success).

Quote
If the system is going to say "no" on discriminatory grounds, yet you know you're not going harm the child and that you'll try to be the best possible father you could and had that ability, would you still tell the agency the truth? No matter how much you and your wife want to adopt?
If I lied about something serious, it's possible that the child might be taken off me if the lie is discovered. (Same as lying on a job application form - regardless of whether you're doing the job satisfactorily, you'll be sacked if it's discovered).

That would hurt the child, and I think it would be wrong to take the risk.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 18, 2012, 03:25:22 PM
In the US, for all adoptions, a “home study” is needed.  A home study is not just an evaluation of the home, but also a series of meetings and interviews with the prospective parent(s) to determine if the family is appropriate for the placement of a child.  In addition, there are usually medical and sometimes psychological exams required prior to acceptance.  The home study is an (appropriately?) intrusive process, in which the prospective parents are evaluated on a wide range of factors.  My home study delved into my own childhood, the way I was disciplined by my parents, the ways I plan to discipline my own child, my commitment to education, my ability to deal with a wide range of special needs that an adoptive child may face, my values concerning race and ethnicity and my ability to raise a child of another race, including my personal and professional associations with people of a variety of races, my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), my membership in a wide range of groups and organizations, my relationships with my family members, my support systems, etc.  Friends and family members (and my boss) were interviewed and asked a series of specific questions about me. I underwent an FBI fingerprint check, and also a fingerprint check in every state in which I have resided in the past 20 years. 

In the US, we love states’ rights, so different states have different rules about who can adopt.  I think there are some states that still prohibit gay men and lesbian couples from adoption.  But certainly not NY.  And different adoption agencies have different slants.  There are GOBS of adoption agencies that cater to Christian families.  Here in NYC there are a few that cater to Jewish families.  And an increasing number specializing in gay and lesbian families. 

Of course, there are different kinds of adoption.  A pregnant woman may decide that she doesn’t want to parent, and she (hopefully in conjunction with an agency and an attorney who are interested in protecting her rights) she makes up an adoption plan, screens prospective families, and has the final say.  For the adoption of a child from foster care, there are a different set of agencies involved, including state social service agencies. For international adoptions, adoptive parents have to meet the criteria of their states, their adoption agencies, and the criteria set by the country from which the child is being adopted.

China, which has strict restrictions on the number of children a family may have, faces thousands of abandoned children (mostly girls and kids with special needs) every year.  In addition, unlike most countries (including the US) which allow a birth mother to relinquish a child who she does not feel capable of parenting, China does not allow relinquishments.  However, they have a strong system in place, in which the kids are put into orphanages that work with foreign (mostly US I think) adoption agencies.  But from the side of China, the criteria for adoptive parents are very clear.  They want heterosexual two parent families with substantial incomes.  (They used to allow single parent adoptions, but now only allow single parents to adopt in the case of special needs children).  They have high standards for the health of the adoptive parents, including body mass index.  In other words, fat people can (no longer) adopt from China.  And no criminal records. 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 18, 2012, 04:42:05 PM
Is it naive of me to think that a mother giving up her daughter for adoption wouldn't want her to be adopted by paedophiles, even if they claim to be non-practising? Would you be cool with that, Albeto, if it was your daughter?
I see that by the time I've found this thread, many of my thoughts have already been expressed.  The assumption that an attraction to young adults (which is what young teens are, and what we're talking about here, right?) ...
We're using Joe's definition of paedophile, attraction to a post-pubescent child; e.g. a 31-year-old and a pubescent 11-year-old.

Quote
.... is synonymous with an instinct to coerce sexual behaviors is an idea I no longer find persuasive.
Well, I never made that assumption, Albeto, so that's a strawman. Most paedophiles do not coerce their victims, if we're using the wiki definition of coercion:
Quote
the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force.
Paedophiles attempt to persuade or seduce. Between adults, attempts to persuade or seduce are socially acceptable, as the participants are equals.

A 31-year-old man is not equal to an 11-year-old girl. There is an imbalance of power, knowledge, experience and most important, the ability to understand the potential consequences of sexual behaviour i.e. the ability to give informed consent to what is being proposed.

Quote
The thing is, if we strip away assumptions and stick to known facts, how much evidence is there for the claim that people who are attracted to very young adults coerce these people?  It used to be thought that homosexuals  "groom" young adults for their own sexual gratification, and I see the same assumption being applied here.  I just wonder if it has merit or if it's an appeal to tradition, a tradition based on ignorance and prejudice
You could easily research that, Albeto. The wiki article says that [wiki]child grooming [/wiki] is a real phenomenon.

Quote
Most of us are perfectly capable of reigning in our biological urges when faced with people we find sexually attractive.
Yes, but adopting a child requires a level of physical intimacy which doesn't happen between adult strangers. To a (true) paedophile, a four-year-old may look like Brad or Angelina do to an adult.

Imagine that you were responsible for children who (somehow) looked like Brad or Angelina. And that you were responsbile for dressing and undressing them, and giving them baths and washing them all over. And that he/she was happy to curl up naked on your lap and kiss you and tell you how much they love you - that's what real children do. And all the time you're feeling this intense sexual attraction to them. You have an erection/you're wet.

See the problem there, Albeto? Regardless of whether the adult can resist this constant temptation, that bathroom scenario is pernicious. There's a sexual atmosphere in the room which should not be there. A child should not be the object of its parent's sexual desire, regardless of whether the desire is acted upon.

Therefore, paedophiles should stay away from naked children.

Gnu.

PS. The concept of the biological incest taboo is also relevant here. If the taboo operates effectively, it prevents intra-familial sexual desire and activity. A significant proportion of incest cases involve step-relations, because the taboo is less effective in those cases. With adoption, it's even less effective.

PPS: Albeto, I just realized that you didn't actually answer my question:
Quote
Would you be cool with that, Albeto, if it was your daughter?

Would you be happy for a (true) paedophile to bathe your 4-year-old daughter? Even though he assured you that he would never act on his sexual feelings for her, and that he would ignore his erection? And let's say he's trustworthy and he keeps his word - though he goes off later to masturbate alone about the experience.

Would you be cool with that?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on July 18, 2012, 10:33:39 PM
So, Joe's girlfriend found a baby laying around on the street and didn't turn the child over to state authorities? Did she know of Joe's fondness for nubile Asian girls?

I am not sure why but Joe remindeds of Woody Allen, Bernie Ward and Donatien Alphonse François.

Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 19, 2012, 03:31:34 AM
So, Joe's girlfriend found a baby laying around on the street and didn't turn the child over to state authorities?
That's about accurate.

Quote
Did she know of Joe's fondness for nubile Asian girls?

I'm not gay, so of course she knew. How many heterosexual men are not attracted to nubile Asian girls?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 19, 2012, 03:41:28 AM
We're using Joe's definition of paedophile, attraction to a post-pubescent child; e.g. a 31-year-old and a post-pubescent 11-year-old.

Fixed that for you.

A child should not be the object of its parent's sexual desire, regardless of whether the desire is acted upon.

I'm not sure what relevance the word "should" has in discussing involuntary behavior. You're also making the assumption that pedophiles automatically find ALL children attractive. Assuming you're a heterosexual male, does that mean you automatically find ALL women attractive? If you had a beautiful sister, what would stop you from sleeping with her? What if she was only a step sister, or adopted sister?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Seppuku on July 19, 2012, 05:17:57 AM
Quote from: Gnu Ordure
Is there any evidence that paedophiles are discriminated against? Perhaps that should be established before the lying starts. (I've been trying to find out if this is the case in the UK, but without success).

Quote from: Gnu Ordure
Is it naive of me to think that a mother giving up her daughter for adoption wouldn't want her to be adopted by paedophiles, even if they claim to be non-practising? Would you be cool with that, Albeto, if it was your daughter? 

If it is as you state, then this is discrimination, because it's a problem for the mother even when the person is non-practising then it's not about the child's well being, it's about how they feel about paedophiles, even those who don't act on it.

Quote
If I lied about something serious, it's possible that the child might be taken off me if the lie is discovered. (Same as lying on a job application form - regardless of whether you're doing the job satisfactorily, you'll be sacked if it's discovered).

That would hurt the child, and I think it would be wrong to take the risk.

Again, what if the adoptive parent was gay and they had reason to believe that their being gay would affect the results, then they would likely lie, even on a job application form, there was a time when gays had to hide or lie about their sexuality and in some places it's still the case. If they got caught lying, yes, they'd pay for it, but if in this situation the system is flawed, then on a moral ground, can you really fault the person for lying? On a job application form somebody doesn't have to state their sexuality, it's optional. The question shouldn't be: "Are you a paedophile?" It should be, "have you or would you ever abuse a child, be it sexually or otherwise?" if you wanted it to not be discriminative.I'd even say that if a person's sexuality is a factor in the final decision of whether or not somebody adopts is in itself discriminatory, sexuality does determine how they'll act. I mean, in a job application nobody should be worried if a gay person is going to rape a male colleague, it'd be ludicrous and gay rights activists would have field day.

Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 19, 2012, 11:28:15 AM
I'm sorry ahead of time for anyone who chooses to be offended by this. I'm offended by my continued silence so here it goes.

First of all abusive patterns start before any sexual act occurs. It's not as simple as the sexual act it'self. I can not for the life of me wrap my head around how this conversation has become logical for an admitted pedophile to "adopt" young girls. I've watched this from the sidelines and it truly amazes me how well spoken and articulative you are Joe. In one hand I find myself wanting to agree that there is a problem with discrimination of pedophiles who have "never" hurt a child. I watch people as rational as Madbunny[1] find themselves agreeing with several points made by Joe. I really try as hard as I can to grasp this concept... Then I imagine a young girl having a conversation with Joe. How easily she could be persuaded to giving up consent. Joe you are master linguist of Jedi level. You arguably have the power to make the most rational of us all fall to your mighty sword of words. But I don't buy it. Maybe it's my own self preservation as a mother, and maternal instinctive drive to say "this is not right". But those instincts are equally as rational and logical as your sexual attraction to children.

I think there have been several times where Gnu has adequately pointed out irrational thought processes made by Joe in regards to his "fantasy" as Gnu called it. These thought process are dangerous. They are what I consider "red flags" or warning signs that should be addressed. And I'm not talking about here on this forum, I'm talking about IRL.

People keep wanting to compare this to gay rights. Apples and oranges man. Being gay is not the same thing as being a pedophile. The level of potential harm to a child makes this different. Potential harm doesn't imply that a pedophile will ever abuse a child. But if you identify thought processes that are destructive to the welfare of a child you have a problem. When you can paint a picture in your head that rationally justifies the objectification of a child who hasn't mentally matured enough to be able to make an informed decision, you have a problem.

In the "other" thread we are talking about how the possession of child porn should be legal. Some of us have rationalized this down to minimal sentencing; I can concede to that. But I can't understand how we can have that conversation, a thread started requesting donations for a child's operation, and then a thread created to help raise funds for a porno. Now I can't link these conversations and say with any certainty that we are being manipulated or that these "funds" will or will not be properly used.

What I can say is we have an admitted pedophile caring for two children; one of which authorities may not even knows exists. That pedophile has asked for money for an operation in a tone that doesn't represent any attempt has been made to prevent this child from having a negative self image. I feel like I'm watching an infomercial on TV that appeals to pity. IF I feel this way about how the story was portrayed to me how does this child feel? Well I assume, whether I'm justified or not, pretty pitiful themselves. That is sad.

Then funds are asked for a porn production in the name of LGBT with no proof that the 50K desired will help the community at all. So I feel very much like we are being conned by a well spoken and articulative conman. I may not be the best debater, have the best written or verbal communication skills. I may not be able to slice logic down the very finest of details. I don't always separate emotion from logic as well as some of you. But in this case, I think we should appeal to our emotions. Because it's the red flag that warns us of danger. And IMHO you, Joe, are dangerous man.
 1. Sorry for the shout out MB, I'm not disagreeing the points you made in particular. Your's just stood out the most to me.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: albeto on July 19, 2012, 07:35:37 PM
We're using Joe's definition of paedophile, attraction to a post-pubescent child; e.g. a 31-year-old and a pubescent 11-year-old.

That's not Joe's definition. 

Well, I never made that assumption, Albeto, so that's a strawman.

My impression of your posts is in defending against potential abuse.  Why would potential abuse be a factor unless the two are understood to be correlated? 

Most paedophiles do not coerce their victims, if we're using the wiki definition of coercion:

I consider grooming for sexual behavior a kind of coercion.  It's a subtle force based on clever social and emotional manipulation.  That's what makes it not a healthy relationship. 

A 31-year-old man is not equal to an 11-year-old girl. There is an imbalance of power, knowledge, experience and most important, the ability to understand the potential consequences of sexual behaviour i.e. the ability to give informed consent to what is being proposed.

For the sake of argument, if we're using pedophilia in the way Joe has used, we're talking a young adult, sexually mature (age 13+ generally), more than 5 years the junior of the older partner.  I suspect many teens in the western world are offered the privilege of postponing maturity as they are safely tucked away in schools, isolated from society many hours of the day, encouraged to participate in specifically approved groupthink.  I'd be interested in knowing how "maturity" is understood, as I think it contributes greatly to the conversation. 

Yes, but adopting a child requires a level of physical intimacy which doesn't happen between adult strangers. To a (true) paedophile, a four-year-old may look like Brad or Angelina do to an adult.

By this argument, step-daughters ought not live in the same home with their mothers' new husbands, and blended families with teen step-siblings ought to be given separate residence.   

A (true) pedophile isn't limited to prepubescent children, by definition, and I thought we're talking about the more common version - one individual over 18 attracted to another individual less than 18 with at least 5 years difference in age, post pubescent (sexually mature, physiologically speaking).  Four year olds are irrelevant to my part of the discussion.  At least, they have been.  In any case, I wouldn't support that argument anyway. 

Imagine that you were responsible for children who (somehow) looked like Brad or Angelina. And that you were responsbile for dressing and undressing them, and giving them baths and washing them all over. And that he/she was happy to curl up naked on your lap and kiss you and tell you how much they love you - that's what real children do. And all the time you're feeling this intense sexual attraction to them. You have an erection/you're wet.

I've had jobs where there was close physical and emotional proximity.  I did my job very well and professionally regardless of the potential involved.   In the same way, we trust doctors to provide the best medical care possible regardless of how natural it is for a person to respond physiologically to a particularly attractive patient who is in various states of undress.  You're suggesting a person can't control these sexual urges if, and only if, their sexual attraction includes young adults.  What makes this group incapable of doing what other groups can? 

See the problem there, Albeto? Regardless of whether the adult can resist this constant temptation, that bathroom scenario is pernicious. There's a sexual atmosphere in the room which should not be there. A child should not be the object of its parent's sexual desire, regardless of whether the desire is acted upon.

Therefore, paedophiles should stay away from naked children.

Gnu.

Would this problem be solved if the parent doesn't take care of bath-time duties? 

PPS: Albeto, I just realized that you didn't actually answer my question:
Quote
Would you be cool with that, Albeto, if it was your daughter?

Would you be happy for a (true) paedophile to bathe your 4-year-old daughter? Even though he assured you that he would never act on his sexual feelings for her, and that he would ignore his erection? And let's say he's trustworthy and he keeps his word - though he goes off later to masturbate alone about the experience.

Would you be cool with that?

The question is irrelevant.  I'm not talking about my 4 year old daughter or any other prepubescent child.  I'm talking about a relationship in which one party is over the age of 18, one is under the age of 18 but sexually, physiologically mature, where there are at least 5 years difference in age.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 19, 2012, 07:56:07 PM
Kimberly is correct that there are several relevant, analogy-breaking differences between (for example) a homosexual male non-pedophile adopting a young male child, and a heterosexual male pedophile adopting a female child.

1. The homosexual male non-pedophile is not attracted to young male children; he is attracted to men.  So sexual attraction to his charge is not an issue in that case.  And sexual attraction to the adopting parent's charge is one of key problems under discussion.

2. With respect to the "pedophile vs gay" comparison in general - an adult man is considered responsible for his own actions; he can legally consent to sex.  It is not automatically considered a form of rape.  A child is not considered responsible for his or her own actions; (s)he cannot legally consent to sex.  It is automatically considered a form of rape.  Whether you think this is morally right or not is another topic entirely.  At issue are adoption considerations.  So long as the above is true, an analogy between gay adoption and pedophile adoption is further broken.[1]
 1. I could see a case for gay male pedophiles being able to adopt female children, or for straight male pedophiles being able to adopt male children.  But those are not the situations under discussion.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 19, 2012, 08:04:19 PM
I could see a case for gay male pedophiles being able to adopt female children, or for straight male pedophiles being able to adopt male children.  But those are not the situations under discussion.

I think it's relevant to this topic. Can you not question the motives of someone who chooses to adopt the very sex(and in this situation race[1]) that is their primary attraction? IMO it's a very telling sign that the intent may not be as pure as we would be led to believe. It would be safer for the pedophile and the child if there was no attraction. I don't see why the pedophile would want to torment themselves with daily temptation, unless they enjoyed something more than the love a parent shares with their child.
 1. I'm pretty sure this was established elsewhere.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on July 19, 2012, 08:20:21 PM
How many heterosexual men are not attracted to nubile Asian girls?

Don't know for certain but I personally know a few. Asians just ain't their thing. Call them prejudiced if you will, but everyone has their preferences...which is perfectly natural...of course.



Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 19, 2012, 08:24:37 PM
I think it's relevant to this topic.

You think that what is relevant to this topic, Kimberly?  I don't think you read and understood what I actually wrote there.  In the situations I described in my footnote, there is no attraction.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 19, 2012, 08:28:23 PM
We're using Joe's definition of paedophile, attraction to a post-pubescent child; e.g. a 31-year-old and a post-pubescent 11-year-old.
Fixed that for you.
Joe, since you're the one insisting on calling yourself a paedophile when you're not, you're not in a position to be pedantic about my terminology. But since you brought it up, let's clarify. Postpubescent has three meanings.

Puberty is a developmental phase which lasts about four years, in which a child develops into an adult. Its beginning can be conveniently defined as the first ejaculation for boys and the first menses for girls.

Therefore, in its strictest sense, postpuberty starts at the end of those four years i.e. it is equivalent to the beginning of adulthood. Sexual development is complete (more or less).

However, psychologists more often use the term to refer to the final stages of puberty. Encyclopedia Britannica:
Quote
The phase of postpubescence starts when pubic hair growth is complete, a deceleration of growth in height occurs, changes in the primary and secondary sexual characteristics are essentially complete, and the person is fertile. Some changes in primary and secondary sexual characteristics occur in this phase. For instance, in males, it is during this period that the beard begins to grow.
Thirdly, people often use the term to mean, after the onset of puberty, which is the least accurate. But if that's the version you want to use (and I've used it myself in these discussions with you), that's OK with me.

Quote
A child should not be the object of its parent's sexual desire, regardless of whether the desire is acted upon.
I'm not sure what relevance the word "should" has in discussing involuntary behavior.
I meant that is unhealthy for a child to be the object of its parent's sexual desire.

Quote
You're also making the assumption that pedophiles automatically find ALL children attractive.
A rubber fetishist will tend to be attracted to people wearing rubber. A paedophile will tend to be attracted to a child of the right age. And active paedophiles are known to be opportunistic.

Quote
If you had a beautiful sister, what would stop you from sleeping with her? What if she was only a step sister, or adopted sister?
[wiki]Incest taboo[/wiki], as I mentioned before.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 19, 2012, 08:48:35 PM
I think it's relevant to this topic.

You think that what is relevant to this topic, Kimberly?  I don't think you read and understood what I actually wrote there.  In the situations I described in my footnote, there is no attraction.

No, I'm certain I understand and I know I read[1] exactly what you said. I think it's you who doesn't understand me, perhaps there is something I didn't articulate clearly? I know what you said, and what I quoted, was discussing lack of  attraction. I was explaining how I thought that was good point and relevant to this thread because since Joe decided to "adopt" a child which happened to be the sex of his attraction it may (or may not) create a motive that can be questioned.

Are we on the same page yet?
 1. I'm actually a little curious why you think it's safe to assume that I didn't read your post in it's entirety? That's not something I'm known for or accused of.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 19, 2012, 09:14:52 PM
Hi Albeto,

Reading your post, I'm not sure why you're arguing with me; we seem to be in agreement on many points of this.

We're using Joe's definition of paedophile, attraction to a post-pubescent child; e.g. a 31-year-old and a pubescent 11-year-old.

That's not Joe's definition.
I'm sure it is; the test-case is a 31-year-old man, because that's Joe's age, and an 11-year-old girl, because that was the age of the model he posted in the other thread as an example of someone he found sexually attractive.

Quote
Quote
Most paedophiles do not coerce their victims, if we're using the wiki definition of coercion:
I consider grooming for sexual behavior a kind of coercion.
I can agree to that.

Quote
Quote
Yes, but adopting a child requires a level of physical intimacy which doesn't happen between adult strangers. To a (true) paedophile, a four-year-old may look like Brad or Angelina do to an adult.
By this argument, step-daughters ought not live in the same home with their mothers' new husbands, and blended families with teen step-siblings ought to be given separate residence.
It's a fact that step-children are more likely to be sexually abused by their parents than biological children. That's a good reason to be vigilant in those scenarios, and it's why adoption agencies' enquiries are so intense.

Quote
Quote
Imagine that you were responsible for children who (somehow) looked like Brad or Angelina. And that you were responsbile for dressing and undressing them, and giving them baths and washing them all over. And that he/she was happy to curl up naked on your lap and kiss you and tell you how much they love you - that's what real children do. And all the time you're feeling this intense sexual attraction to them. You have an erection/you're wet.
I've had jobs where there was close physical and emotional proximity.
That's not the same as being a parent 24/7.

Quote
Quote
Would you be happy for a (true) paedophile to bathe your 4-year-old daughter? Even though he assured you that he would never act on his sexual feelings for her, and that he would ignore his erection? And let's say he's trustworthy and he keeps his word - though he goes off later to masturbate alone about the experience. Would you be cool with that?
The question is irrelevant.
You may consider it so, but I'd still like to know your answer.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 19, 2012, 09:24:26 PM
Are we on the same page yet?

Closer.  Apparently I'm just confused as to how instances of pedophiles adopting children of the sex they are not attracted to is particularly relevant to the problem of pedophiles adopting children of the sex they are attracted to.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: nogodsforme on July 19, 2012, 09:33:11 PM
Woody Allen and Soo Lin. Guess who had the power in that relationship? The much older, much richer, famous, brilliant father figure? Or the "nubile" young Asian adopted daughter? He had no choice but to leave his wife (her mother) and run off with the Asian chick. Any man would.

She manipulated him completely with her sneaky Asian wiles. She probably stood around every day in a white bikini beginning at age 11, posing by the pool, leaning over and smiling up at him all the time.

She tricked him into thinking he was her dad, and then forced him to be her sexual partner. He didn't want to do it, but she had to have him. She made him do it.

And he was so ashamed and humiliated that he made a film about it.  &)
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 19, 2012, 09:33:17 PM
Of course, there are different kinds of adoption.  A pregnant woman may decide that she doesn’t want to parent, and she (hopefully in conjunction with an agency and an attorney who are interested in protecting her rights) she makes up an adoption plan, screens prospective families, and has the final say.
That's interesting, Quesi. And it contradicts what Joe said:
It's pretty naive of you to think that I give a f**k what a woman who abandons her child wants. Whether that means given up for adoption or dumped on the street, the mother loses the right to make any decisions about how or with whom their child is raised.

Quesi:
Quote
My home study delved into my own childhood, the way I was disciplined by my parents, the ways I plan to discipline my own child, my commitment to education, my ability to deal with a wide range of special needs that an adoptive child may face, my values concerning race and ethnicity and my ability to raise a child of another race, including my personal and professional associations with people of a variety of races, my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), my membership in a wide range of groups and organizations, my relationships with my family members, my support systems, etc.
But what about your sex-life, Quesi? Did they ask about your orientation, your sexual history, and your current behaviour? Did they ask you if you were a paedophile?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 19, 2012, 09:47:47 PM
Azdgari, Maybe it's not relevant. I could be entirely off base and 100% wrong.

If a pedophile chooses to adopt a child that is of a sex they are not attracted to they aren't likely to have to deal with the same issues as a pedophile who chooses to adopt a child of the same sex that they are attracted.

Bath time would be safe.
Having your child sit on your lap would be safe.
There would be no involuntary sexual attractions to hide or prevent.
No temptation.

I could go on but I'm sure get the gist. Of course I took it one step further by begging a question. Since Joe decided to not pick the safe route and instead may one day may be faced with the consequences of his decisions I question his motives. I wonder if he's as sincere as he would have us believe. One could also question his sincerity based off the tone on the website where he is raising funds for his daughter. Or that he is attempting to raise 50K for a porno to help benefit the LGBT community with no links to support how they will be beneficiaries of these funds.

All I'm attempting to establish is that there are actions being made by Joe that bring in to question the safety of children when pedophiles attempt to raise children of a sex that they have an attraction for.

I'm cool with being 100% off base. If I am it won't the first or last time I'm wrong.

I'm still curious as to why you chose to assume I didn't read your post? I also hope we are on the same page now.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 19, 2012, 10:04:33 PM
If a pedophile chooses to adopt a child that is of a sex they are not attracted to they aren't likely to have to deal with the same issues as a pedophile who chooses to adopt a child of the same sex that they are attracted.

I agree 100%.  That was my only point.  And you've brought up a relevance I had not considered:  The option of adopting children of a sex one is not attracted to does call into question the motives of a pedophile who seeks to adopt a child of the sex (s)he is attracted to.  From what Joe has said, that's not his situation.  But it's a valid point re: the issue of this thread in general.  So I was wrong there.

All I'm attempting to establish is that there are actions being made by Joe that bring in to question the safety of children when pedophiles attempt to raise children of a sex that they have an attraction for.

Oh, undoubtedly.  The whole thing stinks now.

I'm still curious as to why you chose to assume I didn't read your post? I also hope we are on the same page now.

We are.  And I never assumed you didn't read it; I assumed you'd misread it.  And I was still wrong.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 20, 2012, 08:23:57 AM
Quesi:
Quote
My home study delved into my own childhood, the way I was disciplined by my parents, the ways I plan to discipline my own child, my commitment to education, my ability to deal with a wide range of special needs that an adoptive child may face, my values concerning race and ethnicity and my ability to raise a child of another race, including my personal and professional associations with people of a variety of races, my religious beliefs (or lack thereof), my membership in a wide range of groups and organizations, my relationships with my family members, my support systems, etc.
But what about your sex-life, Quesi? Did they ask about your orientation, your sexual history, and your current behaviour? Did they ask you if you were a paedophile?



No.  I was not asked specifically if I was a pedophile.  But I was asked if I had suffered any sexual abuse as a child. 

Although we know that not all victims of sexual abuse go on to become sexual abusers, a wildly disproportionate percentage of pedophiles were sexually abused as children.  Also, victims of sexual abuse, especially people who had been victimized as children, are more likely to suffer from a range of other psychological disorders, including depression, which might impact on parenting.  If I had been sexually abused as a child, I imagine that there would have been further, more probing questions.  It certainly would not have excluded me, (I know at least one adoptive parent who disclosed her childhood sexual abuse during her home study) but it would have warranted further investigation.   

I was also asked about my sexual activities, as a way of determining who else might be in the home on a regular basis and have access to a child, or to determine whether I had a string of strange men wandering in and out of my home, and presenting a threat to a child. 

I was also fingerprinted (many times) and one set of my fingerprints were submitted to the same database as US teachers in order to receive “child abuse clearance.”  Any history of child abuse would have excluded me from the pool of prospective adoptive parents.  In terms of international adoptions, many countries will not allow someone with a DUI conviction to adopt because it is seen as evidence of “poor moral character.” 

In spite of careful screenings, abuse happens.  Children in foster care are especially vulnerable to sexual abuse. 

According to New York law firm Orlow, Orlow and Orlow, as many as 75 percent of all children in the foster care system, upon leaving the system, will have experienced sexual abuse. A 2009 article written by this law firm, Sexual Abuse: An Epidemic in Foster Care Settings? cites a John Hopkins University study that discovered that the rate of sexual abuse within the foster-care system is more than four times as high as in the general population and in group homes the rate of sexual abuse is more than 28 times that of the general population. These statistics reflect only the sexual abuse that is experienced in the foster care system, not the abuse experienced from where they were apprehended. This study also shows a large problem of child-on-child sexual abuse within the system as well.

Read more at Suite101: Sex Abuse in the Foster Care System | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/sex-abuse-in-the-foster-care-system-a303097#ixzz21AVJw6yF

I think that there are multiple factors that make foster children especially vulnerable, and I really don’t think I have the emotional strength to start writing about them right now.  As I have stated in previous posts, and as Gnu has stated, child sexual abuse is about power imbalances. 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 20, 2012, 11:25:55 AM
With respect to the "pedophile vs gay" comparison in general - an adult man is considered responsible for his own actions; he can legally consent to sex.

We all know that. This has been repeated and addressed about eleventy billion times now.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are similar in that they are both involuntary sexual attractions. The subject did not choose to have those feelings. Do I seriously even have to continue explaining that? I feel like that should be a known fact at this point in the discussion.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 20, 2012, 11:31:49 AM
This has come up too many times for me to reply to each individual instance, but I must say it's disturbing how many of you seem to think that simply being attracted to children means you'd rape one if you had the chance. That's just beyond stupid.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 20, 2012, 11:40:18 AM
This has come up too many times for me to reply to each individual instance, but I must say it's disturbing how many of you seem to think that simply being attracted to children means you'd rape one if you had the chance. That's just beyond stupid.

Ok Joe.  Fair enough. 

So who does rape children? 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Seppuku on July 20, 2012, 12:02:24 PM
I think his point is:

If you're attracted to children it doesn't mean you'll rape them. There's people attracted to all sorts out there and do not rape. Heck, furries don't necessarily go around raping cats. The person attracted to a child could be a perfectly normal functioning human being with respect for morality and the law and would never harm a child. Sexual attraction doesn't mean rape, it could lead to rape, but it depends wholly on the individual. Heck, there could be twice as many child raped per paedophile than there are women raped per heterosexual, but that doesn't mean if somebody is attracted to children they're likely to rape a child in their life time.

Joe seems to perceive himself as one of those people, he's got adopted kids, is married to somebody of a legal age and he hasn't suggested that he's ever hurt a child, in fact he said he wouldn't. The fact he'd care for children in need of a loving family marks as a positive for me. Based on my impression of him, he would fit the bill, even if I don't agree with everything he says on sexuality.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 20, 2012, 12:12:04 PM
Thank you Seppuku.  I think I do understand the point he is trying to make.

Joe has argued now for months across three marathon threads that pedophiles don't molest, rape or harm children.

So I think it is fair to ask who, in Joe's opinion, is responsible for molesting and raping children. 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: albeto on July 20, 2012, 12:46:36 PM
Joe has argued now for months across three marathon threads that pedophiles don't molest, rape or harm children.

Interesting.  I come away with the impression that in the same way men who rape women don't represent all men, pedophiles who rape children don't represent all pedophiles. 

I think the difference isn't in sexual attraction but in social skills, namely recognizing empathy for a victim.  That's not limited to pedophiles any more than it's limited to men, or women, heterosexual or homosexual.  It's a class of its own that is not correlated to sexual attraction. 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: naemhni on July 20, 2012, 12:50:59 PM
Interesting.  I come away with the impression that in the same way men who rape women don't represent all men, pedophiles who rape children don't represent all pedophiles.

Right -- and in fact, contrary to popular belief, most pedophiles never act on their impulses because they know it would be wrong to do so.  Being a pedophile means only that you are sexually attracted to children, not that you lack a conscience or moral compass; that's a different and unrelated disorder.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 20, 2012, 12:56:57 PM
Interesting.  I come away with the impression that in the same way men who rape women don't represent all men, pedophiles who rape children don't represent all pedophiles.

Right -- and in fact, contrary to popular belief, most pedophiles never act on their impulses because they know it would be wrong to do so.  Being a pedophile means only that you are sexually attracted to children, not that you lack a conscience or moral compass; that's a different and unrelated disorder.

I admit that I know a lot more about the victims of sexual abuse than I do about the perpetrators of that abuse, but the Harvard Medical School published an article two years ago which agrees with many of the arguments that Joe has made.  But it goes on to say:

Several reports have concluded that most people with pedophilic tendencies eventually act on their sexual urges in some way. Typically this involves exposing themselves to children, watching naked children, masturbating in front of children, or touching children's genitals. Oral, anal, or vaginal penetration is less common.

Fears about predatory behavior are valid. Most pedophiles who act on their impulses do so by manipulating children and gradually desensitizing them to inappropriate behavior. Then they escalate it. Pedophiles are able to do this because in most cases they already know the children or have access to them. In about 60% to 70% of child sexual abuse cases involving pedophiles, the perpetrator is a relative, neighbor, family friend, teacher, coach, clergyman, or someone else in regular contact with the child. Strangers are less likely to sexually abuse children — although they are more likely to commit violent assaults when they do.


http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: albeto on July 20, 2012, 01:10:38 PM
Hi Albeto,

Reading your post, I'm not sure why you're arguing with me; we seem to be in agreement on many points of this.

Could be.  :)

I hope you don't mind my using this as an opportunity to sharpen my reasoning skills anyway.  I'm not really sure where I stand, I just desire to identify and reject ideas that have always been held "just because," as many of them (for me personally) are rooted in religion with a moral code that depends on an external source of justice.  I reject that now and I find many of my otherwise "natural" ethics rationalized only because of that.  I'm not suggesting pedophilia is an appropriate relationship model now just because it's rejected in my former religion, but if it's going to be inappropriate, the reasons have to be grounded in more than "just because" or "ew."  I know that's not what you're advocating, I'm just trying to explain myself and my purpose in this discussion.  Still, I hope you don't mind.  I do appreciate your attention to my questions. 

I'm sure it is; the test-case is a 31-year-old man, because that's Joe's age, and an 11-year-old girl, because that was the age of the model he posted in the other thread as an example of someone he found sexually attractive.

She was 11?  Wow, coulda fooled me!  I recall hanging out with a friend of mine in a hostel when he started flirting with this woman.  She was cute as a button, laughed at all his jokes, they got along really well.  She made some comment some teen movie star (Corey Haimes, I think) and he realized she was younger than she looked.  She was, I think 13, and he was 22 or 23 at the time.  I swear to gods she appeared at least 17 to me, and I had no reason to rationalize her looking older.  He was crushed because her age was a turn-off for him, but the attraction he first felt was completely involuntary.   A photo of an 11 year old who looks like she could be 16 doesn't suggest to me that 11 is the general attractive age.  I live in the United States and most 11 year olds still look more like kids than adults to me.  In Asia I think that's even more the case (just guessing), but I also get the impression most mature Asian women have the kind of body structure that could pass as teens in the U.S.

Quote
It's a fact that step-children are more likely to be sexually abused by their parents than biological children. That's a good reason to be vigilant in those scenarios, and it's why adoption agencies' enquiries are so intense.

Vigilant to the point of denial of privileges just because they could be abused?  Why the special privileges for step-dads, priests, teachers, and therapists (everyone but pedophiles) then? What's the difference?  Why are pedophiles more dangerous given the same conditions as others who could (and do) abuse certain relationships? 

That's not the same as being a parent 24/7.

True enough, but my job was considerably more awkward and potentially dangerous than anything I've done as a parent.  It's part of being a mature, responsible adult to compartmentalize one's life into appropriate outlets.  Women expect that from their gynecologists, men expect that from their proctologists, patients expect that from their therapists, step and foster daughters expect that from their step and foster fathers.  Not everyone gets it, and I don't mean to trivialize this because the trauma is great and can (and often does) last a lifetime. 

But I'm not addressing the trauma, I'm addressing the idea that pedophiles are in some way less capable than non-pedophiles when it comes to suppressing an involuntary, physiological response to a given stimuli.  I don't yet know why that is.  Is it just an assumption because pedophilia is a natural kind of taboo and we naturally feel repulsed at the idea?  If so, that feeling isn't evidence for the legitimacy of the claim.  Are pedophiles more prone to abusing people they are attracted to than other groups who could (and sometimes do) abuse relationships in which they have the emotional and mental upper hand?  It could be the case,  I just don't know that we really have the data on this one way or the other. 

[
You may consider it so, but I'd still like to know your answer.

I don't doubt that.  It's a loaded question, though, and a red herring, and appeal to emotion, fear, and other subtle and not so subtle problems.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: albeto on July 20, 2012, 01:16:05 PM
Several reports have concluded that most people with pedophilic tendencies eventually act on their sexual urges in some way.

Thanks for the info and the link.  Do you think this statistic is accurate with regards to "most people with pedophilic tendencies" or are they basing this statistic on those people who were identified as pedophiles?  I'm thinking, like is common with many groups, members don't come forward to identify themselves (maybe they don't recognize the identification themselves?).  I can only imagine there are more pedophiles than we have information about, and that as a group the general behaviors and thought processes are relatively unknown, but that's just speculation on my part. 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 20, 2012, 01:23:00 PM
This has come up too many times for me to reply to each individual instance, but I must say it's disturbing how many of you seem to think that simply being attracted to children means you'd rape one if you had the chance. That's just beyond stupid.
Who has said that, Joe? I know I never have.

Seems like another of your strawmen.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: naemhni on July 20, 2012, 01:30:20 PM
Do you think this statistic is accurate with regards to "most people with pedophilic tendencies" or are they basing this statistic on those people who were identified as pedophiles?  I'm thinking, like is common with many groups, members don't come forward to identify themselves (maybe they don't recognize the identification themselves?).  I can only imagine there are more pedophiles than we have information about, and that as a group the general behaviors and thought processes are relatively unknown, but that's just speculation on my part.

I wonder about that myself.  I know that if I were a pedophile, I would almost certainly not disclose the fact to anyone at all, regardless of the circumstances.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 20, 2012, 01:37:37 PM
Several reports have concluded that most people with pedophilic tendencies eventually act on their sexual urges in some way.

Thanks for the info and the link.  Do you think this statistic is accurate with regards to "most people with pedophilic tendencies" or are they basing this statistic on those people who were identified as pedophiles? I'm thinking, like is common with many groups, members don't come forward to identify themselves (maybe they don't recognize the identification themselves?).  I can only imagine there are more pedophiles than we have information about, and that as a group the general behaviors and thought processes are relatively unknown, but that's just speculation on my part.
Bold mine

Good question Albeto.  I don't pretend to know that answer to that question.  I've always thought that priests were a very interesting example.  I believe that they enter the priesthood genuinely believing that they will commit themselves to a life of celibacy.  And I assume that most of them do.  However, we are all familiar with the fact that a large number of boys and girls are molested annually by members of the priesthood. 

I also think that it is interesting that the article makes a distinction between what it classifies as those who fit the "strict definition of pedophilia" and other offenders. 

It goes on to say:  Researchers also do not agree about what proportion of child sex abusers are pedophiles. Other types of offenders include sexually curious or abusive adolescents who molest younger children, hypersexual adults who opportunistically target children, and people who act impulsively (rather than in response to erotic attachment) under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Moreover, about half of all child sexual abuse victims are 12 to 17 years old (postpubescent), so their assailants don't meet the strict definition of pedophilia.

The study seems to be very "first world" based in that it does not take into account the increased sexual assault rate, especially of children, in situations in which there are extreme power imbalances, such as war zones, refugee camps, prison-like situations that house children, slavery, forced marriage, etc.  Nor does it address the first world power imbalance situations, such as the study on sexual abuse in foster care that I linked earlier today. 

What I do know is that there is a huge disconnect between the number of sexual assaults committed against children and teens, and the prosecutions for those assaults.  The vast majority of perpetrators go unidentified, and the vast majority of assaults go unreported.  The foster care case illustrates that in the most extreme terms. 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: jaimehlers on July 20, 2012, 01:50:39 PM
I wonder how much of the sexual activity that pedophiles engage in requires an actual child to be present?

For example, let's say you have someone with a less-standard sexual fetish, say they get sexually aroused by transgender transformation or humanoid furries.  Neither of those fetishes is likely to ever have someone who can truly satisfy it (not until someone comes up with an over-the-counter genetic transformation drug or something equally unplausible).  So it's entirely possible that the full extent of their sexual activity may amount to no more than masturbation to erotic stories and/or pictures on the subject matter.

The point being that some, perhaps many or even most pedophiles may satisfy their sexual urges in a similar (safe) fashion.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 20, 2012, 02:01:29 PM
I wonder how much of the sexual activity that pedophiles engage in requires an actual child to be present?

For example, let's say you have someone with a less-standard sexual fetish, say they get sexually aroused by transgender transformation or humanoid furries.  Neither of those fetishes is likely to ever have someone who can truly satisfy it (not until someone comes up with an over-the-counter genetic transformation drug or something equally unplausible).  So it's entirely possible that the full extent of their sexual activity may amount to no more than masturbation to erotic stories and/or pictures on the subject matter.

The point being that some, perhaps many or even most pedophiles may satisfy their sexual urges in a similar (safe) fashion.

If I understand it, that is one of the main arguments for legalizing child pornography.  If Mr. Smith gets to watch videos of some little girl in Thailand getting raped, he is less likely to go in and bother his daughter's buddies when they are there for a pajama party. 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: jaimehlers on July 20, 2012, 02:11:32 PM
If said child pornography involves an actual child being raped, then it should stay illegal, both to produce, to distribute, and to own.

If it's fictional (say CGI or animated), I would at least be willing to tolerate its production, distribution, and ownership.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 20, 2012, 02:14:22 PM
Interesting.  I come away with the impression that in the same way men who rape women don't represent all men, pedophiles who rape children don't represent all pedophiles.
Right -- and in fact, contrary to popular belief, most pedophiles never act on their impulses because they know it would be wrong to do so. 
That may be true (do you have any figures, PD?), but I think you'll find that many such paedophiles try to stay away from childen completely in order to reduce temptation - just as dry alcoholics tend not to spend their time in bars or pubs.

Adopting a child would be the opposite of that strategy. If he started to be sexually attracted to the child, the temptation would be unrelenting.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: naemhni on July 20, 2012, 02:22:57 PM
most pedophiles never act on their impulses because they know it would be wrong to do so.

That may be true (do you have any figures, PD?),

Not readily at hand, no.  I've seen research on this in the past, but it's been a while.  Dan Savage also mentions this occasionally in his column, "Savage Love".

Quote
but I think you'll find that many such paedophiles try to stay away from childen completely in order to reduce temptation - just as dry alcoholics tend not to spend their time in bars or pubs.

I think that's very likely, yes.  That's certainly the advice I would give to a pedophile struggling with his problem.  Dan Savage said the same thing to a pedophile who wrote to him for advice once about, IIRC, a job he was interested in applying for that involved a lot of working with children, saying he thought he'd be able to handle it properly.  Savage said he was nuts and exhorted him not to take the job.

Quote
Adopting a child would be the opposite of that strategy. If he started to be sexually attracted to the child, the temptation would be unrelenting.

Yep.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 20, 2012, 02:40:36 PM
But what about your sex-life, Quesi? Did they ask about your orientation, your sexual history, and your current behaviour? Did they ask you if you were a paedophile?
No.  I was not asked specifically if I was a pedophile.
Interesting. I wonder why not - it's a simple question, after all. And I'm sure that many of the other questions were designed to answer it.

Quote
I was also asked about my sexual activities, as a way of determining who else might be in the home on a regular basis and have access to a child, or to determine whether I had a string of strange men wandering in and out of my home, and presenting a threat to a child.
Fair enough.

It does strike me as a little surreal that any adult can have a child of their own, regardless of their lifestyle, criminal record, age or financial position etc. But if an adult wants to raise someone else's child, they have to prove their competence and suitability.

But I don't see how else the system could operate...

Quote
In spite of careful screenings, abuse happens.
Yes, and in those situations, the blame is assigned not only to the adoptive parents, but to the authorities who gave them the child. Hence their caution... 

Quote
Children in foster care are especially vulnerable to sexual abuse. 

According to New York law firm Orlow, Orlow and Orlow, as many as 75 percent of all children in the foster care system, upon leaving the system, will have experienced sexual abuse. A 2009 article written by this law firm, Sexual Abuse: An Epidemic in Foster Care Settings? cites a John Hopkins University study that discovered that the rate of sexual abuse within the foster-care system is more than four times as high as in the general population and in group homes the rate of sexual abuse is more than 28 times that of the general population.
That's awful; thanks for the link.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 20, 2012, 03:33:12 PM
By the way, someone just PM'd me to thank me for starting this thread, and I replied that I didn't start it - my OP and the first 4/5 replies were originally posted on another thread, and the mods split them off.

Hence the rather odd thread title, in which I'm apparently referring to myself in the third person - which Gnu happens to think is a rather pretentious affectation, which he would never employ himself.

Actually, now that I think of it, it's a little misleading for the mods to split off a thread and not tell people in the new thread what they've done. Perhaps people have been reading this thread and trying to work out why I started it and what my agenda is (and why I'm so pretentious). Maybe Joe thinks I'm pursuing him aggressively by starting threads critical of him. All of which speculation would be a waste of time.

PD, you're the mod here; why don't you edit my OP so it starts:

NB: This thread was split from another one, not started by Gnu - Mod.

That would help.  :)


Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Traveler on July 20, 2012, 03:36:52 PM
Thanks for the clarification Gnu. I'm not the person who PM'ed you, but I had wondered why you were targeting him so directly in the OP. This makes a lot more sense.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: naemhni on July 20, 2012, 04:14:27 PM
PD, you're the mod here; why don't you edit my OP so it starts:

NB: This thread was split from another one, not started by Gnu - Mod.

That would help.  :)

Looks like Traveler already got it.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 20, 2012, 05:48:17 PM
Hi Albeto, Reading your post, I'm not sure why you're arguing with me; we seem to be in agreement on many points of this.
Could be.  :)
OK.

Quote
I hope you don't mind my using this as an opportunity to sharpen my reasoning skills anyway.  I'm not really sure where I stand, I just desire to identify and reject ideas that have always been held "just because," as many of them (for me personally) are rooted in religion with a moral code that depends on an external source of justice.
That's cool, Albeto. You're talking about received wisdom, and you're now sceptical of it. 

The major problem with this discussion is the absence of data. We don't know how many paedophiles/hebephiles adopt children; and more importantly we don't know what proportion of children are abused by those people.

If we knew that 90% of paedophiles abused their adopted children, we could justify forbidding all paedophiles from adopting children, on the grounds that the risk was too high; if it was only 1%, we might accept that level of risk.

But we don't have those figures; so it would make sense to err on the side of caution.

Quote
I'm sure it is; the test-case is a 31-year-old man, because that's Joe's age, and an 11-year-old girl, because that was the age of the model he posted in the other thread as an example of someone he found sexually attractive.
She was 11? Wow, coulda fooled me!
You were supposed to be fooled. But I still think that Joe's point was spurious. See below.

My bolding:
Quote
I recall hanging out with a friend of mine in a hostel when he started flirting with this woman.  She was cute as a button, laughed at all his jokes, they got along really well.  She made some comment some teen movie star (Corey Haimes, I think) and he realized she was younger than she looked.  She was, I think 13, and he was 22 or 23 at the time.  I swear to gods she appeared at least 17 to me, and I had no reason to rationalize her looking older.  He was crushed because her age was a turn-off for him,
Right, and that's how it should be. Such a relationship would be inappropriate, and your friend felt that, on a gut level.

When I saw Joe's photo, I guessed that she was 13. And I asked myself whether I should feel guilty for thinking that she was attractive.

So I asked myself whether I had ever felt sexual attraction for a 13-year-old before. And whether I had ever acted on those feelings.

And the answer to both those questions is yes. When I was 14, I fell in love for the first time with a beautiful girl named Rosamund. Who was 13. She fell in love with me and we went out for eighteen months. Seriously, she was gorgeous; long blond hair, she played tennis, she introduced me to Deep Purple. I was well smitten.

We never had full sex, too young; but we spent hours and hours learning how to kiss (in the back-row of the cinema, as tradition demanded - do kids still do that these days?), and generally exploring and fooling around.

And this sexual activity with a 13-year-old was entirely appropriate, given my age. We did what kids do.

So when I look at Joe's photo, I can easily re-connect with the 14-year-old I used to be, and look at her through his eyes; but then I look at her through my 58-year-old eyes, and I'm turned off, as your friend was.

Quote
Quote
It's a fact that step-children are more likely to be sexually abused by their parents than biological children. That's a good reason to be vigilant in those scenarios, and it's why adoption agencies' enquiries are so intense.
Vigilant to the point of denial of privileges just because they could be abused?  Why the special privileges for step-dads, priests, teachers, and therapists (everyone but pedophiles) then? What's the difference?  Why are pedophiles more dangerous given the same conditions as others who could (and do) abuse certain relationships?
The data problem again; I don't know whether paedophiles are in fact less trustworthy.

Quote
That's not the same as being a parent 24/7.
True enough, but my job was considerably more awkward and potentially dangerous than anything I've done as a parent.  It's part of being a mature, responsible adult to compartmentalize one's life into appropriate outlets.  Women expect that from their gynecologists, men expect that from their proctologists, patients expect that from their therapists,
But those relationships aren't 24/7, that's my point. A gynecologist can stop being a gynecologist when he leaves the office. A paedophile is always a paedophile, and the adopted child is always present.

Quote
But I'm not addressing the trauma, I'm addressing the idea that pedophiles are in some way less capable than non-pedophiles when it comes to suppressing an involuntary, physiological response to a given stimuli.
I'm not asserting that paedophiles are less capable; but it's the data problem again; we don't know if they are or not.


Quote
I just don't know that we really have the data on this one way or the other.
Oh right, you already said this.  :-[ 

Quote
You may consider it so, but I'd still like to know your answer.
I don't doubt that.  It's a loaded question, though...
It's not a loaded question; a loaded question is a logical fallacy where the question contains an assumption - the classic example being, have you stopped beating your wife? What you mean is that you don't like the implications of the answer...

Quote
and a red herring,
I don't think it is.

Quote
and appeal to emotion, fear, and other subtle and not so subtle problems.
It's not an appeal to fear; we're trying to calculate risk, which isn't an exact science.

And yet, I think that people's emotions are significant and relevant when making these kind of decisions. Emotions are informative.

So please do me the favour of answering, Albeto. Here's the question again:
Quote
Would you be happy for a (true) paedophile to bathe your 4-year-old daughter? Even though he assured you that he would never act on his sexual feelings for her, and that he would ignore his erection? And let's say he's trustworthy and he keeps his word - though he goes off later to masturbate alone about the experience. Would you be cool with that?
Actually, you don't need to answer; I'm just going to assume that your answer is No. Because, if it was Yes, you would have simply said so by now.

And the implication is that if you're not prepared to put your own daughter through that experience, then nobody's daughter should go through it.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: albeto on July 20, 2012, 08:29:47 PM
The major problem with this discussion is the absence of data. We don't know how many paedophiles/hebephiles adopt children; and more importantly we don't know what proportion of children are abused by those people.

If we knew that 90% of paedophiles abused their adopted children, we could justify forbidding all paedophiles from adopting children, on the grounds that the risk was too high; if it was only 1%, we might accept that level of risk.

But we don't have those figures; so it would make sense to err on the side of caution.

Totally agreed. 

But...

In what way are we assuming there's a need to err on the side of caution in a way we've rejected for every other non-typical sexual orientation?  We don't assume (as much anymore) homosexuals "groom" people to brainwash them into thinking gay sex is okay.  We don't assume transgendered people are a danger to society.  We don't err on the side of caution when it comes to children working with priests and teachers and step-parents and other groups known to have members take advantage of kids.  What is it about the group of pedophiles that makes them more likely than others to take advantage of a situation to satisfy their own sense of gratification at the cost of a child when the same situation is ignored for others?  You bring up adoption and I think that's a fair point about growing intimacy with children living in the home, but living with a child day in and day out renders them more like family than not, so I would suspect that element would be reduced.  But again, we have no data (or I don't know of any), so I'm just wondering why this group is considered more dangerous than others. 

Right, and that's how it should be. Such a relationship would be inappropriate, and your friend felt that, on a gut level.

To repeat Joe's question, what does "should" have to do with an involuntary physiological reaction?

When I saw Joe's photo, I guessed that she was 13. And I asked myself whether I should feel guilty for thinking that she was attractive.

So I asked myself whether I had ever felt sexual attraction for a 13-year-old before. And whether I had ever acted on those feelings.

And the answer to both those questions is yes. When I was 14, I fell in love for the first time with a beautiful girl named Rosamund. Who was 13. She fell in love with me and we went out for eighteen months. Seriously, she was gorgeous; long blond hair, she played tennis, she introduced me to Deep Purple. I was well smitten.

We never had full sex, too young; but we spent hours and hours learning how to kiss (in the back-row of the cinema, as tradition demanded - do kids still do that these days?), and generally exploring and fooling around.

And this sexual activity with a 13-year-old was entirely appropriate, given my age. We did what kids do.

So when I look at Joe's photo, I can easily re-connect with the 14-year-old I used to be, and look at her through his eyes; but then I look at her through my 58-year-old eyes, and I'm turned off, as your friend was.

So this experience of yours is typical.  It falls solidly on the bell curve of emotional responses to these kinds of situations.  That alone doesn't render it "right," is all I'm saying.  For what it's worth, at age 13 all my crushes were on men older than 25.  I thought teen boys looked (and behaved) rather childishly.  I don't think it means anything either, except as another illustration of the variety of human sexual behavior.   

The data problem again; I don't know whether paedophiles are in fact less trustworthy.

That's exactly why I can't simply agree and be done with it.  I don't mind being wrong, I just want a reason to hang my hat on, know what I mean?  And for me, the emotional repulsion isn't a valid reason because it's too subjective and not, in and of itself, indicative of a reasoned argument. 

But those relationships aren't 24/7, that's my point. A gynecologist can stop being a gynecologist when he leaves the office. A paedophile is always a paedophile, and the adopted child is always present.

A gynecologist has a woman in an enormously vulnerable position.  Such a doctor could quite easily take advantage of the situation for his/her own sexual gain.  Many (most?) patients trust their health care professionals and if a doctor says, "I'm going to do XYZ now," we assume there's a reason, clench our teeth, try not to think about how uncomfortable it is, and wait patiently for the touching to stop.  Therapists work with patients over months and years, getting them to expose their most vulnerable fears and desires.  If I recall correctly, therapists are statistically a bit more likely to abuse a patient sexually than a priest (although my source might be flawed - I don't recall).  What I'm getting at is that abuse of relationship can happen in many contexts, pedophilia being but one of them.  We don't assume most therapists, most priests, or most doctors are going to abuse their status and gain the upper hand for their own sexual gratification.  But we do assume most pedophiles will.  What's the difference?  What do pedophiles have, or lack, that other potential abusers don't? 

I'm not asserting that paedophiles are less capable; but it's the data problem again; we don't know if they are or not.

Which is why I'm confused as to why the assumption is there.  I recognize it's a traditional assumption, but we're talking about reason and logic here.  We're picking apart the details to find out if the traditional assumption is accurate.  It may turn out to be that way and prevention of abuse is certainly more virtuous.  That's why, as much as this conversation is difficult for me on an emotional level, I'm trying to figure out just what these details are. 

It's not a loaded question; a loaded question is a logical fallacy where the question contains an assumption - the classic example being, have you stopped beating your wife? What you mean is that you don't like the implications of the answer...[/quote]

Right - it's loaded in that you're essentially asking, albeto, are you okay with putting your four year old daughter in the tub for a pedophile to bathe?  I'm damned if I say yes, then I expose myself as some kind of sick mother who would willingly offer her child up for rape (which is the scenario I interpret you to be implying).  If I say no, then I admit that I don't trust adults who are attracted to young adults (post-pubescent but considered pedophile according to law) to be capable, nurturing, responsible parents.  Besides, you're talking about a four year old and I'm not even considering that for this discussion.  For me that's a whole 'nuther thing. 

I don't think it is.

I think so in that it distracts the conversation from the kind of person who fits the legal definition of pedophile by virtue of being sexually attracted to young adults (post pubescent), to a conversation about a four year girl old being emotionally
 groomed for sex with an adult man. 

It's not an appeal to fear; we're trying to calculate risk, which isn't an exact science.

Without data, we're calculating it on emotional response, I suspect. 

And yet, I think that people's emotions are significant and relevant when making these kind of decisions. Emotions are informative.

Agreed, but not comprehensive enough to let stand alone. 

Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 20, 2012, 09:06:59 PM
If it's fictional (say CGI or animated), I would at least be willing to tolerate its production, distribution, and ownership.

The word tolerate here is interesting, and further demonstrates my point that pedophiles are persecuted for thought crime. If there is no victim involved in the production, and it leads to fewer sexual assaults against real children, why the hesitation? I believe this is social conditioning. You've been taught all of your live to villify pedophiles and despite logical arguments that they are not nearly as dangerous as you have been lead to believe, your kneejerk reaction is still to punish and control them.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 20, 2012, 09:13:20 PM
Homosexuality and pedophilia are similar in that they are both involuntary sexual attractions.

They are also similar in that they both occur in human beings.  They are dissimilar in ways that invalidate their use as analogous substitutes for each other in the context of this thread.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 20, 2012, 09:49:16 PM
Homosexuality and pedophilia are similar in that they are both involuntary sexual attractions.

They are dissimilar in ways that invalidate their use as analogous substitutes for each other in the context of this thread.

That is not necessarily true. It would depend on the situation. For example, I assume most of you would be uncomfortable leaving your child in the care of a pedophile. So I would ask, would you be uncomfortable leaving a male coma patient in the care of a homosexual nurse?

That is a valid analogous situation, is it not? The attraction is present, the possible victim is vulnerable. Yet I believe the second situation gives you more pause. Why? Modern social conditioning has taught us that it's incorrect to assume the worst of homosexuals, but no such consideration has been extended to pedophiles. It is simply assumed that the pedophile is a rabid amoral opportunistic rapist but where the gay nurse is concerned, let's give him the benefit of doubt.

As Albeto mentioned, how about a gay proctologist, or even a straight gynecologist? Albeto said it very well when she asked why pedophiles were singled out as dangerous while others in similar situations are given a pass.

Quesi linked a study from Harvard that she seemed to believe gave evidence that the discrimination against pedophiles was warranted, however as it's been pointed out by others, any such study is highly flawed as their data represents a biased fraction of the pedophile population. If you read the study, the first half of it is a note about the limitations of their research. Their data comes from interviewing convicted pedophiles in prison.

That would be like interviewing convicted car thieves and then concluding that anyone who likes cars is likely to steal one. It's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and it's ignoring the fact that the vast majority of pedophiles out there do not act on their compulsions and live normal lives. Frankly it's fear mongering and an institution like Harvard should be ashamed of publishing it.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 20, 2012, 11:39:35 PM
We're using Joe's definition of paedophile, attraction to a post-pubescent child; e.g. a 31-year-old and a post-pubescent 11-year-old.
Fixed that for you.
Joe, since you're the one insisting on calling yourself a paedophile when you're not, you're not in a position to be pedantic about my terminology.

Well, since you originally said "Joe's definition of paedophile, attraction to a post-pubescent child" and then gave an example of "a 31-year-old and a pubescent 11-year-old" I thought I was correcting your mistake. I apologize, apparently it was your intention to write a nonsensical sentence that conflicts with it's own definition.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 20, 2012, 11:50:31 PM
I wonder if he's as sincere as he would have us believe. One could also question his sincerity based off the tone on the website where he is raising funds for his daughter. Or that he is attempting to raise 50K for a porno to help benefit the LGBT community with no links to support how they will be beneficiaries of these funds.

What's wrong with trying to raise money for my daughter's operation? If anyone but me had posted that it wouldn't even have raised an eyebrow.

And regarding the One Million Moms porn parody, I didn't post that here to raise money, I already posted it on Reddit where I can get far more views. I only posted it here because I thought some of you would be interested in knowing that someone was taking a shot at One Million Moms, a conservative religious anti-gay organization. It wasn't even my idea, someone half-jokingly suggested it on Reddit and it got a lot of support so I decided to try to make it happen.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 12:06:47 AM
Can you not question the motives of someone who chooses to adopt the very sex (and in this situation race) that is their primary attraction? IMO it's a very telling sign that the intent may not be as pure as we would be led to believe.

I think what you mean to say is age, not sex or race. You wouldn't have a problem with a heterosexual man adopting an Asian girl, would you? The problem is a pedophile adopting a child, right? Well, isn't it normal to adopt children while they're children? I mean, it's pretty rare for someone to adopt an 18 year old.

Also, there was no motive. Your use of that word makes me chuckle, I imagine you wearing thick glasses and a tin foil hat, dreaming up these conspiracies in a dimly-lit basement. I didn't choose to adopt them. When I met my wife I didn't even know she had kids. They live with her parents, and she didn't even tell me about them for the first three months we were together. She thought I might leave her because of her 'baggage'.

I don't see why the pedophile would want to torment themselves with daily temptation, unless they enjoyed something more than the love a parent shares with their child.

Yes, it's inconceivable that a pedophile could want to be a parent for the sheer joy of parenthood. They must have ulterior motives.

By your logic a gay man would not have any straight male friends or a male doctor wouldn't treat women, unless they enjoyed something more than friendship or helping people. After all, why else would they torment themselves with daily temptation?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: none on July 21, 2012, 12:37:43 AM
"sheer joy of parenthood"???????
what does this mean?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 01:04:35 AM
"sheer joy of parenthood"???????
what does this mean?

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or do not understand English.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: none on July 21, 2012, 01:10:52 AM
"sheer joy of parenthood"???????
what does this mean?

I honestly can't tell if you're being sarcastic or do not understand English.
seems like a code word for selfishness.
what does it really mean?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 01:23:04 AM
seems like a code word for selfishness.
what does it really mean?

Are you asking me why people enjoy having children? Seriously? Are you new to Earth? Welcome. You'll love the tiny muffins.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: none on July 21, 2012, 01:32:32 AM
seems like a code word for selfishness.
what does it really mean?

Are you asking me why people enjoy having children? Seriously? Are you new to Earth? Welcome. You'll love the tiny muffins.
yes, I am.
and more specifically why is it that you enjoy having children?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 05:12:42 AM
and more specifically why is it that you enjoy having children?

They're fun. you get to live through their eyes and see things again for the first time, they first time they experience something it feels like you get to experience it all over again.

They're cute. You can buy them cute clothes and take cute pictures with them. They do cute poses and say cute things.

They're stupid. When you're not laughing with them, you can laugh at them. They don't know how to do things, how to use things, how to say things. It's hilarious. They think they know everything, when in truth they know almost nothing.

They do stuff. You can make them wash dishes and do laundry while you watch TV.

They need you. They fall down, hurt themselves, get a booboo, they want daddy to patch them up, and it's nice to feel like a hero.

Any other obvious things you already know that I can pretend to answer for you?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: HAL on July 21, 2012, 06:55:33 AM
I would think a puppy or kitten will satisfy most of those needs.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 07:16:46 AM
I would think a puppy or kitten will satisfy most of those needs.

I don't mind letting my dog do the dishes, but my wife hates it. I don't know why.

I'm guessing you don't have kids Hal, or do you honestly think a pet would be an adequate replacement for them?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: none on July 21, 2012, 07:48:01 AM
and more specifically why is it that you enjoy having children?
Any other obvious things you already know that I can pretend to answer for you?
at what age do you prepare them to defend themselves against sexual predators?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: HAL on July 21, 2012, 07:50:49 AM
I'm guessing you don't have kids Hal, or do you honestly think a pet would be an adequate replacement for them?

Sure. Lot's of people choose not to have kids, but rather pets. My pets (cats) are my kids.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: none on July 21, 2012, 08:02:05 AM
I'm guessing you don't have kids Hal, or do you honestly think a pet would be an adequate replacement for them?

Sure. Lot's of people choose not to have kids, but rather pets. My pets (cats) are my kids.
pets are not equivalent to children, unless you worry about them being held hostage and raped if they go missing for even a short period of time.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: HAL on July 21, 2012, 08:04:14 AM
pets are not equivalent to children, unless you worry about them being held hostage and raped if they go missing for even a short period of time.

I could care less what you think about it.  :)
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: none on July 21, 2012, 08:06:15 AM
it is just my opinion. HAL nothing more.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 08:13:47 AM
at what age do you prepare them to defend themselves against sexual predators?

Perhaps you should purchase a book about raising children. I'm sure your local bookstore has several such volumes that can answer your questions. Look in the self-help section under stop being a fucking troll.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: none on July 21, 2012, 08:14:40 AM
at what age do you prepare them to defend themselves against sexual predators?

Perhaps you should purchase a book about raising children. I'm sure your local bookstore has several such volumes that can answer your questions. Look in the self-help section under stop being a fucking troll.
nice dodge.
I must have hit a nerve.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 08:15:27 AM
I could care less what you think about it.  :)

You couldn't care less. Saying that you could care less means that you do care.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 21, 2012, 08:18:14 AM
I agree with Joe about the joys and challenges of raising children.   I am also an adoptive parent, and although I cannot imagine more joy if my daughter were my biological daughter, there are certainly a more complex set of challenges. 

Joe, I'm assuming that you do not have a birth certificate for Hai Feng.  Were you able to get a national id card for her?  If you needed to get her a passport, could you?  Or is she completely off the grid?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 21, 2012, 08:44:59 AM
at what age do you prepare them to defend themselves against sexual predators?

I think this is a valid question. Joe if you want people to trust your sincerity perhaps you could show us the other sides of your humanity. Have you or do you plan on having this talk with your children? If not how come? I've had it with my 8 year old, I can't recall the exact age we had the first talk but I believe it was around 5.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Timtheskeptic on July 21, 2012, 09:14:39 AM
That is not necessarily true. It would depend on the situation. For example, I assume most of you would be uncomfortable leaving your child in the care of a pedophile. So I would ask, would you be uncomfortable leaving a male coma patient in the care of a homosexual nurse?

(Facepalm) That Joe is asinine! That is insinuating that gays cannot control themselves or that they're  attracted to anything that has a penis. I'm bi, i'm not attracted to every penis and vagina in the world. Goddamn. (Facepalm) And besides, that's different! No gays or lesbian are attracted to all of the same sex. They, like straights, have attraction to some people.

Quote
That is a valid analogous situation, is it not?

No Joe, it isn't. That's insinuating that gays will take advantage of anyone of the same gender. That's bull!

Quote
The attraction is present, the possible victim is vulnerable. Yet I believe the second situation gives you more pause. Why? Modern social conditioning has taught us that it's incorrect to assume the worst of homosexuals, but no such consideration has been extended to pedophiles. It is simply assumed that the pedophile is a rabid amoral opportunistic rapist but where the gay nurse is concerned, let's give him the benefit of doubt.

Homosexuals are very much like any heterosexuals, they're not going to lose control over anything that has the same genitalia as them.

Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Timtheskeptic on July 21, 2012, 09:19:03 AM
I'm guessing you don't have kids Hal, or do you honestly think a pet would be an adequate replacement for them?

Sure. Lot's of people choose not to have kids, but rather pets. My pets (cats) are my kids.

I for one don't want to have kids. I don't have a problem with kids, but ijust don't think i can handle the little tornadoes in the house.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Zankuu on July 21, 2012, 09:31:02 AM
(Facepalm) That Joe is asinine! That is insinuating that gays cannot control themselves or that they're  attracted to anything that has a penis. I'm bi, i'm not attracted to every penis and vagina in the world. Goddamn. (Facepalm) And besides, that's different! No gays or lesbian are attracted to all of the same sex. They, like straights, have attraction to some people.

Tim, I don't find it asinine. If you're insulted then I believe Joe has made his point. Of course not all gay men are unable to control themselves, just as not all pedophiles are unable to control themselves. Some homosexuals become rapists and some pedophiles become rapists. In the past I've had a gay man attempt to slip a drug in my beer with the goal of, if I had to guess, taking me home. Does this mean I should distrust all gay men? Of course not. I believe this is Joe's point. Although I will admit the situation is a little different when it comes to children.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 10:42:33 AM
Joe, I'm assuming that you do not have a birth certificate for Hai Feng.  Were you able to get a national id card for her?  If you needed to get her a passport, could you?  Or is she completely off the grid?

Sure, we have a birth certificate. Kids that young don't have ID cards but we can get one.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 10:43:53 AM
Although I will admit the situation is a little different when it comes to children.

How is it different when my example was a defenseless coma patient?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 10:44:58 AM
(Facepalm) That Joe is asinine!

Ding ding ding ding ding! Give the man a cookie.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 10:55:29 AM
I think this is a valid question. Joe if you want people to trust your sincerity perhaps you could show us the other sides of your humanity. Have you or do you plan on having this talk with your children?

Isn't it obvious at this point that I don't care what any of you think of me? I've already told my wife she should talk to them, she said she has once, but I don't know what she said or what advice she gave them. In a couple of years we'll give them a more serious talk.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Zankuu on July 21, 2012, 11:00:00 AM
How is it different when my example was a defenseless coma patient?

It isn't. You're correct. I'll retract that last statement. It's difficult overcoming the "feeling" it should be different.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Zankuu on July 21, 2012, 11:02:48 AM
Joe, I'm not sure if this has been asked, but how does your wife feel about your sexual attraction toward young girls? Is she fine with it? If so, has she always been, or was it difficult for her to understand and accept?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 21, 2012, 11:03:35 AM
I think this is a valid question. Joe if you want people to trust your sincerity perhaps you could show us the other sides of your humanity. Have you or do you plan on having this talk with your children?

Isn't it obvious at this point that I don't care what any of you think of me? I've already told my wife she should talk to them, she said she has once, but I don't know what she said or what advice she gave them. In a couple of years we'll give them a more serious talk.

Ok, that's fair. I was attempting to use it as a stepping to help understand your stance. If you don't wish for anyone to understand pedophiles or to fight for equality then I guess we have nothing else to discuss on this matter.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 11:33:35 AM
Joe, I'm not sure if this has been asked, but how does your wife feel about your sexual attraction toward young girls? Is she fine with it? If so, has she always been, or was it difficult for her to understand and accept?

I will explain yet again that I am attracted to sexually developed post pubescent females and that almost all men share this attraction. I am pretty sure it's common knowledge among women that men like sexy teens, and trust them to keep it in their pants, as it were.

Many of the men here admitted sexual attraction to an 11 year old. How many of you told your wives? Was it difficult for them to understand and accept?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Zankuu on July 21, 2012, 11:50:55 AM
joe, I saw the image of that 11 year old you're talking about. I thought she was cute and that she would become quite a beautiful woman. What I didn't think about was having sex with her or trying to find nude images of her. Are you saying I'm the minority in this case?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 21, 2012, 11:54:16 AM
I am really losing patience with this discussion comparing the “orientation” of pedophilia with the orientation of homosexuality. 

Let’s point out some of the obvious differences. 

Gay men and lesbians can engage in consensual sexual relationships and find partners with whom to enjoy healthy emotional and sexual relationships. 

The only people who seem to think that they should repress these urges are some fundamentalist monotheists.  And most of us here probably feel a combination of distress, and perhaps occasionally amusement, at their attempts to repress their real sexuality. And they often fail.   When Christian preachers bring male escorts on business trips (to carry their luggage) and Republican politicians pick up men in public restrooms, we smirk or shake our heads, and wish they would/could just embrace their sexuality and stop being such hypocrites.  History demonstrates that folks who try to repress their real sexuality, often fail. 

But when we talk about pedophiles, we are assuming that they of course should and can repress these urges.  And maybe they can.  For a year.  Five years.  Ten years.  Twenty years.  Maybe for a whole lifetime.  But maybe not.  I think my example of priests in an earlier post is an excellent illustration.  They try to repress it.  They try hard.  And some may in fact succeed for a lifetime.  But there is ample evidence to prove that often, they are not successful at repressing their sexual drives.  And children are damaged.  Forever. 

In terms of your defenseless coma patient, yeah, coma patients are subject to abuse.  From predatory individuals, or individuals with fetishes related to being attracted to dead people or unconscious people. But normal gay (or straight) men are not going to rape a coma patient. 

First of all, because most people are just not attracted to comatose people. But more importantly, because they are able to find consensual partners, for one night stands, or for forever relationships.   

Gay men and lesbians (even more than straight people) are seeking encounters with peers.  Pedophiles are not seeking relationships with peers.  The power imbalance between who they are and who they are sexually attracted to is significant. 

They are not parallel situations.  I refuse to talk about pedophilia like a civil rights issue. It is recognized as a mental health issue, and I don’t see any reason to treat it as anything else.       
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 12:07:11 PM
joe, I saw the image of that 11 year old you're talking about. I thought she was cute and that she would become quite a beautiful woman. What I didn't think about was having sex with her or trying to find nude images of her. Are you saying I'm the minority in this case?

I said most men find her sexually attractive. That doesn't necessarily mean that you visualized having sex with her, and nobody ever said anything about nude images. It's interesting how you specifically mention that you didn't think about it.  :police:
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 21, 2012, 12:07:59 PM
Joe, I'm assuming that you do not have a birth certificate for Hai Feng.  Were you able to get a national id card for her?  If you needed to get her a passport, could you?  Or is she completely off the grid?

Sure, we have a birth certificate. Kids that young don't have ID cards but we can get one.

I am genuinely confused here.  You have said


There were no adoption authorities. One is my wife's daughter from a previous relationship, the other was abandoned by her parents. I don't mean put up for adoption I mean dumped on the streets. My wife took her in when she was still a baby.

If we had gone through the proper adoption channels [/b]and someone did ask me, I would say no, for two reasons. First, it is a stupid question based on ignorance and prejudice. It would be the same as denying gay men the opportunity to adopt little boys, or denying lesbians the opportunity to adopt little girls. While a think a lot of people think this should be the rule, I think many realize that would be ridiculous.
bold mine

So how did you get a birth certificate for a child abandoned on the street, if you did not go through formal adoption channels? 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 21, 2012, 12:13:30 PM
I was watching a music video awhile back and thought the lead singer in the band was really hot. I mentioned it to my fiance and he was like, "KIMBERLY! That boys like 14!" I seriously doubted this, he HAD to be atleast 18-19.. I looked it up and he was 16. Shucks, what a turn off. This music video was sexually explicit. With that combined with the lyrics and his dress ... I was fooled. I bought the sex appeal, hook line and sinker. I don't think there is anything wrong with finding someone attractive. There really is nothing we can do about that. I will mention it again but I think Tim Tebow is one of the sexiest men on earth. There's nothing I can do about that. He's a bible thumping evangelical preacher but damn it all to hell if I don't think he's hot.

So for the record, my issue is not with who we are attracted to. My issue is when someone tries to justify sexual acts with a child. I'm still trying to figure out how young we are talking about here. If it's a physical requirement it's as early as 6ish. If we have to now draw an arbitrary line of ability to give consent and maturity I'm not sure where this conversation will take us. That is where I have an issue. I'm not sure a pedophile is mentally capable of objectively determining when a child is able to give consent or when they will see consent when there is none. I'm not sure when an 8 year old who is advanced verbally, has early onset puberty, and is afraid to stand up to an authority figure would be misinterpreted or justified as a sexual partner.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 12:15:23 PM
So how did you get a birth certificate for a child abandoned on the street, if you did not go through formal adoption channels?

I'll remind you that I live in China.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: albeto on July 21, 2012, 12:21:58 PM
So for the record, my issue is not with who we are attracted to. My issue is when someone tries to justify sexual acts with a child.

Who is justifying sexual acts with a child? 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 21, 2012, 12:39:14 PM
I did you a favor and looked it up. Though I don't think we should derail this topic further as this one is about his adoption. I shouldn't have gotten it as far off topic as I did.

Gnu responds to Joe about how Joe justifies sex with 11 year olds. (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg517863.html#msg517863)

Perhaps we should discuss anything further about the above in that topic. TY.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 21, 2012, 01:05:52 PM
So for the record, my issue is not with who we are attracted to. My issue is when someone tries to justify sexual acts with a child.
Who is justifying sexual acts with a child?

Joe thinks that if a girl has had her first period then she's ready to have sex:
I think that if they were able to get pregnant, that proves that they were ready to have sex.
This would justify a 31-year-old-man having sex with a menstruating 11-year-old girl.

Edit: Joe also said:
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: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 01:09:48 PM
Gnu responds to Joe about how Joe justifies sex with 11 year olds. (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg517863.html#msg517863)

I never justified sex with an 11 year old. I have justified the attraction but specifically stated that it would be impossible to obtain consent, and therefore I wouldn't do it.

Specifically I said:
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.

Gnu seems to believe that's a rubber stamp approval for child sex.

Quote
Perhaps we should discuss anything further about the above in that topic. TY.

Meh, it's  the same discussion. Not sure why they were even split.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 21, 2012, 01:16:08 PM
IDK but it's easier to keep the two separate since that's how the mods wanted it. I will discuss the adoption and familiar issues in this topic and your sexuality in the other.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 01:16:36 PM
Joe thinks that if a girl has had her first period then she's ready to have sex:

Don't tell people what I think. You can tell people what I've said, but don't assume you know what I think.

I think that if they were able to get pregnant, that proves that they were ready to have sex.
This would justify a 31-year-old-man having sex with a menstruating 11-year-old girl.

I think it demonstrates that the girl is physically ready. I did not say that means she is mentally or emotionally ready nor that it speaks to her ability to give informed consent. To assume that was my meaning is a rather large leap on your part.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Traveler on July 21, 2012, 01:18:52 PM
...I think it demonstrates that the girl is physically ready. I did not say that means she is mentally or emotionally ready nor that it speaks to her ability to give informed consent. To assume that was my meaning is a rather large leap on your part.

Its not a large leap at all. In fact, I'd guess that its a leap almost everyone reading it would take. Its certainly how I interpreted it. "Ready to have sex." That's pretty damn clear.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 01:25:20 PM
You made an assumption. Perhaps next time ask for clarification.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 21, 2012, 01:35:17 PM
I never justified sex with an 11 year old. I have justified the attraction but specifically stated that it would be impossible to obtain consent, and therefore I wouldn't do it.
As far as I know, you've never specifically said that it is impossible to obtain consent from an 11-year-old. And the post you quoted certainly doesn't specify it (my bolding):
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.
Try again.

Quote
Gnu seems to believe that's a rubber stamp approval for child sex.
Never said that. The part I bolded is a justification for child sex in some circumstances.


Joe thinks that if a girl has had her first period then she's ready to have sex:
Don't tell people what I think. You can tell people what I've said, but don't assume you know what I think.
More pointless pedantry. As your quote begins with the words "I think that", I believe I can accurately introduce it with the words "Joe thinks that".

Quote
I think that if they were able to get pregnant, that proves that they were ready to have sex.
This would justify a 31-year-old-man having sex with a menstruating 11-year-old girl.
I think it demonstrates that the girl is physically ready. I did not say that means she is mentally or emotionally ready.  nor that it speaks to her ability to give informed consent. To assume that was my meaning is a rather large leap on your part.
As Traveler said, not a large leap at all.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 21, 2012, 05:30:11 PM
The major problem with this discussion is the absence of data.< snip> But we don't have those figures; so it would make sense to err on the side of caution.
Totally agreed.
OK.

Quote
But... In what way are we assuming there's a need to err on the side of caution in a way we've rejected for every other non-typical sexual orientation?  We don't assume (as much anymore) homosexuals "groom" people to brainwash them into thinking gay sex is okay.
That seems rather obvious to me, Albeto. If a parent is gay, or a rubber fetishist, or into BD/SM, or watches porn, there is no potential risk to their child. The parents sex-life should take place behind the bedroom door, and it doesn't involve the child.

Paedophilia is the exception; there is a risk that the boundary between the parent's sex-life and the child will be violated - because the paedophile wants the child to be in the bedroom. 

Quote
You bring up adoption and I think that's a fair point about growing intimacy with children living in the home, but living with a child day in and day out renders them more like family than not, so I would suspect that element would be reduced.  But again, we have no data (or I don't know of any), so I'm just wondering why this group is considered more dangerous than others.
As we've agreed, we don't have enough data - therefore, it would be sensible to err on the side of caution until we have more. 

Quote
Right, and that's how it should be. Such a relationship would be inappropriate, and your friend felt that, on a gut level.
To repeat Joe's question, what does "should" have to do with an involuntary physiological reaction?
I meant, that's how normal people feel. 

Quote
And the answer to both those questions is yes. When I was 14, I fell in love for the first time ... snip
So this experience of yours is typical.  It falls solidly on the bell curve of emotional responses to these kinds of situations.  That alone doesn't render it "right," is all I'm saying.
I don't understand; in what way was my experience wrong?

Quote
For what it's worth, at age 13 all my crushes were on men older than 25.  I thought teen boys looked (and behaved) rather childishly.
That's normal, to have crushes on fantasy objects; but you didn't actually go out with any 25-year-old men, did you? 

Quote
The data problem again; I don't know whether paedophiles are in fact less trustworthy.
That's exactly why I can't simply agree and be done with it.  I don't mind being wrong, I just want a reason to hang my hat on, know what I mean?
We should get more data; but until then, erring on the side of caution seems sensible.

Quote
And for me, the emotional repulsion isn't a valid reason because it's too subjective and not, in and of itself, indicative of a reasoned argument.
The reasoning is that while children are going through puberty, they need to be protected from people who are more powerful than them and who could exploit their vulnerability i.e. people considerably older than them.

Societies which recognize this legislate close-in-age exemptions  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_in_age#Close-in-age_exemptions) for teenagers, usually 24 or 36 months. Very sensible, in my opinion. And people's gut feelings reflect this.

Quote
A gynecologist has a woman in an enormously vulnerable position.  Such a doctor could quite easily take advantage of the situation for his/her own sexual gain.
There's always a risk. And of course, you're not obliged to see a gynecologist at all if you don't want to take that risk. A child adopted by a paedophile has no choice in the matter.

Quote
Right - it's loaded in that you're essentially asking, albeto, are you okay with putting your four year old daughter in the tub for a pedophile to bathe?
Yes, that's the question, though my question was more detailed...

Quote
I'm damned if I say yes, then I expose myself as some kind of sick mother who would willingly offer her child up for rape (which is the scenario I interpret you to be implying).
I wasn't implying that; in my scenario I specified that no assault takes place. Again:
Quote
Would you be happy for a (true) paedophile to bathe your 4-year-old daughter? Even though he assured you that he would never act on his sexual feelings for her, and that he would ignore his erection? And let's say he's trustworthy and he keeps his word - though he goes off later to masturbate alone about the experience. Would you be cool with that?
It's not a trick question, Albeto. And I'd still like to know your answer.

Quote
I don't think it is.
I think so in that it distracts the conversation from the kind of person who fits the legal definition of pedophile by virtue of being sexually attracted to young adults (post pubescent), to a conversation about a four year girl old being emotionally  groomed for sex with an adult man.
Well, I'm considering both scenarios. 

Quote
It's not an appeal to fear; we're trying to calculate risk, which isn't an exact science.
Without data, we're calculating it on emotional response, I suspect.
As I said before, emotional responses are a valid source of information.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Timtheskeptic on July 21, 2012, 06:51:45 PM
I am really losing patience with this discussion comparing the “orientation” of pedophilia with the orientation of homosexuality. 

Let’s point out some of the obvious differences. 

Gay men and lesbians can engage in consensual sexual relationships and find partners with whom to enjoy healthy emotional and sexual relationships. 

The only people who seem to think that they should repress these urges are some fundamentalist monotheists.  And most of us here probably feel a combination of distress, and perhaps occasionally amusement, at their attempts to repress their real sexuality. And they often fail.   When Christian preachers bring male escorts on business trips (to carry their luggage) and Republican politicians pick up men in public restrooms, we smirk or shake our heads, and wish they would/could just embrace their sexuality and stop being such hypocrites.  History demonstrates that folks who try to repress their real sexuality, often fail. 

But when we talk about pedophiles, we are assuming that they of course should and can repress these urges.  And maybe they can.  For a year.  Five years.  Ten years.  Twenty years.  Maybe for a whole lifetime.  But maybe not.  I think my example of priests in an earlier post is an excellent illustration.  They try to repress it.  They try hard.  And some may in fact succeed for a lifetime.  But there is ample evidence to prove that often, they are not successful at repressing their sexual drives.  And children are damaged.  Forever. 

In terms of your defenseless coma patient, yeah, coma patients are subject to abuse.  From predatory individuals, or individuals with fetishes related to being attracted to dead people or unconscious people. But normal gay (or straight) men are not going to rape a coma patient. 

First of all, because most people are just not attracted to comatose people. But more importantly, because they are able to find consensual partners, for one night stands, or for forever relationships.   

Gay men and lesbians (even more than straight people) are seeking encounters with peers.  Pedophiles are not seeking relationships with peers.  The power imbalance between who they are and who they are sexually attracted to is significant. 

They are not parallel situations.  I refuse to talk about pedophilia like a civil rights issue. It is recognized as a mental health issue, and I don’t see any reason to treat it as anything else.     

Thank you! That is what i was trying to say.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: nogodsforme on July 21, 2012, 07:12:17 PM
If a person was known to be sexually attracted to helpless coma patients, they should not be allowed near any helpless coma patients. The word to conjure with here is "helpless".

And that is the point about kids. We can argue about whether a 15 or 16 year old is helpless in terms of adult interactions with 18+ year old people. We don't have to argue about 10, 11 or 12 year olds. There is physical, emotional and psychological damage done when kids are put into adult roles too early. Some of the damage is irreversible.

This is like the debate over whether women should be able to get birth control. Is this 2012?

It does not matter if a girl got her period at the age of 10 (like one of my daughter's friends). It does not matter if she has started to develop physically. It does not matter if there are adult men who are attracted to her. Most females start getting attention from adult males way before they are ready to handle it.

A girl is not ready for a sexual relationship at 10. And any adult who thinks a child of that age is the equal of an 18+ year old in terms of sex is truly a sick person. That is why children have parents to protect them until they are old enough to protect themselves.

This is a very difficult thread for me, since I was an abused kid. I am trying to be calm and rational, but it is not easy. The Vulcan Death Grip reflex toward child abusers is almost overwhelming. You might say that I would not be the best person to counsel or assist convicted pedophiles. :P
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 21, 2012, 07:38:45 PM
Neat, clear summary, Nogods.

Quote
We don't have to argue about 10, 11 or 12 year olds.
Unfortunately we do.

Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 09:22:27 PM
Joe thinks that if a girl has had her first period then she's ready to have sex:
Don't tell people what I think. You can tell people what I've said, but don't assume you know what I think.
More pointless pedantry. As your quote begins with the words "I think that", I believe I can accurately introduce it with the words "Joe thinks that".

What I said is "I think that if they were able to get pregnant, that proves that they were ready to have sex." I did not say "I think if a girl has had her first period then she's ready to have sex." So don't tell people that's what I think because it's not remotely an accurate assessment of what I said.

The fact that this individual had chosen to engage in sexual activity speaks to her individual readiness. You're missing a key component there, she chose to do it. Other girls who had not made that choice yet are most likely not ready. So, again, do not tell people what I think.

As Traveler said, not a large leap at all.

I said I think a girl who made a choice was ready. To say that means I also think girls who have not made that choice are ready too is a huge leap. Your logic is bad and you should feel bad.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 21, 2012, 10:00:46 PM

What I said is "I think that if they were able to get pregnant, that proves that they were ready to have sex."

Precocious puberty and child sexual abuse?  Or someone who was "ready to have sex?"

(http://bsdk77.99k.org/chuyendoday/birthrecords/LinaMedina.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 21, 2012, 10:12:50 PM
That story speaks volumes to why this topic is so important. TY.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: jaimehlers on July 21, 2012, 11:17:06 PM
The fact that a girl can become pregnant - which can happen pretty early - does not necessarily mean that she is mature enough to be a mother, same as the fact that a boy can get a girl pregnant does not necessarily mean that he is mature enough to be a father.  It's about more than just biological readiness, in other words.  The ability to successfully have sex doesn't mean anything other than the ability to successfully have sex.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 11:22:04 PM
What I said is "I think that if they were able to get pregnant, that proves that they were ready to have sex."

Precocious puberty and child sexual abuse?  Or someone who was "ready to have sex?"

That story speaks volumes to why this topic is so important. TY.

Perhaps you can tone down the circle jerking long enough to remind yourselves that I made that comment in reference to Timo's comment about 8th grade girls getting pregnant from boys around their own age. 8th graders are on average 13, that is not precocious puberty nor did Timo imply that the girls were abused.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 21, 2012, 11:27:24 PM
The fact that a girl can become pregnant - which can happen pretty early - does not necessarily mean that she is mature enough to be a mother, same as the fact that a boy can get a girl pregnant does not necessarily mean that he is mature enough to be a father.  It's about more than just biological readiness, in other words.  The ability to successfully have sex doesn't mean anything other than the ability to successfully have sex.

Do you think that the fact that some of these girls made a choice and believed themselves to be ready implies some level of readiness over their more coquettish contemporaries?

Also, would you agree with this statement?

The fact that a girl is 18 does not necessarily mean that she is mature enough to be a mother, same as the fact that a boy who is 18 is not necessarily mature enough to be a father.  It's about more than just age, in other words.  The age of 18 doesn't mean anything other than the age of 18.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: jaimehlers on July 21, 2012, 11:42:06 PM
Not really.  Think of maturity as being like a bell curve.  Certainly, there are going to be outliers, like a twelve-year old who's got the physical and mental maturity of an adult, or a twenty-five-year old who still isn't quite mature enough to really be an adult.  I don't think it'd be at all reasonable to base legal maturity off of either extreme, even though there will be individuals who could qualify at twelve and other individuals who wouldn't really qualify at twenty-five.  It would have to be based on roughly where the middle of the curve was.

I won't pretend to know exactly where the middle of the bell curve lies, as I'm not a sociologist, but I'm pretty sure 14 is still rather shy of it.  Especially given that physical maturity doesn't even start in some cases till 12 or 13.  Girls might mature faster than boys, but that's not a good enough reason to change the age of consent or the age of majority either.

The point is that most 18-year olds are physically and mentally mature enough to act as adults.  Not all, by any means, but most in my opinion.  There isn't anything especially significant about 18 except that it's far enough along the bell curve.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 22, 2012, 12:35:06 AM
You said "not really", but then proceeded to agree with the statement anyway. You are saying that reaching the age of 18 does not guarantee an individual is mature enough to be a parent.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 22, 2012, 12:43:53 AM
I am really losing patience with this discussion comparing the “orientation” of pedophilia with the orientation of homosexuality. 

Thank you! That is what i was trying to say.

Woah, deja-vu.

With respect to the "pedophile vs gay" comparison in general - an adult man is considered responsible for his own actions; he can legally consent to sex.

We all know that. This has been repeated and addressed about eleventy billion times now.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are similar in that they are both involuntary sexual attractions. The subject did not choose to have those feelings. Do I seriously even have to continue explaining that? I feel like that should be a known fact at this point in the discussion.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Bereft_of_Faith on July 22, 2012, 06:48:57 AM
Not a big fan of this thread/minefield, however I would like to bring up a point regarding proximity and urges when dealing with one's children or those one is charged to protect...

Some/most? men factor in sexual characteristics when choosing their partners.  They select traits they find attractive.  If a man is a 'leg man', and he's fortunate enough, he will pair with woman who has the kind of legs he fancies.

They have children, one of whom is a daughter.  She inherits her mother's gift.  As she matures, the man, now a father, must see his daughter walk around the house in shorts and skirts.  Are most fathers driven mad by this?  Do most fathers respond as heatedly at the sight of their daughter's legs as they did their wife's?  I'm a father.  The answer is no.  I had friends who were fathers.  Their daughters began to resemble their wives.  They never appeared to be either heated or bothered by their daughters' appearance.  The only thing I ever felt is pride.  I recognized the gift my daughter had inherited from my wife, and was only more in awe of my wife for having passed on such good genes to our daughter. 

When one cherishes someone in a protective way, one looks at them differently than one does a potential mate.  One's charges are sacrosanct.  Despite one's predilections or appetites, one disqualifies those whom we are here to protect and nurture, despite whatever sexual qualities they may have.

That this needs to be said seems appalling to me. 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 22, 2012, 08:16:10 AM
I am really losing patience with this discussion comparing the “orientation” of pedophilia with the orientation of homosexuality. 

Thank you! That is what i was trying to say.

Woah, deja-vu.

With respect to the "pedophile vs gay" comparison in general - an adult man is considered responsible for his own actions; he can legally consent to sex.

We all know that. This has been repeated and addressed about eleventy billion times now.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are similar in that they are both involuntary sexual attractions. The subject did not choose to have those feelings. Do I seriously even have to continue explaining that? I feel like that should be a known fact at this point in the discussion.


Joe,

If you would like to continue using the “orientation argument,” and continue to draw parallels between homosexuality and pedophilia, (with the caveat that pedophiles just have to go through life repressing their sexual urges) then you need to address the fact that there is ample evidence that a significant percentage of people who try to repress their sexual urges fail to be successful in doing so, and in the case of pedophilia, children are irreparably damaged. 

The Harvard Medical School article which I cited earlier, entitled “Pessimism about Pedophilia,” states that “Several reports have concluded that most people with pedophilic tendencies eventually act on their sexual urges in some way.”  http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia You can disagree with the studies they compiled, and I certainly can’t speak to the methodologies used in those studies.  But I also cited well-known examples of groups of people with an invested interest in repressing their “sexual orientation” including supposedly celibate priests accused of, or convicted of child sexual abuse, and fundamentalist religious leaders and right wing politicians with an invested interest in repressing their homosexual tendencies, who failed to successfully repress those urges and fell into career-ending scandals as a result. 

Do you dispute these realities as well, Joe?

Your opinions also diverge from those of the mainstream medical community (who classify certain categories of convicted child abusers as having an “orientation” for pedophilia) in terms of classifying this orientation.  The mainstream medical community considers those born with this difference in their brains as having a mental illness. 

Furthermore, you completely dismiss the evidence which I cited that demonstrates that changes in the brain, such as tumors, chemical and surgical interventions, and other changes to the brain, can in fact turn on or turn off urges related to pedophilia.  http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg515249.html#msg515249

Joe, you are really hard on the theists who come here and cherry pick from science and scriptures to create a hybrid world view that supports what they want to believe.  Perhaps you should examine your own tendency to cherry pick from science and porn apologists to create a hybrid world view that supports what you want to believe. 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: jaimehlers on July 22, 2012, 09:14:10 AM
You said "not really", but then proceeded to agree with the statement anyway. You are saying that reaching the age of 18 does not guarantee an individual is mature enough to be a parent.
Given that I said that even some individuals aren't mature enough to be parents at twenty-five or older, you could say I acknowledged the validity of that statement.  However, the point I was making, which you dodged, by only addressing the specific fact that I acknowledged your statement, was that you can't point to the fact that some individuals might be mature enough to be considered adults at a certain age, and set the societal baseline at that age.  But you also can't wait until they all are.  My personal feeling is that if more than half of the individuals of a certain age are considered mature enough to function as adults, then that should be the baseline for being legally considered an adult.  If that were at fourteen, so be it.  But it's probably not at fourteen.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: lotanddaughters on July 22, 2012, 10:38:45 AM
The fact that a girl is 18 does not necessarily mean that she is mature enough to be a mother, same as the fact that a boy who is 18 is not necessarily mature enough to be a father.  It's about more than just age, in other words.  The age of 18 doesn't mean anything other than the age of 18.

This is true. Hell, I was still a Christian at 18. Talk about stupid.


But I pretty much agree with jaimehlers on this one. I would imagine that jaimehlers agrees with your above statement. So do I, obviously. But rules are hard to apply fairly to the masses. I, personally, think that 18 is a good line to draw. For the extremely immature 20 year olds, we can't accomodate them. For the overly mature 14 year olds, we can't accomodate them either. Sometimes people have to just be thankful that they live in a society that doesn't cut their clitoris off and/or arrange their marriage/life for them.



To all the overly mature 14 year old women out there:

You should be thankful for the freedom that you do have, and wait 4 years. But, if you can keep your mouth shut, meet me behind the school at around 8:00PM.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 22, 2012, 11:22:06 AM
If you would like to continue using the “orientation argument,” and continue to draw parallels between homosexuality and pedophilia, (with the caveat that pedophiles just have to go through life repressing their sexual urges) then you need to address the fact that there is ample evidence that a significant percentage of people who try to repress their sexual urges fail to be successful in doing so, and in the case of pedophilia, children are irreparably damaged. 

And why do I need to address that? Whether it's true or not, it wouldn't change the fact that it's an involuntary sexual attraction like homosexuality.

The Harvard Medical School article which I cited earlier, entitled “Pessimism about Pedophilia,” states that “Several reports have concluded that most people with pedophilic tendencies eventually act on their sexual urges in some way.”  You can disagree with the studies they compiled, and I certainly can’t speak to the methodologies used in those studies.

We've been over this. That study is garbage, the writers even acknowledge the massive holes in their data. Their study is bad and they should feel bad.

But I also cited well-known examples of groups of people with an invested interest in repressing their “sexual orientation” including supposedly celibate priests accused of, or convicted of child sexual abuse, and fundamentalist religious leaders and right wing politicians with an invested interest in repressing their homosexual tendencies, who failed to successfully repress those urges and fell into career-ending scandals as a result.

So?

Your opinions also diverge from those of the mainstream medical community (who classify certain categories of convicted child abusers as having an “orientation” for pedophilia) in terms of classifying this orientation.  The mainstream medical community considers those born with this difference in their brains as having a mental illness. 

I've said it's something you're born with, and not a choice, which is exactly what the part I bolded says. I disagree with their opinion that it is a mental illness. They used to consider homosexuality a mental illness too.

Quote
Furthermore, you completely dismiss the evidence which I cited that demonstrates that changes in the brain, such as tumors, chemical and surgical interventions, and other changes to the brain, can in fact turn on or turn off urges related to pedophilia.
Pedophilia is involuntary, obviously that means I know that it's the result of something physiological. When did I ever deny that? However it's embarrassingly laughable to state that "tumors cause pedophilia" when that's maybe happened a couple of times, out of all the millions or billions of pedophiles that have ever lived.

There was a story about a man who had a stroke and when he woke up in the hospital he was gay. I certainly believe that could be true as homosexuality, like pedophilia, has a physiological cause. However if someone told me that "homosexuality is caused by a blood clot in the brain" I would call them a fucking idiot.

Joe, you are really hard on the theists who come here and cherry pick from science and scriptures to create a hybrid world view that supports what they want to believe.  Perhaps you should examine your own tendency to cherry pick from science and porn apologists to create a hybrid world view that supports what you want to believe.

You are the one cherry picking sections of studies that support your point, while ignoring the sections of those very same studies that specifically warn against making the conclusions you make because the authors know their data is limited. Then you completely ignore multiple studies from multiple sources conducted across the world that have concluded that decrminalization of child pornography would lead to fewer victims. Then you dismiss the opinions of experts, including federal judges, as "porn apologists". I am carefully weighing all of the evidence and drawing logical conclusions. You are carefully excluding and avoiding any evidence that conflicts with your theories.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 22, 2012, 11:45:32 AM
My personal feeling is that if more than half of the individuals of a certain age are considered mature enough to function as adults, then that should be the baseline for being legally considered an adult.  If that were at fourteen, so be it.  But it's probably not at fourteen.

How do you define mature enough to function as adults?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: jaimehlers on July 22, 2012, 03:33:50 PM
How do you define mature enough to function as adults?
Lemme guess, you intend to nitpick whatever I answer so that you can legitimately claim that a 14-year old would qualify, yes?  I was very unimpressed with your little word game in the other thread (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg520706.html#msg520706), specifically "So you don't think it's hypocritical to say that a 14 year old is not capable of making decisions like an adult and should be protected but a 14 year old is capable of making decisions like an adult and should be punished?".  I am even less impressed by your attempt to paint me as a hypocrite with your little wordplay, suggesting that I think the same 14-year old is simultaneously not capable of making decisions like an adult, and capable of making decisions like an adult.

I'll be happy to answer, once you've shown that you're not going to try to play word games with my response.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Mr. Blackwell on July 22, 2012, 07:34:35 PM
You made an assumption. Perhaps next time ask for clarification.

Perhaps you should be more specific when offering your point of views so we don't have to ask for clarification. You are way to vague with your omissions and "I never said" bull crap.

Considering that you teach English and obviously have a strong command of the language, I don't think it's too much to ask for.

Unless, of coarse, your goal is to show us our hypocritical ways through this painful process. I am about to open up a different can of worms by introducing a right wing Christian fundamentalist argument.

You are trying to lead us to understand and embrace tolerance of pedophilia using already accepted philosophy in regards to homosexuality. It is vital to your demonstration to link our acceptance of homosexuality and other non main stream sexual preferences to pedophilia in order to show us our hypocrisy. You chastise us closed minded fundamentalist prudes for not seeing things all the way through, for not coming to your high minded amoral codes of conduct.

You use the same argument against us that we use against right wing bigots. Yet...you have called for all Christians and believers of a higher power to be cleansed from the earth. You claim that a belief in a higher power is tantamount to brain damage.

Joe...why can't you extend the same level of tolerance and understanding to people of faith that you do for adults who have a desire to fuck children[1]?
 1. Legally anyone under the age of 18
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 22, 2012, 07:52:01 PM
We've been over this.

You know Joe, when you disagree with data that is presented to you, you’ve got a tendency to declare “we’ve been over this” and then restate your position, while entirely ignoring the data.  It is an irritating argumentation style because you consistently dismiss arguments or data that conflicts with your worldview, and then just restate your opinion and bulldoze forward as if it were fact.     

In this case, however, it is blatantly not true.  We have not “been over this” before.  I have not seen you post a single response to the content of Harvard study entitled  Pessimism about Pedophilia, that I posted on Friday.  I suspect that you haven’t read it.  But you clearly believe that you are in a position to state:

That study is garbage, the writers even acknowledge the massive holes in their data. Their study is bad and they should feel bad.

You want to make the researchers “feel bad” Joe?  Really?  Ok then. 
 
Perhaps you are confusing the Pessimism about Pedophilia article with a different article I posted a few months back, published in the Harvard Medical Journal, on a topic pertaining to relationship between pornography and child abuse.  You dismissed the study by linking an unpublished article that some economics professor had written on the topic, and declared victory.  You see Joe, I do you the courtesy of reading the articles you link. 

But all of this running around in circles distracts from the questions that are of real importance.  Joe, you have said repeatedly that pedophiles can and do control their urges.  And yet inconceivably high numbers of children continue to be raped and sexually abused on a global level. 

Your suggestions so far, to address this problem have included 1) Increasing access to child pornography, so that potential abusers can watch children being abused, and hopefully the act of viewing the rapes will have the effect of quenching, rather than amplifying their sexual desires, and 2) Lowering the legal age of consent so that children who want sex can have it without endangering their adult partners. 

As a father, who has done such extensive research on this topic that you can laugh at the inaccuracies in studies conducted by Harvard and the Mayo Clinic, is that the best you can offer? 


Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 22, 2012, 10:45:53 PM
I'll be happy to answer, once you've shown that you're not going to try to play word games with my response.

You've said that you don't consider a 14 year old a responsibile adult, yet you think a 14 year old should held responsible and be tried an adult. Is is really "word games" to think there is a conflict there?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 22, 2012, 11:36:12 PM
You use the same argument against us that we use against right wing bigots. Yet...you have called for all Christians and believers of a higher power to be cleansed from the earth.

This is inaccurate. I said religion should be cleansed from the earth, and I specifically described the process of education and marginalization that would accomplish it.

Quote
You claim that a belief in a higher power is tantamount to brain damage.

Those aren't my words, but it's more or less accurate.

Quote
Joe...why can't you extend the same level of tolerance and understanding to people of faith that you do for adults who have a desire to fuck children?

Are you serious? Religion is intolerance. Why should I tolerate intolerance? And understanding? Oh, I understand them quite well. Better then they understand themselves. I understand the history, source, and doctrine of their religions better than they do. It's a proven fact that atheists know the bible and the history of Christianity far better than Christians.

Belief in God is voluntary and people hold onto that belief despite a complete lack of supporting evidence and mountains of opposing evidence. Many of the teachings of Christianity are harmful such as xenophobia, homophobia, racism, sexism, discouraging education, medicine, and science. Religion has lead to most of mankind's major problems such as war, poverty, overpopulation, pollution, rape, and hey guess what else? Child sex abuse. Many pedophiles are religious, and combination of pedophilia and religion is doubly dangerous. Both the Bible and the Koran condone child sex and even child rape. Religious organizations protect child predators.

Pedophilia is involuntary, a condition one is born with. Like a tendency towards addictive behaviors such as alcoholism, it is manageable but may be a lifelong struggle to avoid giving into temptation. That struggle may be easy for some, and some will fail. But we must recognize that it is essentially a medical condition and respond with therapy and understanding, not harsh punishments.

For those that try to self-medicate, using child pornography to abate their sexual desires, we should applaud them for making the conscious decision to not harm an actual child. Locking them up in prison is insanely stupid, it is punishing them for doing the right thing. As the sentence for possession is typically longer than the sentence for actually raping a child, what are we teaching them? Hey, next time don't bother with the porn, we're going to lock you up anyway, you might as well rape a real kid and your sentence will be even shorter.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: LoriPinkAngel on July 23, 2012, 12:29:20 AM
Quote
decrminalization of child pornography would lead to fewer victims.

Question for whoever agrees with this ^^^^  Who would be featured in this child porn?  How about your kids?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: none on July 23, 2012, 12:57:45 AM
Pedophilia is involuntary, a condition one is born with. Like a tendency towards addictive behaviors such as alcoholism, it is manageable but may be a lifelong struggle to avoid giving into temptation. That struggle may be easy for some, and some will fail. But we must recognize that it is essentially a medical condition and respond with therapy and understanding, not harsh punishments.

For those that try to self-medicate, using child pornography to abate their sexual desires, we should applaud them for making the conscious decision to not harm an actual child. Locking them up in prison is insanely stupid, it is punishing them for doing the right thing. As the sentence for possession is typically longer than the sentence for actually raping a child, what are we teaching them? Hey, next time don't bother with the porn, we're going to lock you up anyway, you might as well rape a real kid and your sentence will be even shorter.
Having one drink is not alcoholism, nor is it detrimental to society.
You seem to be objectifying children to the level of a beer bottle.
Nobody is interested in protecting beer bottles from beer drinkers.
The self-medicatation argument is laughable.
Child pornography is child pornography because hold the beer bottle... contains children.
I know this may seem cute to you or whatever to establish yourself as somewhat of a normal and beneficial member of society especially at WWGHA, but arguing that a child be objectified in the manner in which you convey is sickening.
Pedophiles are not objects, they are adults who exploit children.
I have identified you as a pedophile and any treatment that encourages castration or cerebral modification I am in favor of.
I do not enjoy having to communicate with you, but I unlike you ( as per your response to my question about when to prepare your children to defend themselves against sexual predators ) want to integrate into a healthy society, free from child exploitation.
It may take small steps,  but I am willing to take them.... are you?
Should we punish people for exploitation of children yes.
Should we punish people for exploitation of drinking beer no.
It is ultimately a choice that people drink beer, but like I said nobody is fighting for the rights or barely and hops, or potatoes for that matter.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Bereft_of_Faith on July 23, 2012, 02:03:19 AM
Quote
decrminalization of child pornography would lead to fewer victims.

Question for whoever agrees with this ^^^^  Who would be featured in this child porn?  How about your kids?

I think it's probably true.  Would I do as you ask?  Absolutely not.  I have no interest in child porn, do not support it in any material way, and think it to be a 'wrong'.  Am I trying to stop it?  Embarrassingly, no.

It should be noted however, that I often find a conflict between what I believe is right, correct or true, and what I would be willing to do in regard to it.

For instance, I believe that eating and wearing animals is 'wrong'.  I tried to be a vegetarian for a few years, but I ultimately failed.  So I do what I believe to be wrong because doing what is right is too difficult.  I drive around on leather seats, and eat meat without much thought.

You mentioned elsewhere that you served in Desert Storm, a war that I wholeheartedly supported, but would I have joined up?  No.  I would have lacked the will and courage.  I could not pull a trigger.

I have no strong feelings about the death penalty, and further think that putting an end to a murder's life is not something I object to, but... I would NOT pull the switch. 

No need to point out that I am morally flawed.  I'm well aware.  As I believe I've intimated elsewhere, I probably have more contempt for myself that anyone here is likely to muster for me.

Anyway, not sure where you were going with the question, but I figured I try and give you a complete answer.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: naemhni on July 23, 2012, 06:01:54 AM
Quote
decrminalization of child pornography would lead to fewer victims.

Question for whoever agrees with this ^^^^  Who would be featured in this child porn?  How about your kids?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: One Above All on July 23, 2012, 06:16:57 AM
I still don't get how drawn porn can be considered child porn. They're not real kids, and it's not a real situation. It's a drawing. Sounds to me like someone has a problem differentiating reality from fiction.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 23, 2012, 06:22:40 AM
I'll be happy to answer, once you've shown that you're not going to try to play word games with my response.

You've said that you don't consider a 14 year old a responsibile adult, yet you think a 14 year old should held responsible and be tried an adult. Is is really "word games" to think there is a conflict there?

Why must a single age exist as the threshold for all adult rights and responsibilites?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 23, 2012, 06:29:10 AM
In this case, however, it is blatantly not true.  We have not “been over this” before.  I have not seen you post a single response to the content of Harvard study entitled  Pessimism about Pedophilia, that I posted on Friday.  I suspect that you haven’t read it

Bold mine. Really Quesi? This was my reply, from page 3 of this thread:

Quote
Quesi linked a study from Harvard that she seemed to believe gave evidence that the discrimination against pedophiles was warranted, however as it's been pointed out by others, any such study is highly flawed as their data represents a biased fraction of the pedophile population. If you read the study, the first half of it is a note about the limitations of their research. Their data comes from interviewing convicted pedophiles in prison.

That would be like interviewing convicted car thieves and then concluding that anyone who likes cars is likely to steal one. It's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and it's ignoring the fact that the vast majority of pedophiles out there do not act on their compulsions and live normal lives. Frankly it's fear mongering and an institution like Harvard should be ashamed of publishing it.

So is it really blatantly not true that I haven't posted a response to it? Or is it this simply another (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg515151.html#msg515151) example (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,23261.msg520634.html#msg520634) of you not reading carefully? If you can't devote enough attention to the conversation to read my replies, why should I waste my time respond to your questions?

Perhaps you are confusing the Pessimism about Pedophilia article with a different article I posted a few months back, published in the Harvard Medical Journal, on a topic pertaining to relationship between pornography and child abuse.
Clearly I'm not.

You dismissed the study by linking an unpublished article that some economics professor had written on the topic, and declared victory.

You keep making this claim that I've ignored the studies you've linked, and suggesting I haven't read them. You are a fucking liar. Anyone who upvotes you is a fucking idiot for doing so. I've read and responded to every one of them. You on the other hand, have clearly ignored the evidence I've presented. I'm not surprised by Quesi who has repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of intellectual honesty, but those of you blindly upvoting her without verifying her claims are incredibly dissapointing.

Perhaps a little memory refresher is in order for those of you who think Quesi's claims against me are valid.

Quesi claims that in response to her link to a Harvard study, I linked to "an unpublished article that some economics professor had written on the topic." This is a lie. The truth is that I linked to three studies by an economics professor, a law professor, and a sexologist who is also the founding editor of Archives of Sexual Behavior. I linked them  (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg513077.html#msg513077) in a reply to Rickymooston's question (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg512863.html#msg512863) before Quesi posted her link (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg513083.html#msg513083) to the Harvard study in response, not the other way around as she claims.

The one she is referring to now which she is dismissing as  "an unpublished article that some economics professor had written" is Pornography, Rape, and the Internet (http://www.toddkendall.net/internetcrime.pdf) by Clemson University Economics Professor Todd Kendall and written with assistance from the Stanford Law School. Here is the summary:

Quote
Using  state-level panel  data  from  1998-2003,  I  find  that  the  arrival  of  the  internet  was associated  with  a  reduction  in  rape  incidence.    While  the  internet  is obviously  used  for  many  purposes  other  than  pornography,  it  is  notable that  growth  in  internet  usage  had  no  apparent  effect  on  other  crimes. Moreover, when I disaggregate the rape data by offender age, I find that the effect of  the  internet on  rape  is concentrated among  those  for whom the  internet-induced  fall  in  the non-pecuniary price of pornography was the  largest  –  men  ages  15-19,  who  typically  live  with  their  parents.

It is well-written and thouroughly sourced. Apparently she believes that economics professors can't have valid opinions on crime statistics. Actually, analysing numbers and trends and forming hypothesis and predictions about them is something economists are quite good at.

She made one comment (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg515249.html#msg515249) about this paper, stating that it is "about internet usage and rape statistics, and has nothing to do with child pornography or pedophilia."

This is a lie by over-simplification. The paper is not simply about "internet usage and rape statistics" but specifically makes the argument that the reduction in sexual crimes is not a coincidence and is not simply the result of increased internet access, but specifically the increased availability of pornography. She would know that if she actually read it.

I stated that increased access to porn lowers the rate of sexual crime, which I linked the paper to support. My argument was that the same would hold true with regards to child pornography and child sexual abuse because the function of all types of porn is the same: to provide a sexual release. This is true of straight porn, gay porn, lesbian porn, granny porn, tranny porn, midget porn, even torture, rape, and beastiality porn. She provides no evidence that refutes that argument.

In that same post, she makes this statement:

Quote
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. 

Really? She personally knows a dozen women who were sexually abused as children? That dubious claim aside, why are they not included in anyone's study of the sexual abuse of children? Not a single one of them reported it to the authorities? That's a shame because we do have people who are paid to deal with situations like that.

Besides, even if they didn't report it, they are included in the studies, under estimated number of unreported cases. Again, she would know that if she actually bothered to read any of the studies.

Quote
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. 

Now, see what she did there? She's poisoned the well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well). She can claim I have no data to back up my argument because now she can refer back to this any time I cite a study to make my point. 

There are two problems with this. First, it's confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). While I certainly agree that none of the studies I've cited can be 100% accurate in their data collection, she is essentially saying that the number of child rape victims she personally "knows" outweighs the opinions of qualified experts who have done years of study and research.

Second, I can make the same argument about any study she cites, and render her data invalid as well.

I've repeatedly invited anyone to read the studies I linked and share your critique of their conclusion or method. The fact is if you read all of the studies that both of us have linked you will find that the ones Quesi posted get most of their data from interviewing inmates, and that the authors themselves have written in long warnings about how that affects the accuracy of their results.

The other two studies that I linked that she isn't mentioning (in a classic cherry picking) are:

Porn Up, Rape Down (http://anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/porn.pdf) by Northwestern University Law Professor Anthony D'Amato. From the abstract:

Quote
The incidence of rape in the United States has declined 85% in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults. The Nixon and Reagan
Commissions tried to show that exposure to pornographic materials produced social violence. The reverse may be true: that pornography has reduced social violence.

It further supports my argument that access to child pornography would almost certainly reduce the incidents of child sex abuse. Again, no response from Quesi about this paper. At all. Did she read it? Who knows.

And finally Sexual Science and the Law, by Richard Green, Harvard University Press, 1992. Green is an American sexologist, psychiatrist, lawyer, and author specializing in homosexuality and transsexualism, specifically gender identity disorder in children. Green is the founding editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior and the founding president of the International Academy of Sex Research. He served on the American Psychiatric Association DSM-IV Subcommittee on Gender Identity Disorders.

From Dr. Green:

Quote
As for child pornography in Denmark, reproduction and sale of child pornography was not illegal between 1969 and 1980. Between 1967 and 1973 child molestation or "physical sexual interference with female children" showed a rapid decrease.

There is an inverse relationship between the availability of the wide range of pornographic materials in a society and the commission of sexual crimes.

The availability of portrayals of a forbidden activity accompanied by autoerotic behavior, or masturbation, may provide an outlet for antisocial sexual impulses. It may permit the person to experience vicariously or in fantasy what would otherwise have been acted out in a crime with a victim.

Quesi described this as "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." Really Quesi? If you're not going to do the research just come out and say it. Admittedly a hard-copy book is not as easy to access as a direct PDF download, but it is a good book that makes some great points about pornography and specifically about child pornography use. If she didn't want to spend 37¢ to buy a used copy on Amazon or looked for a copy at the library, she could have just said that instead of claiming that the book was irrelevant to the discussion.

She never provided any thoughtful disagreement to the studies I posted, nor even demonstrated that she had in fact read them or understood how they supported my argument. In response (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg513083.html#msg513083), she linked to an article that was ]behind a fucking paywall (http://[url=http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/references-for-the-evolving-understanding-of-stigma). Did she pay $5 to read it herself? Or did she not read it either, knowing I wouldn't read it so she could then claim I was ignoring her evidence? Sure I could have shelled out 5 bucks to read the article, but I didn't want to. At least I immediately pointed out (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg513095.html#msg513095) that I couldn't read the article instead of dodging and claiming it wasn't relevant to the discussion. She never responded to the note that it was not a free article, but here she is today  (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,23261.msg520789.html#msg520789) complaining that I dismissed it.

In that same reply (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg513083.html#msg513083) with the paywalled article from Harvard, she also linked an article from Psychiatry Online (http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=53036) that was a reprint of a Mayo Clinic article and a Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse) about the relationship between child pornography and child sexual abuse which included a study by the American Federal Bureau of Prisons. This was her evidence against my argument that increased access to child pornography would lessen the incidents of child sex abuse.

Remember how today she criticized me for linking "an unpublished article that some economics professor"? Well, that article was published, but the one she was using to support her argument, the study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse#American_Federal_Bureau_of_Prisons) by the American Federal Bureau of Prisons had already been withdrawn from publication in a peer-reviewed journal over concerns that the results were too biased and did not represent the "large and diverse group of adults who have at some point downloaded child pornography".

I read them and replied (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg513095.html#msg513095) that the Mayo Clinic article did not make a case for a causal link between use of child pornography and acts of sexual abuse against children. I referenced it again (http://referenced it again) later and summarized my argument against their results by saying "They simply state that most rapists use porn. It can obviously be stated that most porn users are not rapists."

In response, she posted an except (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg513279.html#msg513279) from the article, highlighting the following text:

Quote
30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child.


In addition to this snippet from the Mayo Clinic article, she copied the wikipedia entry  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse#American_Federal_Bureau_of_Prisons) on the already debunked study from the American Federal Bureau of Prisons. I'm not sure how she thought that an unpublished and discredited study would help her win the argument, yet she still posted it.

I replied (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg513315.html#msg513315) with the following:

Quote
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?

I later added this (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg513761.html#msg513761) in reference to Quesi's linked studies.

Quote
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.

In reply #415 (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg515121.html#msg515121) I mentioned to a new user Atheistisaweirdword the studies I had cited earlier "that conclude that increased access to pornography (including child pornography) leads to a reduction in sexual assaults and rape." Quesi claimed that was bullshit (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg515149.html#msg515149), accused me of making up facts and retreating from the argument made by the studies she linked.

I reiterated my problems with the Mayo Clinic study, which was not actually a Mayo Clinic study at all, but 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.

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."

In other words, my concerns about the accuracy of her studies are valid. She ignores them.

I re-posted the link to Todd Kendall's article with an excerpt that backed up my argument, as well as a link to another study by Dr. Milton Diamond (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/BIB/DIAM/effects_pornography.htm), University of Hawaii, Department of Anatomy & Reproductive Biology that stated that not only does greater access to pornography lead to fewer sex crimes, but specifically included statistics demonstrating that legalizing child pornography lead to a significant reduction of child sex abuse cases in Denmark, Japan, and the Czech Republic.

On June 21st, in an exchange  (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg515122.html#msg515122) with Rickymooston, I said that I believed children were maturing later in life because we coddle them. I was quite obviously referring to their mental maturity, as I even added that they were reaching puberty (physical maturity) earlier in life.

Quesi demonstrated  (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg515131.html#msg515131) that she clearly misunderstood me by smiting my comment and replying with this:

Quote
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.

Obviously she had thought I used the word maturing to mean physically maturing, despite my clarification. Lucifer points out (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg515132.html#msg515132) to Quesi that he (correctly) thought I had meant emotionally maturing, not physically. I reply (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg515151.html#msg515151) that Lucifer was correct, and I was in fact referring to emotional maturity. I made a similar misunderstanding with someone a while back, but the person had written his post in such a way that he invited misunderstanding so I didn't feel it was my fault. In this case, my meaning was clear and Quesi chose to continue to argue  (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg515155.html#msg515155) against a strawman even after repeated clarifications. She never acknowledges her mistake or apologizes. This just goes to demonstrate the shameless depths of her intellectual dishonesty.

You see Joe, I do you the courtesy of reading the articles you link.

Do you really? The evidence suggests otherwise. You've never once given a rebuttal to any of them other than vague comments that don't specifically address their content.

But all of this running around in circles distracts from the questions that are of real importance.  Joe, you have said repeatedly that pedophiles can and do control their urges.  And yet inconceivably high numbers of children continue to be raped and sexually abused on a global level. 

You seem to think those are two conflicting statements. They are not.

For example: Men can and do control their urges. Is that not a true statement? Yet inconceivably high numbers of women continue to be raped and sexually abused on a global level. Is that not also a true statement?

Your suggestions so far, to address this problem have included 1) Increasing access to child pornography, so that potential abusers can watch children being abused having sex, and hopefully the act of viewing the rapes consensual sex with a minor will have the effect of quenching, rather than amplifying their sexual desires

Corrected that for you. If you want me to agree that it was my suggestion, then you have to let me define it. Otherwise, as you wrote it, it is not an accurate assessment of my position.

, and 2) Lowering the legal age of consent so that children who want sex can have it without endangering their adult partners. 

Sure, I'll agree with that.

As a father, who has done such extensive research on this topic that you can laugh at the inaccuracies in studies conducted by Harvard and the Mayo Clinic, is that the best you can offer?

Is that the best you can offer? You notice there's not actually an argument there? There's not actually any refutation of the points you've just listed. You just ignore all of the data, research and testimony of qualified experts in the legal and medical profession that I've provided. You just ignore the flaws in the studies you keep referring to that even their authors are quick to point out. You don't even suggest your own alternative. You just list my two points and somehow claim victory. That, Quesi, is how pigeon chess (http://pigeon-chess.urbanup.com/4293694) is played. Bravo.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 23, 2012, 07:35:34 AM
Why must a single age exist as the threshold for all adult rights and responsibilites?

I see your point. When it comes to things like driving, military service, or holding a high public office I can understand how one wouldn't be necessarily prepared for all of those things at 16.

However, you still haven't addressed my concern which is that if we can take the time to assess a minor's state of mental development on a case by case basis to stand trial, why can't we take the time to do the same when they get involved in a sexual relationship with an adult?

We go out of our way. Call in experts. Run tests. We spare no expense to prove that 9 year olds are "adults" in order to destroy a young life, but when we have a chance to spare someone who may very well have committed no harm, suddenly we don't have time. We just slap a one-size-fits-all 16 on it.

Good enough.

Miller time.

Are we so evil that we only make an effort for punishment, not for mercy? Does that seem right to you?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 23, 2012, 08:19:12 AM
I see your point. When it comes to things like driving, military service, or holding a high public office I can understand how one wouldn't be necessarily prepared for all of those things at 16.

That was the only point I was trying to make:  That imposing different ages for different rights and responsibilities is not necessarily hypocritical, since not all rights and responsibilities are equal to each other.

However, you still haven't addressed my concern which is that if we can take the time to assess a minor's state of mental development on a case by case basis to stand trial, why can't we take the time to do the same when they get involved in a sexual relationship with an adult?

We go out of our way. Call in experts. Run tests. We spare no expense to prove that 9 year olds are "adults" in order to destroy a young life, but when we have a chance to spare someone who may very well have committed no harm, suddenly we don't have time. We just slap a one-size-fits-all 16 on it.

Good enough.

Miller time.

Are we so evil that we only make an effort for punishment, not for mercy? Does that seem right to you?

Well, no.  But then, I never supported trying such youths as adults in the first place.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 23, 2012, 08:21:28 AM
Sorry Adzgari, I am having a similar exchange with jaimehlers and I got my replies mixed up.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: none on July 23, 2012, 08:33:59 AM
Why must a single age exist as the threshold for all adult rights and responsibilites?

I see your point. When it comes to things like driving, military service, or holding a high public office I can understand how one wouldn't be necessarily prepared for all of those things at 16.

However, you still haven't addressed my concern which is that if we can take the time to assess a minor's state of mental development on a case by case basis to stand trial, why can't we take the time to do the same when they get involved in a sexual relationship with an adult?

We go out of our way. Call in experts. Run tests. We spare no expense to prove that 9 year olds are "adults" in order to destroy a young life, but when we have a chance to spare someone who may very well have committed no harm, suddenly we don't have time. We just slap a one-size-fits-all 16 on it.

Good enough.

Miller time.

Are we so evil that we only make an effort for punishment, not for mercy? Does that seem right to you?
I bet if you think about it you will find that the tests and analysis are run to ensure that the goal of such tests are not to ruin a young life but rather to protect society.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 23, 2012, 09:01:58 AM
Joe, I must say that I am flattered that you have put so much time and energy into researching our correspondence on this issue over multiple threads and several months.   Thank you.  And I believe I am mistaken.  It appears that you did reply to the most recent Harvard Study that I posted.  I apologize. 


You keep making this claim that I've ignored the studies you've linked, and suggesting I haven't read them. You are a fucking liar. Anyone who upvotes you is a fucking idiot for doing so. I've read and responded to every one of them. You on the other hand, have clearly ignored the evidence I've presented. I'm not surprised by Quesi who has repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of intellectual honesty, but those of you blindly upvoting her without verifying her claims are incredibly dissapointing.

I thank you for attentively responding to each study I've linked.  I especially enjoyed your feedback about the sexual abuse of children in foster care.  Perhaps you could repost some of those comments, so that everyone here can appreciate them.  Or your responses to the article about victims of child abuse at a prestigious NYC school, and how the abuse they suffered as children has impacted into their adulthood. 

I have to go into a meeting now, but I will try and stop by later. 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: jaimehlers on July 23, 2012, 09:32:31 AM
You've said that you don't consider a 14 year old a responsibile adult, yet you think a 14 year old should held responsible and be tried an adult. Is is really "word games" to think there is a conflict there?
Given that I rephrased (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg520753.html#msg520753) your question in that other thread so that it was more accurate, and you responded by rephrasing (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,22752.msg520853.html#msg520853) it yourself, you may not have intended to play word games, but that's certainly how it came across.  Especially with a tongue-in-cheek response such as this.

By the way, what I actually said is that "I don't consider a fourteen-year old to be capable of performing an adult's responsibilities, or to be the equal of an adult".  Perhaps I should have elaborated and said "the average fourteen-year old" or "most fourteen-year olds", but to be honest, I didn't think it needed to be said.  Obviously I was mistaken.

You've indicated that you think that the age of consent for sex should be 14.  So, let me ask two questions.  First, do you think that same age should apply for other things which are currently restricted by age, such as driving, voting, and cigarettes/alcohol?  And second, what benefit would come to the minor by having the age of consent reduced so?  Remember that even someone under the age of consent can still have sex with other minors within a certain age limit without getting either party in trouble.  So how would the minor benefit from a change in the age of consent law?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 23, 2012, 10:21:48 AM
I thank you for attentively responding to each study I've linked.  I especially enjoyed your feedback about the sexual abuse of children in foster care.  Perhaps you could repost some of those comments, so that everyone here can appreciate them.  Or your responses to the article about victims of child abuse at a prestigious NYC school, and how the abuse they suffered as children has impacted into their adulthood. 

Yet again, you are lying! You are attempting to cover up the fact that you were wrong by implying that I dodged those topics, yet they weren't even directed at me. You mentioned sexual abuse in foster care in response to a question Gnu Ordure asked you. Foster care is not adoption, foster parents take in children on a temporary basis for profit, not for love. This has nothing to do with me and nobody asked my opinion, so how dare you accuse me of dodging?

The other issue about the sex abuse at a New York school had nothing to do with the discussion about legalizing the possession of child pornography. You didn't seem to be directing your comments at anyone in particular. You didn't quote anyone, you didn't ask anyone's opinion. As a result, nobody made any comment about it. So I guess everyone dodged that?

I think from this post I've finally learned my lesson. You cherry pick and ignore logical arguments without making any of your own, then accuse others of doing the very same thing when they clearly haven't. When you're called out on your bullshit, you dive deeper into the bullshit. You're not intelligent enough to debate, which isn't a problem by itself, but you're also dishonest. You're not worth my time.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: screwtape on July 23, 2012, 10:38:02 AM
When it gets to the point where members are calling each other liar and idiots, making it bold and including the adjective "fucking", then it is time to either lock it or send it to the Pit.

So, to the Pit with ye.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 23, 2012, 10:48:36 AM
Quote
We spare no expense to prove that 9 year olds are "adults" in order to destroy a young life.
I bet if you think about it you will find that the tests and analysis are run to ensure that the goal of such tests are not to ruin a young life but rather to protect society.

Possibly in extreme cases like murder, but does that argument hold up when we charge kids as adults for stealing cars? And the argument completely falls apart for victimless crimes like pot possession. Also, when you consider that kids tried as adults have much higher recidivism rates than kids charged as juveniles, it is in fact creating more crime, not less.

It's very optimistic of you to give the system the benefit of doubt, but the real reason kids are charged as adults more and more often at younger and younger ages is greed. Longer prison terms means more money earned by our privatized prison systems. You see unlike state-owned facilities, these actually pay dividends, and who are the biggest shareholders? Why, our state congressmen and senators and their friends of course! They sell off our prisons to corporations, then pass more laws to put more people in jail for longer, and personally profit from the resulting misery. This is why they continue to stiffen penalties against pot possession despite waning public support for the war on drugs and mountains of studies that say marijuana is not even as dangerous as alcohol. As if that weren't bad enough, state run prisons cost the taxpayers less than half as much to operate but the politicians have sold the public on the idea of privatized prisons so they can pocket the difference.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Zankuu on July 23, 2012, 10:51:19 AM
So, to the fucking Pit with ye.

Fixed.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Graybeard on July 23, 2012, 10:58:54 AM
Why must a single age exist as the threshold for all adult rights and responsibilities?
We do this rather than the very expensive, time consuming and inaccurate assessment process; it is a convenience. Such age limits are often reviewed.

You still haven't addressed my concern which is that if we can take the time to assess a minor's state of mental development on a case by case basis to stand trial, why can't we take the time to do the same when they get involved in a sexual relationship with an adult?
The assessment is before the trial; it is unlikely that, in the heat of the moment, the adult and minor would take a break for the minor to be assessed.

Such an assessment, if carried out, would have to include an assessment of preparedness for every variation of erotic action possible – again it is impractical.

Or perhaps you are suggesting, for want of a better phrase, “a Sex licence” – a child of any age may apply for this and, if it is granted, may do as they wish –fisting to necrophilia and everything in between?

I think this would have presentational difficulties as 99.9% of the adult population would be opposed to this. The other thing is the minor would have to be sufficiently mature [compare this with your description of the 'fit for adult trial' examination] and it would have to be shown that there was not the slightest element of coercion by a lustful adult; the practical difficulties are simply not worth it.

Quote
We go out of our way. Call in experts. Run tests. We spare no expense to prove that 9 year olds are "adults" in order to destroy a young life,
It is not done, “in order to destroy a young life” but to determine the most appropriate method of administering justice one that the accused can grasp.

Quote
Are we so evil that we only make an effort for punishment, not for mercy? Does that seem right to you?
The assessment for trial is neutral, rather than evil.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: none on July 23, 2012, 11:03:00 AM
Quote
We spare no expense to prove that 9 year olds are "adults" in order to destroy a young life.
I bet if you think about it you will find that the tests and analysis are run to ensure that the goal of such tests are not to ruin a young life but rather to protect society.

Possibly in extreme cases like murder, but does that argument hold up when we charge kids as adults for stealing cars? And the argument completely falls apart for victimless crimes like pot possession. Also, when you consider that kids tried as adults have much higher recidivism rates than kids charged as juveniles, it is in fact creating more crime, not less.

It's very optimistic of you to give the system the benefit of doubt, but the real reason kids are charged as adults more and more often at younger and younger ages is greed. Longer prison terms means more money earned by our privatized prison systems. You see unlike state-owned facilities, these actually pay dividends, and who are the biggest shareholders? Why, our state congressmen and senators and their friends of course! They sell off our prisons to corporations, then pass more laws to put more people in jail for longer, and personally profit from the resulting misery. This is why they continue to stiffen penalties against pot possession despite waning public support for the war on drugs and mountains of studies that say marijuana is not even as dangerous as alcohol. As if that weren't bad enough, state run prisons cost the taxpayers less than half as much to operate but the politicians have sold the public on the idea of privatized prisons so they can pocket the difference.
wah wah wah...
so here you have a mix of pedophilia and systemic greed.
what am I to think of you other than you are trying to in a round about way say that you want children who are abused by the system to also be abused by pedophiles?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 23, 2012, 11:53:18 AM
You still haven't addressed my concern which is that if we can take the time to assess a minor's state of mental development on a case by case basis to stand trial, why can't we take the time to do the same when they get involved in a sexual relationship with an adult?
The assessment is before the trial; it is unlikely that, in the heat of the moment, the adult and minor would take a break for the minor to be assessed.

Yes, before the trial, but after the crime has been committed. Nobody is suggesting we perform the test before the crime. What I'm asking is why can't we use the same method of determining whether or not a minor should stand trial as an adult and apply it to statutory rape cases as well? Note that that means every act was consensual. If the minor gave consent, and the court determines that she was capable of giving said consent, case dismissed.

Obviously there would be no need in cases of forced rape, as no consent is given.
Such an assessment, if carried out, would have to include an assessment of preparedness for every variation of erotic action possible – again it is impractical.

Or perhaps you are suggesting, for want of a better phrase, “a Sex licence” – a child of any age may apply for this and, if it is granted, may do as they wish –fisting to necrophilia and everything in between?

I think this would have presentational difficulties as 99.9% of the adult population would be opposed to this. The other thing is the minor would have to be sufficiently mature [compare this with your description of the 'fit for adult trial' examination] and it would have to be shown that there was not the slightest element of coercion by a lustful adult; the practical difficulties are simply not worth it.

A sex license wouldn't work? Got it, thanks. But wait, I never sugges-- oh, I get it now! So you create a preposterous position that nobody was advocating and then proceed to tear it down? What a clever and novel approach to debate! You can shame your opponents into stunned silence with your obviously superior argument. But wait, I think I've discovered a flaw. What if someone notices that the position you created and then attacked is not their own position? That might make it look like you intentionally misrepresented their argument in order to more easily defeat them. Well, back to the drawing board I guess.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 23, 2012, 11:55:15 AM
what am I to think of you other than you are trying to in a round about way say that you want children who are abused by the system to also be abused by pedophiles?

Well, I hope you don't think that. That would make you very stupid. Would you mind explaining what I specifically said to lead you to this conclusion before I go ahead and assume that?

I was saying that we shouldn't try children as adults. Which by the way would mean they would go to juvenile detention centers, not prisons. Juveniles tried as adults who go to prisons are 5 times more likely to be raped while serving their sentence. So by arguing in favor of trying kids as adults, you are the one condemning more children to sexual abuse.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 23, 2012, 01:31:44 PM
Why must a single age exist as the threshold for all adult rights and responsibilities?
We do this rather than the very expensive, time consuming and inaccurate assessment process; it is a convenience. Such age limits are often reviewed.

Umm, no we don't.  A single age doesn't exist as the threshold for all adult rights and responsibilities, collectively.  Which is what I was saying with my post, and which should be obvious to anyone who read the context (ie. the post to which I was replying).
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 23, 2012, 04:44:19 PM
When it gets to the point where members are calling each other liar and idiots, making it bold and including the adjective "fucking", then it is time to either lock it or send it to the Pit.

So, to the Pit with ye.

False dichotomy, Screw.

A third option would have been to moderate the single person calling other people 'fucking liars', which I understand from recent discussions is no longer allowed.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Emily on July 23, 2012, 05:03:10 PM
When it gets to the point where members are calling each other liar and idiots, making it bold and including the adjective "fucking", then it is time to either lock it or send it to the Pit.

So, to the Pit with ye.

Don't mind me for butting in, but I always thought the pit was for there

-Threads with little hope may be moved here to fester until a final death-

I've been gone for two days, so I haven't read the comments since Saturday, but I was keeping up with it and IMO Kimberly, Quasi and Gnu were all making good points, and Joe was defending his views[1].

Perhaps the thread took a U-Turn since I last visited it, but I don't think this thead has little hope.

I agree with Gnu. What happened to moderation?
 1. not that I agree with his views
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 23, 2012, 05:14:22 PM
I thought the thread was proceeding fairly smoothly, all things considered.  Oh well.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 23, 2012, 05:21:39 PM
I was glad to see some new faces participating in this debate. I hope the threads new placement in the pit doesn't scare everyone off.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: nogodsforme on July 23, 2012, 06:05:39 PM
I also thought the thread was a useful discussion. Just because a topic is difficult and contentious does not mean it should be shut down. I don't agree with Joe either most of the time, but he has a right to express his POV. Exchanging ideas is how we learn. Even a cuckoo clock can be right sometimes... :angel:
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Timtheskeptic on July 23, 2012, 06:32:46 PM
i think it would be best to have Joe be moderated. While i agree he has the right to his opinions, i think he needs to be watched. I strongly disagreed with him and i think Joe might not be interested in hearing what anyone wants to say, he rather it goes his way.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: none on July 23, 2012, 06:43:44 PM
what am I to think of you other than you are trying to in a round about way say that you want children who are abused by the system to also be abused by pedophiles?

Well, I hope you don't think that. That would make you very stupid. Would you mind explaining what I specifically said to lead you to this conclusion before I go ahead and assume that?

I was saying that we shouldn't try children as adults. Which by the way would mean they would go to juvenile detention centers, not prisons. Juveniles tried as adults who go to prisons are 5 times more likely to be raped while serving their sentence. So by arguing in favor of trying kids as adults, you are the one condemning more children to sexual abuse.
thanks, it was a bad post...
in a round about way children perpetrators should be seen as children but innocent children used as sex toys should be seen as being able to engage adults as equals?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 23, 2012, 08:04:15 PM
Bold mine. Really Quesi? This was my reply, from page 3 of this thread:

<snip>

blah blah blah 

<snip>

That post contained 31 links, which is possibly a forum record.


Since no sensible person is going to read all those links in order to rationally counter Joe's argument, this qualifies it as an argumentum verbosium, (wiki: submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details.)

Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 23, 2012, 08:10:15 PM
^I'm pretty sure it would make Dave Mabus proud.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 23, 2012, 08:41:33 PM
Bold mine. Really Quesi? This was my reply, from page 3 of this thread:

<snip>

blah blah blah 

<snip>

That post contained 31 links, possibly a forum record.

Since nobody is going to read all those links in order to rationally counter Joe's argument, this qualifies it as an argumentum verbosium, (wiki: submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details.)

And in one case, I was wrong.  I specifically remember following the thread in real time, and being outraged that Joe had not responded to my link on the Pessimism about Pedophilia article.  But Joe clearly did make a comment.  It is there now. 

Either I just missed his comment, or he added the comment after he edited the page, (which he did a few minutes after making the original post) and I did not go back and read the edited version.  I am not sure if it was my mistake, or if I just missed his edit.  In either case, I apologized.  I should not have used such strong language without double checking. 

In terms of who linked which article first two months ago, I defer to Joe's careful research on the topic.  I find the content of his posts inconsistent, his citations weak, his shifting of goal posts infuriating, and his worldview offensive.   But I can't help but admire his (obsessive) follow up in this case.

Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 23, 2012, 08:56:10 PM
Either I just missed his comment, or he added the comment after he edited the page, (which he did a few minutes after making the original post) and I did not go back and read the edited version.

This happened to me. I quoted a block of text[1] and responded to it. Went back a few hours later to re-read the last few pages of the thread because something was being quoted that I never read. Turns out he edited his post while I was making my post. I didn't mention it because we are talking about 2-3 min time lapse, but I missed it for at least a day.

I think it would be helpful if Joe added a note when he's changing the major tone of his post. If I do an edit to add a comment or information not previously addressed I will always put "Edited to add ________________". Unless my edit was only spelling or grammatical corrections.

IDK if everyone does that, but I find it very beneficial.
 1. Of Joe's.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 23, 2012, 10:24:14 PM
That post contained 31 links, which is possibly a forum record.

Since no sensible person is going to read all those links in order to rationally counter Joe's argument, this qualifies it as an argumentum verbosium, (wiki: submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details.)

So since you're too lazy to bother with any fact checking, that somehow means I've committed a fallacy? Are you serious? It would take perhaps 10 minutes to read my post and verify everything I said. There was a time when people would actually read things to learn, I think they called them books, and I'm pretty sure they were a lot longer than my post. In the future I'll try to keep my exchanges with you limited to T-shirt slogans ok Gnu? I certainly wouldn't want to hurt your little brain with all them big mean facts.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 23, 2012, 10:54:44 PM
Either I just missed his comment, or he added the comment after he edited the page, (which he did a few minutes after making the original post) and I did not go back and read the edited version.  I am not sure if it was my mistake, or if I just missed his edit.  In either case, I apologized.  I should not have used such strong language without double checking. 

She called me out for dodging her posts about the Harvard study, I showed her how she was wrong.
She again called me out for dodging the NYC school and foster care posts. I again showed her she was wrong.
She ignored that (and hopes you do too) and tried to shift blame by saying that I edited my post after the fact and she must have just missed it.

Can anyone guess what's going to happen next?

Quesi, I commented on your Harvard study on July 20, 2012, 09:49:16 PM. Your next reply in this thread was on July 21, 2012, 08:18:14 AM. The window for editing my post had long since expired by then. Any changes I had made to my post would have been final before you made your next post.

Where will you put the goalpost next Quesi, aren't you running out of field?

In terms of who linked which article first two months ago, I defer to Joe's careful research on the topic.  I find the content of his posts inconsistent, his citations weak, his shifting of goal posts infuriating, and his worldview offensive.   But I can't help but admire his (obsessive) follow up in this case.

You clearly haven't been reading my posts carefully, and you clearly haven't even read the studies I linked, as you've never responded to them with any indication that you understood them. I've cited solid research that backs up my arguments, you've cited discredited studies, repeatedly blamed me for dodging an article behind a paywall and a study by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that does not make the claims that you say it does.

My shifting of goal posts is infuriating? Find one example where I've shifted goalposts.

My worldview is offensive? You mean the worldview that we shouldn't be throwing people in jail who might not deserve to be there? You mean my worldview that there is solid data that says legalizing possession of child pornography could lead to fewer victims?

The fact that you dismiss that possibility without consideration tells me that your argument is purely emotional, and you don't really care about protecting kids as much as you think you do.  I find your worldview offensive. By continuing to support a strict child pornography ban, you are part of the reason child sex abuse is so rampant, you are not part of the solution.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 24, 2012, 01:30:54 AM
When it gets to the point where members are calling each other liar and idiots, making it bold and including the adjective "fucking", then it is time to either lock it or send it to the Pit.

So, to the Pit with ye.

It was appropriate, given her continued dishonesty. Also, there is nothing in the rules about using foul language. This is a disappointing attempt to stifle the discussion, in my opinion.

i think it would be best to have Joe be moderated. While i agree he has the right to his opinions, i think he needs to be watched. I strongly disagreed with him and i think Joe might not be interested in hearing what anyone wants to say, he rather it goes his way.

I have not broken the rules, foul language is not banned here. I respond to questions directed at me and I provide explanations and facts to back up my statements. My posts are relevant to the discussion and not intended to derail the topic. You just want to shut me up because you don't have a logical argument to throw in the ring.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Timtheskeptic on July 24, 2012, 03:03:52 AM
i think it would be best to have Joe be moderated. While i agree he has the right to his opinions, i think he needs to be watched. I strongly disagreed with him and i think Joe might not be interested in hearing what anyone wants to say, he rather it goes his way.

You just want to shut me up because you don't have a logical argument to throw in the ring.

I think i made my point! 8)
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 24, 2012, 06:58:37 AM
Or his...
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Anfauglir on July 24, 2012, 08:08:58 AM
You mean my worldview that there is solid data that says legalizing possession of child pornography could lead to fewer victims?

I'll be honest - I haven't read all the links, and will do so before I come to a firm conclusion, but for the moment I'll accept that this position is correct.  From reading the thread, it appears that the point is that studies show that persons who have access to the virtual are less likely to require it in reality?  I can accept that point of view - it makes sense, especially where there are far greater consequences to the actuality.  I seem to recall reading recent studies that show that playing shoot-em-up PC games makes you less likely to shoot people in the real world, so I guess the same principle applies.

Logical counters might be that there will be some who progress from virtual to actual - I don't doubt they exist - but the question would be which has the greatest overall effect.  It may be that both points are true: that some move from one to the other, while others are "stabilised" (if that's the right word) by one so do NOT progress.  It may well be that studies will show both effects are true, if they haven't been constructed to look at both aspects. 

The second logical counter might be that the virtual (because of its illegality) is restricted, and so therefore the "type" that progresses from virtual to reality would be observed far less frequently under the current system, than if the virtual were legalised - increased access may lead to increased take-up, and hence increased progression.  Not sure if that has been covered in the studies - or even how you would test for it?  I suppose the best parallel might be to look at historical data to see whether increased access to the "normal" virtual led to increased or decreased actuals.  I seem to recall that being shown not to be the case, but I can't find the link right now.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 24, 2012, 12:31:43 PM
Quote from: Anfauflir
I seem to recall reading recent studies that show that playing shoot-em-up PC games makes you less likely to shoot people in the real world, so I guess the same principle applies.

Also, watching violent movies leads to a decrease in violence.

But you don't have to read studies about games and movies and "guess the same principle applies" to porn, and by extension child porn. The studies have already been done.

Can you clarify what you mean by virtual and actual? Are you referring to virtual porn like animations compared to porn depicting actual children? I didn't follow that post.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: screwtape on July 24, 2012, 06:49:26 PM
It was appropriate, given her continued dishonesty. Also, there is nothing in the rules about using foul language. This is a disappointing attempt to stifle the discussion, in my opinion.

Joe,

I don't think it was appropriate because I don't think she was lying.  I'm not saying she wasn't wrong, or mistaken or even biased by her position.  If you can show she was deliberately misrepresenting the facts, then it is appropriate.  Otherwise, please don't do that in threads that are not in the Pit.   

Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 24, 2012, 08:14:33 PM
Either I just missed his comment, or he added the comment after he edited the page, (which he did a few minutes after making the original post) and I did not go back and read the edited version.  I am not sure if it was my mistake, or if I just missed his edit.  In either case, I apologized.  I should not have used such strong language without double checking. 

She called me out for dodging her posts about the Harvard study, I showed her how she was wrong.
She again called me out for dodging the NYC school and foster care posts. I again showed her she was wrong.
She ignored that (and hopes you do too) and tried to shift blame by saying that I edited my post after the fact and she must have just missed it.

Can anyone guess what's going to happen next?

Quesi, I commented on your Harvard study on July 20, 2012, 09:49:16 PM. Your next reply in this thread was on July 21, 2012, 08:18:14 AM. The window for editing my post had long since expired by then. Any changes I had made to my post would have been final before you made your next post.

Where will you put the goalpost next Quesi, aren't you running out of field?

In terms of who linked which article first two months ago, I defer to Joe's careful research on the topic.  I find the content of his posts inconsistent, his citations weak, his shifting of goal posts infuriating, and his worldview offensive.   But I can't help but admire his (obsessive) follow up in this case.

You clearly haven't been reading my posts carefully, and you clearly haven't even read the studies I linked, as you've never responded to them with any indication that you understood them. I've cited solid research that backs up my arguments, you've cited discredited studies, repeatedly blamed me for dodging an article behind a paywall and a study by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that does not make the claims that you say it does.

My shifting of goal posts is infuriating? Find one example where I've shifted goalposts.

My worldview is offensive? You mean the worldview that we shouldn't be throwing people in jail who might not deserve to be there? You mean my worldview that there is solid data that says legalizing possession of child pornography could lead to fewer victims?

The fact that you dismiss that possibility without consideration tells me that your argument is purely emotional, and you don't really care about protecting kids as much as you think you do.  I find your worldview offensive. By continuing to support a strict child pornography ban, you are part of the reason child sex abuse is so rampant, you are not part of the solution.


Again Joe, I have to say that I am flattered that you are interested in putting so much energy into tracking the minutia of our posts on the topics of pornography, pedophilia, and child abuse over the past couple of months. 

I am not willing to put out the effort that you did to track which post came before the other post because I have no vested interest in “winning” a battle with you.  You’re just not that important to me. 

But there are a few things I would like to say. 

I do not lie. 

Integrity and honesty are very important to me.   

Sometimes I get too emotional.  Especially on topics of abuse and exploitation.  Anyone who has read my threads on topics of race or economic disparity or anything to do with child abuse sees my strong emotions.  Sometimes, when I am emotional, I say or write things that I should have thought out more. 

I genuinely like almost everybody.  I like most of the people who I interact with on a daily basis.  I like almost everyone on this forum.  Even most of the theists.  I didn’t like PlaneJane.  And I don’t care for the “unique uncreated creator of the universe’ guy. 

And I don’t like you Joe.  And I know it comes out in my posts.  I think you are arrogant.  I think you are manipulative. I think you are not nearly as smart as you think you are.  And I think you are a predator.  I would never let a child anywhere near you, and I fear for your daughters as your girlfriend/wife gets older and those girls hit puberty.  And I am certainly not the only one on this forum who has those fears. 

Sometimes I bait you.  Those are not my best moments.  But I know I do it. 

But I don’t lie. 

Joe, I know you think you know more than the AMA and Harvard Medical Journal Researchers and the Mayo Clinic and everyone else I’ve cited over the past few months.  But I don’t think you do. 

We will just have to agree to disagree on that fact.   

I do not have an opinion on whether porn quenches or amplifies the appetite to molest children, and I think it is very clear that there is NO CONSENSUS among experts on this topic.  That is why I cited studies contradicting your studies.  “You maintained that there was a clear consensus among experts.”  There is not. 

From the beginning of this series of threads relating to pedophilia and pornography, my concern has always been the exploitation of children.  In terms of mentally ill people, I strongly believe that they have rights too.  I have never advocated for randomly putting pedophiles in jail.  I support continued research into potential treatments.  I’m not even sure I have a vision of what a successful model of protecting children is.  I have mixed feelings about “sex offenders” lists, even though as a mom, I’ve studied the lists of sex offenders in my neighborhood.   

I strongly advocate for harsh prison terms for those producing pornography, and especially those involved in human trafficking.  I’ve worked with human trafficking victims, and it is not an abstract concept to me.  It is very real and very raw and very emotional. 

You have a vested interest in downplaying the negative impact of pornography and pedophilia.  I have a vested interest in advocating for victims. 

And after a few months of going back and forth, I don’t see any way to reconcile our competing interests. 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 24, 2012, 10:42:24 PM
I am not willing to put out the effort that you did to track which post came before the other post because I have no vested interest in “winning” a battle with you.  You’re just not that important to me. 

You don't even have to read my entire post. You could simply click on the two links that demonstrate which one came first. You're willing to type almost a whole printed page reply here but can't click on two links? I think that clearly proves that you know you're wrong and yet again not willing to admit it.

I do not lie. 
You do. Repeatedly. In fact that statement itself is a lie.

Joe, I know you think you know more than the AMA and Harvard Medical Journal Researchers and the Mayo Clinic and everyone else I’ve cited over the past few months.  But I don’t think you do. 

No, as I've explained several times, YOU think you know more than they do. THEY freely admit that they know their research is biased as the data collection methods are heavily based on interviews with convicted pedophiles, and do not represent the overall population. YOU are claiming they have drawn conclusions that support your argument, but they haven't. They have theories based on incomplete data.

From the "Mayo Clinic study" (which was actually a study by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children), under the section titled PROBLEMS WITH PEDOPHILIC RESEARCH:
Quote
When reviewing research studies on pedophilia, it must be remembered that there is a strong potential for sampling biases. Many studies obtained their pedophilic or sexual offender populations from prisons or legally mandated sexual treatment groups. The prison populations also exclude pedophiles who have not been caught, those whose level of offense was not severe enough to result in jail time, those who could control their impulses, and those who were more financially successful and better able to prevail in their legal troubles through the retention of private attorneys.

In other words they are clearly warning the reader that the data is incomplete and that their conclusions are based on convicted pedophiles, and do not represent the overall pedophile population. YOU are the one who thinks you know more than the AMA and Harvard Medical Journal Researchers and the Mayo Clinic and everyone else you’ve cited over the past few months. This has been pointed out to you several times, you dismiss it because I am not a doctor, I am not qualified to discredit their studies, however at least I am smart enough to read a fucking disclaimer.

I do not have an opinion on whether porn quenches or amplifies the appetite to molest children
You don't have an opinion yet you clearly didn't read the studies that favored my argument, and went out of your way to find studies to contradict it, including discredited studies, and you ignored the disclaimers in those studies that admitted their data was biased. For someone without an opinion, you went a long way to say nothing.

From the beginning of this series of threads relating to pedophilia and pornography, my concern has always been the exploitation of children.
If you are so concerned about protecting children, then why didn't you read the studies I cited that demonstrate that legalizing the possession of child pornography could lead to fewer victims? Why did you post BAD SCIENCE to contradict it? Seriously, think about that. Good studies with solid methodologies conducted across the world have concluded that it would lower the incidences of sexual abuse against children. You counter with admittedly biased and discredited studies. You put bad science against good science because you don't want me to be right. Honestly, if you really cared about the children, wouldn't you consider an idea that could lead to significantly fewer children being abused and raped? An idea backed up by decades of research? An idea that has already been tested in other countries including Japan, Denmark, and the Czech republic and had demonstrably good results?

Let me ask you plainly.

If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?

I have mixed feelings about “sex offenders” lists, even though as a mom, I’ve studied the lists of sex offenders in my neighborhood.
Even murderers don't have to register on such lists. Why pedophiles? Thought crime. We persecute them for what they are, not what they do.

I strongly advocate for harsh prison terms for those producing pornography...
I am guessing you mean child pornography, not all pornography.

You have a vested interest in downplaying the negative impact of pornography and pedophilia.  I have a vested interest in advocating for victims.
You have a vested interest in downplaying the negative impact of banning pornography. I have a vested interest in advocating for victims of prosecutorial witchhunting.

And after a few months of going back and forth, I don’t see any way to reconcile our competing interests.
You're not willing to face the possibility that you're wrong, and you haven't offered one iota of solid evidence to counter my position.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Emily on July 24, 2012, 11:24:21 PM
]If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?

Can I answer it. No, I wouldn't support it. Because If there is at least one child in a video or picture that is distributed to millions of people that's one child who is being exploited for sexual arousal of someone else. Why would anyone support this?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Zankuu on July 24, 2012, 11:53:19 PM
Can I answer it. No, I wouldn't support it. Because If there is at least one child in a video or picture that is distributed to millions of people that's one child who is being exploited for sexual arousal of someone else. Why would anyone support this?

Because it leads to fewer cases of child abuse and rape.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Anfauglir on July 25, 2012, 01:59:46 AM
Can you clarify what you mean by virtual and actual? Are you referring to virtual porn like animations compared to porn depicting actual children? I didn't follow that post.

Sorry - I have to be careful what I type when I'm on the office PC.  In that post, for "virtual" read "magazines, films, etc", and for "actual" read "physical interaction".  Sorry 'bout that!
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Anfauglir on July 25, 2012, 02:10:48 AM
]If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?

Can I answer it. No, I wouldn't support it. Because If there is at least one child in a video or picture that is distributed to millions of people that's one child who is being exploited for sexual arousal of someone else. Why would anyone support this?

Hmm.  "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" said Spock (now there's an appropriate homonym!)  Not sure I could agree with that - I have a problem with sacrificing one unwilling innocent to save others, though of course its different if the "victim" is capable of giving, and gives, their consent.

But that said, there appears to be an awful lot of material out there already.  Its made, it done with, its not harming anyone else any more.  By nature of its illegality, I doubt anyone has access to it all - by legalising it, you open up fresh avenues of old stuff for them to use.  So there may already be "enough" to satisfy the requirements of Joe's proposal.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 25, 2012, 03:16:59 AM
Anfauglir gets it. There is plenty of content already out there. And we should continue to criminalize the production and sale to discourage production of new stuff.

I don't want to comment on Emily's response quite yet, but Emily, I would like you to to read my question one more time and answer it again if you don't mind. If your answer is the same that's fine.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: naemhni on July 25, 2012, 07:26:12 AM
]If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?

Can I answer it. No, I wouldn't support it. Because If there is at least one child in a video or picture that is distributed to millions of people that's one child who is being exploited for sexual arousal of someone else. Why would anyone support this?

Trying this link again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: screwtape on July 25, 2012, 08:00:24 AM
Trying this link again...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery

CGI is the future of all porn.  Cheap, reuseable, free of STDs and lawsuits, no "victims", and you can tailor it to fit whatever niche fetish you want.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 25, 2012, 08:03:31 AM
We just have to get them to legalize it first. What a ridiculous ban. Conclusive proof that it's thought crime.

We know there's no victim but we just don't like you, so off to jail with you.

And most of our society agrees!
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 25, 2012, 08:05:32 AM
Can I answer it. No, I wouldn't support it. Because If there is at least one child in a video or picture that is distributed to millions of people that's one child who is being exploited for sexual arousal of someone else. Why would anyone support this?

Even putting CGI aside...

How many child rapes are acceptable in order to prevent the exploitation of one child for the purpose of pornography?  I'm curious as to how you weight this.

It might help to re-read the question.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 25, 2012, 08:11:09 AM
I didn't want to comment Adzgari until I was sure she understood what she was saying. Of course, maybe she did understand exactly what she was saying. I will withold comment until she responds.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: naemhni on July 25, 2012, 08:17:34 AM
How many child rapes are acceptable in order to prevent the exploitation of one child for the purpose of pornography?  I'm curious as to how you weight this.

If that's not a moot point now, it will be pretty soon.  The state of the art in CGI is now to the point where a human being can be portrayed with near-perfect realism, and that being the case, there is no reason to suppose that any children at all would need to be exploited for this.  It's kind of like pregnancy tests.  We don't need to kill cute little fluffy bunny rabbits anymore to find out whether a woman is pregnant.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 25, 2012, 08:28:02 AM
Agreed, but Emily was clearly thinking "CGI aside", for whatever reason.  I'm asking more for an insight into Emily's thought process than to analyze the actual situation at hand.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: naemhni on July 25, 2012, 08:34:33 AM
Agreed, but Emily was clearly thinking "CGI aside", for whatever reason.  I'm asking more for an insight into Emily's thought process than to analyze the actual situation at hand.

Ah, I see.  Yes, it's an interesting question, even if it is only academic in this case.  Since I majored in philosophy, we talked about this kind of scenario quite a bit in my ethics classes.  You may be interested in Ursula K. LeGuin's short story, "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas", which gives her views on a hypothetical situation that's very similar to the one you're asking about.
http://harelbarzilai.org/words/omelas.txt
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 25, 2012, 11:30:26 AM
But remember this isn't one of those "would you kill 1 person to save 100" type of hypothetical questions. The research has been done, it has been legalized in other countries and the child sex abuse cases have dropped significantly. It's really not a "hypothetically, would you want to save kids?" type of question, it's actually a "seriously, why don't you want to save kids?" type of question.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 25, 2012, 05:12:01 PM
But that said, there appears to be an awful lot of material out there already.  Its made, it done with, its not harming anyone else any more. 

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: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 25, 2012, 05:55:16 PM
If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?

Joe, you say that the production of child pornography should be illegal - as do we all. We support the efforts of the authorities to do all they can to eliminate it.

So even if you were right about the possession of child porn reducing assaults on children, we are still going to try to eliminate its production, and we will have to accept a rise in assaults as a consequence.

Or...

... there's a correlation between psychopathy and animal torture. If it were proven that legalizing the torture of animals lead to fewer cases of sadism against people, would you support it?

The ends do not justify the means.

That post contained 31 links, which is possibly a forum record. Since no sensible person is going to read all those links in order to rationally counter Joe's argument, this qualifies it as an argumentum verbosium, (wiki: submission of others to an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details.)
So since you're too lazy to bother with any fact checking, that somehow means I've committed a fallacy?
I didn't invent the concept of argumentum verbosium; and your post fits the description.

My (or anyone's) 'laziness' has got nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 25, 2012, 10:18:50 PM
Quote from: Gnu Ordure
So even if you were right about the possession of child porn reducing assaults on children, we are still going to try to eliminate its production, and we will have to accept a rise in assaults as a consequence.

**slow sarcastic clapping** Thanks for that.


I didn't invent the concept of argumentum verbosium; and your post fits the description.

My (or anyone's) 'laziness' has got nothing to do with it.

No, an argumentum verbosium would be to simply tell you that the proof is in the thread, and tell you to go find it yourself, knowing that you wouldn't take the time to read through 22 pages to find it. What I did was clearly summarize the argument in a concise single page with optional links in case someone wanted to verify what I was claiming. Notice each of those links goes directly to the post being referenced, not just the page, or the thread, or this website. While it may be long and detailed, it is not argumentum verbosium by any means, as I suspect you already know.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: screwtape on July 26, 2012, 07:10:40 AM

Has this topic played out yet?  Has everyone had their fill of it?  Can I lock it? 

Please let me know.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 26, 2012, 07:54:45 AM
Quote from: Gnu Ordure
So even if you were right about the possession of child porn reducing assaults on children, we are still going to try to eliminate its production, and we will have to accept a rise in assaults as a consequence.

**slow sarcastic clapping** Thanks for that.
Clap all you like. Your hypothetical question was a false dichotomy anyway, as it excluded the legalization of CGI as an alternative course of action. 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Timtheskeptic on July 26, 2012, 08:52:38 AM

Has this topic played out yet?  Has everyone had their fill of it?  Can I lock it? 

Please let me know.

Maybe we should.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 26, 2012, 09:43:48 AM

Has this topic played out yet?  Has everyone had their fill of it?  Can I lock it? 

Please let me know.

How about you stop trying to censor opinions you disagree with and let us have a conversation?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 26, 2012, 09:51:47 AM
Clap all you like. Your hypothetical question was a false dichotomy anyway, as it excluded the legalization of CGI as an alternative course of action.

It's not a false dichotomy. I've already said that should be legal, but what if it doesn't have the same effect?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: screwtape on July 26, 2012, 11:16:22 AM

Has this topic played out yet?  Has everyone had their fill of it?  Can I lock it? 

Please let me know.

How about you stop trying to censor opinions you disagree with and let us have a conversation?



First of all, Joe, I'm not trying to censor anything.  I have no problem with what you or anyone else here had to say about the topic.  It is what you have to say about each other that is the concern.

Secondly, if I wanted to censor you or anyone else in this thread, I would not have asked, it would already be locked.  From my perspective, the conversation has run its course and all that is left is name calling and bad feelings.  So I asked, are you all done yet?

A simple, yes or no would suffice.


 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Emily on July 26, 2012, 11:35:40 AM
Well, in the chance of this thread getting locked I would like to reply to some comments directed towards me regarding something I said. I will admit to misreading the question that Joe asked.

]If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?

Can I answer it. No, I wouldn't support it. Because If there is at least one child in a video or picture that is distributed to millions of people that's one child who is being exploited for sexual arousal of someone else. Why would anyone support this?

I was thinking of legalizing the possession of child port with legalizing the production.

However, I have bronchitis and feel like shit so I don't really feel like rethinking my answer right now.

Just dropping by to make a quick comment.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 26, 2012, 03:17:18 PM
Clap all you like. Your hypothetical question was a false dichotomy anyway, as it excluded the legalization of CGI as an alternative course of action.

It's not a false dichotomy. I've already said that should be legal, but what if it doesn't have the same effect?
'What if'...? So it's a double hypothetical now?
 
I don't know what you're trying to prove here. As PianoDwarf said, ethical dilemmas which concern choosing the lesser of two evils are notoriously difficult. But in this case, it seems reasonable to obtain more data on the use of CGI; perhaps it will prove a viable alternative.

So a hypothetical question for you would be: if it were proven that legalizing the possession of CGI child pornography was equally effective in leading to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support the criminalization of possession of actual child pornography?

If not, why not?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: nogodsforme on July 26, 2012, 10:31:48 PM
If pron goes all CGI and no real people are involved, I don't see any reason to criminalize it. It should be regulated so that kids or adults who don't want to see it can't easily stumble onto it, but nobody should go to jail for having it or producing it. That only goes for the CGI stuff.

As for the real stuff, I am not the most rational person to comment on it. You are basically asking me if I would be willing to submit my child to degrading abuse to save other children from the same. No. I am not that selfless. My atheist golden rule says if I would not want my kid to have to go through it, I can't say that some child in Thailand is worth less and should be sacrificed to save other kids. I cannot make that decision. I hope nobody ever really has to.

If the people who abused me had taken photos or films and I knew they were on the internet somewhere, I don't even have the words to describe what that would be like. And I am rarely at a loss for words. One of the people (and I use the term loosely)  was into a$$es and copro-you get the idea. And he was a stalker with a secret album full of hundreds of photos that he had taken of women's behinds without their knowledge.....I feel extremely lucky that cell phone and digital cameras and the internet had not been invented yet.
 
I once read a mystery story about a man who had been a victim of child abuse with photos, etc. He basically went mad trying to track down and destroy every extant copy of his abuse in print and on the web. That would probably be me. I would be an addict on the streets or in some kind of an institution if I was alive at all. I find it very hard to feel compassion for people who are deprived of their preferred entertainment because it involves a little thing like ruining the lives of children. :(
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 12:08:31 AM
I've already said that should be legal, but what if it doesn't have the same effect?
'What if'...? So it's a double hypothetical now?
Solid research and real world results demonstrate the positive effect of legalizing child pornography, no such data exists regarding simulated child pornography.

I don't know what you're trying to prove here. As PianoDwarf said, ethical dilemmas which concern choosing the lesser of two evils are notoriously difficult. But in this case, it seems reasonable to obtain more data on the use of CGI; perhaps it will prove a viable alternative.

I absolutely agree, research is necessary, but it's likely that simulated porn does not have the same effect as the real thing. The question would then be if it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape to a significantly greater degree than the legalization of similated child pornography alone, would you support it?

So a hypothetical question for you would be: if it were proven that legalizing the possession of CGI child pornography was equally effective in leading to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support the criminalization of possession of actual child pornography?

If not, why not?

No. It's a thought crime.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 12:17:48 AM
You are basically asking me if I would be willing to submit my child to degrading abuse to save other children from the same.

False. We have clearly explained (repeatedly) that production will still be outlawed and punished. What is being proposed is to legalize only the possession of child pornography. There is a lot of content already out there. These are children that have already been abused. Nobody is suggesting creating new content for this purpose.

I find it very hard to feel compassion for people who are deprived of their preferred entertainment because it involves a little thing like ruining the lives of children. :(

You are ignoring the root of the question. Let me rephrase it. If banning child porn means more children get raped, do you support the ban?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: nogodsforme on July 27, 2012, 12:35:13 AM
As I said before, I am not able to be rational about this. Maybe some places have reduced child abuse that way. But if I found my husband looking at such stuff, I would not be thinking, "Whew, that's a relief! Now he is less likely to attack our daughter." I would be thinking, "Hmmmm. Which divorce lawyer would allow him the least access to our daughter."

It could be that Japan has less violence against children because they have more lenient laws on "dirty" pictures. Or it could be that Japanese men who want to rape children look at the pictures in Japan and then do it in Thailand and leave Japanese kids alone. Hard to say. So much abuse is not reported, even in places like the US.

It is a little like people who supposedly thought that taking a photo stole your soul.  I believe that looking at a child being raped steals that child's soul. Not rational. But there it is.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Just checking on July 27, 2012, 01:09:08 AM


There is a lot of content already out there.

No-body will question your authority on this, I'm sure.


You are ignoring the root of the question. Let me rephrase it. If banning child porn means more children get raped, do you support the ban?

The fact that the child porn might be pre-existing in no way lessesns the culpability of those who view it or possess it. The only reason it exists at all is because terrible people have committed disgusting acts upon a helpless child. And they have done so knowing that there are people in the world who are willing to purchase it, knowing full well that a child was irrepairably damaged in the process. It doesn't matter how many internet domains it has passed through before it reached you, it doesn't matter how many drops of semen have spilled onto the face of the 6 or 7 year old girl with scared eyes looking up at you from the magazine which now lies open a few feet in front of your own penis. You are part of a horrible, despicable process.

I have no idea how credible these studies are which suggest that child rape is reduced by possession of child pornography. I strongly suspect that they're scientifically as weak as piss. But I don't think it really matters, because you don't seem to realise that allowing men to indulge their twisted fantasies of sticking their dicks inside babies, toddlers and pre-teens is ultimately going to harm society as a whole in a horrifying way.

You also seem to be forgetting that production of this horrible stuff is illegal, yet as you yourself boast, quite plentiful. How much more when it isn't even illegal to own it.

You're a sad, sad person, quite obviously dis-honest and my only real hope is that you someday, somehow wake up and realise it and get some help.

My language in this post has been disgusting. It will probably disgust many people. I hope it does. It's a disgusting subject, and I wish the moderators would close it down.

MM
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 01:50:15 AM
As I said before, I am not able to be rational about this. Maybe some places have reduced child abuse that way. But if I found my husband looking at such stuff, I would not be thinking, "Whew, that's a relief! Now he is less likely to attack our daughter." I would be thinking, "Hmmmm. Which divorce lawyer would allow him the least access to our daughter."
You're right, that isn't rational. Imagine your daughter were all grown up, and you found your husband looking at porn of adult women. Or imagine you had a son the same age as your daughter, and you found him looking at porn of girls his own age. Would you have the same reaction? Pedophile or not, having a family member that happens to belong to whatever age group you're attracted to doesn't logically follow to abuse.

It could be that Japan has less violence against children because they have more lenient laws on "dirty" pictures. Or it could be that Japanese men who want to rape children look at the pictures in Japan and then do it in Thailand and leave Japanese kids alone. Hard to say. So much abuse is not reported, even in places like the US.

Japan legalized possession of child pornography and sexual abuse cases against children dropped significantly. The same thing happened in Denmark. The same thing happened in the Czech Republic. Three different nations with different cultures, different histories, different political situations, all experienced the same results.

To suggest that men from three different nations would suddenly stop abusing their own children and head to Thailand at exactly the same time their home countries legalized possession of child porn is simply coincidence is pure wild speculation based on absolutely nothing. You are trying to discredit the studies I cited without even reading them. This proves you have an emotional bias and are unwilling to consider data that conflicts with your argument.

It is a little like people who supposedly thought that taking a photo stole your soul.  I believe that looking at a child being raped steals that child's soul. Not rational. But there it is.

People keep throwing the word rape around. Let's be clear that we're talking about statutory rape, which is consensual sex with a minor. We are not talking about a lack of consent. That's rape. We are talking about a lack of informed consent. I think anyone who has been raped can tell you there is a big difference between consensual sex and rape. We are not talking about violent forced penetration, tears streaming down the face, knife to the throat rape. We are talking about a willing sexual act that is not very different from what most people are used to.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: nogodsforme on July 27, 2012, 02:38:12 AM
I already said I was not rational on this topic.

If you think that rape has to involve a knife to the throat, especially when you are dealing with a child, I think I am done here. Some of the most psychotically awful sexual abuse is when the perpetrator convinces the child that it is "consensual" and that the child actually wanted it. As long as there was no knife to the throat.

I knew a family of kids (three girls, two boys) in the projects who had been abused this way for years. It was creepy because these kids would do anything an adult asked them to do. No matter how strange. If you told them to crawl on the floor and lick your shoe, they would. The will to resist had been taken from them.

The infant in the family had failure to thrive. It was as if he knew what awaited him and he just did not want to live. The older boy was the angriest 4-year old I had ever seen--he could not even be left in a room alone with another child--but was completely submissive to adults. The oldest girl was pregnant by age 14. I'm sure what the mother's string of boyfriends had done to those kids was all very consensual.

It may take weeks or even months of seductive grooming and subtle pressure to wear down the child's will to resist and insinuate himself into their life. Gifts, bribes, threats, lies, tricks, whatever it takes. And the child will take on the blame, the guilt, the disgust, the shame, the self-hatred etc. and carry it for the rest of their life.

Predators are so very good at this. No tears, no violence, no knife to the throat needed. The child finally "consents" because it seems inevitable and the predator makes it seem like it makes perfect sense. The best predators maintain that the child was actually the instigator.  The perp may even let the child choose the activity on a particular occasion.

Like a 10-11-12 year old would think up that on their own and talk the adult into doing it! And yes, by age 16 they will understand all the consequences of being filmed doing stuff like this. 

Dream on.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 04:58:13 AM
I already said I was not rational on this topic.

If you think that rape has to involve a knife to the throat, especially when you are dealing with a child, I think I am done here. Some of the most psychotically awful sexual abuse is when the perpetrator convinces the child that it is "consensual" and that the child actually wanted it. As long as there was no knife to the throat.

I did not say rape requires a knife to the throat, I am making a distinction between different kinds of rape. What you're describing is one kind.

Minors who understand the consequences and want to engage in sexual activity.
Minors who don't understand the consequences and want to engage in sexual activity.
Minors who don't want to engage in sexual activity but do not resist.
Minors who don't want to engage in sexual activity and resist.

I think it's an abuse of the English language to call the first two rape. Anyone who has been forcibly raped can explain the difference between consensual sex and rape. I think a large portion of the 'damage' that results here is all the people repeatedly telling the child that they are a victim, that they were abused, that they were taken advantage of. You hear that enough times and it becomes the truth, whether it was or not. I would rename them to Second degree consensual sex with a minor and First degree consensual sex with a minor. First degree being the more serious offense in cases where the minor did not understand the consequences of her behavior.

The third is what you're describing. I would call this statutory rape.
The last one is simply rape.

The infant in the family had failure to thrive. It was as if he knew what awaited him and he just did not want to live.
This sure sounds awful, but what qualifies you to make that diagnosis, particularly as to it's cause?

Predators are so very good at this. No tears, no violence, no knife to the throat needed. The child finally "consents" because it seems inevitable and the predator makes it seem like it makes perfect sense.

Do you think all cases of adult-minor sex are as you've described?

And yes, by age 16 they will understand all the consequences of being filmed doing stuff like this. 

Dream on.

Yet again I must remind you that nobody is suggesting that we legalize the production of child porn. You do understand that right? I'm saying that once it's already been made, it could be used to prevent further abuse. This claim is backed up by solid science and real world examples.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 05:46:14 AM
The fact that the child porn might be pre-existing in no way lessesns the culpability of those who view it or possess it.
That it an opinion, not a fact, but let's read on to see how you support it.

Quote
The only reason it exists at all is because terrible people have committed disgusting acts upon a helpless child.
I could argue against your use of the words terrible, disgusting, and helpless in describing the majority of child porn, but for the sake of argument let's assume you are describing the worst kind and that you've used those words appropriately. This is still an argument against production, not possession.

Quote
And they have done so knowing that there are people in the world who are willing to purchase it...

This is one of the most common arguments about legalizing child porn and it is a complete falsehood. Most child porn is traded in a gift economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy). It is not sold. I've also specifically stated that the purchase of child porn should remain illegal specifically to address this concern.

Quote
...knowing full well that a child was irrepairably damaged in the process.

False. Many pedophiles do not believe that the relationship is harmful to the child. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant. Your claim that they know full well is false.

Additionally, you have nothing to support your claim that all children used in child porn are irrepairably damaged in the process, or even a majority. Irrepairably was your word, not mine. Don't let your use of hyperbole paint you into a corner.

Quote
It doesn't matter how many internet domains it has passed through before it reached you, it doesn't matter how many drops of semen have spilled onto the face of the 6 or 7 year old girl with scared eyes looking up at you from the magazine which now lies open a few feet in front of your own penis. You are part of a horrible, despicable process.

No, actually, anonymous downloaders are not part of the process. They provide no income, no support, no feedback of any kind. As colorful as that was, you do not present any argument to demonstrate how merely possessing and viewing it can harm the child. By your logic simply watching the videos of the World Trade Center attack makes us terrorists.

Quote
I have no idea how credible these studies are which suggest that child rape is reduced by possession of child pornography. I strongly suspect that they're scientifically as weak as piss.

The fact that you refuse to read them tells me you're not actually interested in protecting children, but protecting the idea of protecting children. If more children get raped, so be it, your conscience is clear, right? What academic credentials do you possess that qualify you to declare these studies invalid without even reading them?

Quote
But I don't think it really matters, because you don't seem to realise that allowing men to indulge their twisted fantasies of sticking their dicks inside babies, toddlers and pre-teens is ultimately going to harm society as a whole in a horrifying way.

Not only do you provide no explaination or evidence for this claim, you don't even address the fact that in Japan, Denmark, and the Czech Republic,  allowing men to indulge their twisted fantasies of sticking their dicks inside babies, toddlers and pre-teens resulted in a significant drop in child sex abuse cases.

Quote
You also seem to be forgetting that production of this horrible stuff is illegal, yet as you yourself boast, quite plentiful. How much more when it isn't even illegal to own it.

Banning it actually leads to more people producing it as they can't get it anywhere else they decide to shoot it themselves. Consider that if it were legal it would be easier to access. That easy access would lead more potential abusers to use it as an outlet for their sexual energy instead of having sex with real children and recording it. After all, the reason they record it is to have it in order to use later, as an outlet for their sexual energy.

You're suggesting that legalization would lead to increased production, but... no source, no evidence or argument? Just your opinion. Whereas I have years of research and real world results to back up my claims. Oh that's right you didn't bother reading any of it.

Quote
You're a sad, sad person,
You obviously don't know me at all. I'm an incredibly happy guy.

Quote
quite obviously dis-honest
This from the guy who speaks only in opinions, laced with hyperbole, gives no evidence for any of his claims, and refuses to read evidence that disagrees with his opinion.

Quote
and my only real hope is that you someday, somehow wake up and realise it and get some help.

My idea would mean a significant reduction in child sex abuse. It's you who should wake up.

Quote
My language in this post has been disgusting. It will probably disgust many people. I hope it does. It's a disgusting subject, and I wish the moderators would close it down.

Yes, silence those that disagree with you.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 27, 2012, 06:14:26 AM

I find it very hard to feel compassion for people who are deprived of their preferred entertainment because it involves a little thing like ruining the lives of children. :(

You are ignoring the root of the question. Let me rephrase it. If banning child porn means more children get raped, do you support the ban?

YOU are missing the point Joe.  Nogodsforme described being sexually victimized as a child, by someone who was a successful collector of pornography featuring his particular fetish. 

Your magic bullet did not work for her.

You can keep saying it Joe.  And I know that you think if you keep saying it, it will come true. But the scientists and the medical experts and the psychiatrists and the psychologists and the people who are invested in preventing child sexual abuse do not think that increased access to pornography will reduce or prevent child abuse. 

The Mayo Clinic study looked at a whole bunch of strategies that have attempted to treat pedophilia.  A whole bunch.  Now I know that you think that you know more than all of these professionals who have spent their careers addressing the issue.  But you don't. 


No treatment for pedophilia is effective unless the pedophile is willing to engage in the treatment. Individuals can offend again while in active psychotherapy, while receiving pharmacologic treatment, and even after castration (17). Currently, much of the focus of pedophilic treatment is on stopping further offenses against children rather than altering the pedophile's sexual orientation toward children. Schober et al. (34) found that individuals still showed sexual interest in children, as measured by the AASI, even after a year of combined psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy, whereas the pedophiles' self-reported frequency of urges and masturbation had decreased. These findings indicate that the urges can be managed, but the core attraction does not change (34, 64). Other interventions designed to manage these pedophilic urges include careful forensic and therapeutic monitoring and reporting, use of testosterone-lowering medications, use of SSRIs, and surgical castration (34, 64).

A popular treatment option is testosterone suppression by pharmacologic means (eg, antiandrogenic therapy or chemical castration). We are aware of only one state (Texas) that will pay for physical castration of sexual offenders but not for long-term chemical castration (85). Although physical castration seems definitive in preventing repeated sexual offenses, some physically castrated pedophiles have restored their potency by taking exogenous testosterone and then abused again (17). Chemical castration has many advantages over physical castration. It requires follow-up visits, continuous monitoring, and psychiatric reevaluation to continue the medication and is reversible for health reasons (64). Agents such as medroxyprogesterone acetate, leuprolide acetate, cyproterone acetate, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists have all been studied as forms of treatment and all work by suppressing testosterone levels (5, 14, 34, 64, 86) (Table 4). Depending on the mechanism of action of the agent used, it can take from 3 to 10 months before one sees a decrease in sexual desire (64). Medroxyprogesterone acetate, leuprolide acetate, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists have been shown to decrease both deviant and nondeviant sexual drives and behaviors in paraphilic individuals (5, 14,34, 64, 86). Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists are becoming the standard of treatment because they have fewer adverse effects and improved efficacy over the older treatments such as medroxyprogesterone acetate (7, 34, 43, 64). Reduced libido also seems to make some offenders more responsive to psychotherapy (5). A drawback to hormone therapy vs castration is its annual cost, which can range from $5000 to $20,000 a year (34, 87).

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors represent a non-hormonal treatment that has been suggested for paraphilias in general and specifically for pedophilia (7, 17, 22, 34, 64, 76, 86). Currently, no blinded placebo-controlled trials have shown that SSRIs are effective for the treatment of pedophilia; however, open-label trials and case reports suggest that SSRIs may be helpful for treating pedophilia (7, 17, 22, 34). These medications can provide a helpful adjunct to structured regulated surveillance, psychotherapy, and hormonal treatment. Part of the basis for the use of an SSRI is the neuropsychiatric data that show serotonin abnormalities and impulse control problems in some pedophiles. These findings are similar to those found in patients with OCD, who respond to SSRIs (22, 34, 44). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors seem to lessen the sexual ruminations and increased sexual urges that pedophiles report related to situational stress and internal discord (7). The diminished sexual drive produced by SSRIs, which is usually perceived as an adverse effect of the medication, may be beneficial for pedophiles (7).

Medications that may be used in the future to treat pedophiles include topiramate and other medications that modulate the voltage-dependent sodium or calcium channel potentiation of ?-aminobutyric acid neurotransmission and/or block kainite/?-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionate glutamate receptors (88—90). Topiramate has been shown to be useful in treating addictions such as gambling, kleptomania, binge eating, and substance use (88—90). Although no prospective clinical trials have documented its effectiveness in pedophiles, several case reports have recently described topiramate's effectiveness in reducing or stopping unwanted sexual behaviors in paraphilic and nonparaphilic (eg, prostitutes, compulsive viewers of general pornography, patients with compulsive masturbation) patients. Dosing has ranged from 50 to 200 mg. Two to 6 weeks are required before decreases in driven sexual behavior occur (88—90). Although no clear mechanism of action has been identified, theories that have been proposed to explain topiramate's mechanism of action include a decrease of dopamine release in the midbrain and direct effects on the ?-aminobutyric activity in the nucleus accumbens (88).

Psychotherapy is an important aspect of treatment, although debate exists concerning its overall effectiveness for long-term prevention of new offenses (47, 91—93). Psychotherapy can be individual, group based, or, most commonly, a combination of the two. The general strategy toward psychotherapy with pedophiles is a cognitive behavioral approach (addressing their distortions and denial) combined with empathy training, sexual impulse control training, relapse prevention, and biofeedback (7, 17, 53, 94, 95). Several studies have demonstrated that the best outcomes in preventing repeat offenses against children occur when pharmacological agents and psychotherapy are used together (34). A controversial approach is the use of aversion conditioning and masturbatory reconditioning to change the individual's sexual orientation away from children. Similar techniques were used with homosexual adults in the middle to late 20th century. Although some clinicians claimed to be able to reorient homosexual people to heterosexuality and to decrease the pleasure reward cycle of pedophiles with these techniques, such methods are no longer used at reputable treatment centers (7, 43).
 
(snip)

Pedophilia is a complex, often compulsive, psychosexual disorder with profound implications for the abused child, perpetrator, and community. It is important for physicians to understand the various types of pedophiles, the profile of the abused children, and the offenders' responses to treatment and their risk for repeated offense. The combination of pharmacologic and behavioral treatment coupled with close legal supervision appears to help reduce the risk of repeated offense. However, the interventions do not change the pedophile's basic sexual orientation toward children. Further research is needed to better identify clinically significant differences among the different types of pedophiles. Such knowledge, it is hoped, will result in better treatments, improved allocation of medical and legal resources, and a reduction in the number of abused children.


http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=53036
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 07:00:46 AM
Quote from: Quesi
YOU are missing the point Joe.  Nogodsforme described being sexually victimized as a child, by someone who was a successful collector of pornography featuring his particular fetish. 

Your magic bullet did not work for her.

What magic bullet? Did I say eliminate child sex abuse or reduce? I'm pretty sure I said reduce. Just as increased access to pornography reduces incidents of rape, it does not eliminate rape entirely.

The fact that a pedophile who viewed child pornography abused a child is no more significant than saying a man who viewed porn committed rape. You're suggesting a link that is not supported by evidence, and in fact the evidence points the other way.

Quote from: Quesi
You can keep saying it Joe.  And I know that you think if you keep saying it, it will come true. But the scientists and the medical experts and the psychiatrists and the psychologists and the people who are invested in preventing child sexual abuse do not think that increased access to pornography will reduce or prevent child abuse.

You're making this claim without any evidence of course, but ignoring that, have you considered that they are either too rooted in their misconceptions to even consider it, or too afraid of losing their jobs to even suggest it? Can you find me an expert who has read the evidence and has a solid argument against it based on research and real-world results? And by the way, the studies I cited were written by scientists and medical experts and psychiatrists and psychologists and people who are invested in preventing child sexual abuse.

That entire wall of text that you copied-and-pasted without a single original thought of your own only mentioned pornography one time, and not in any context that addresses it's effect on sating sexual desire. It was completely irrelevant. What exactly did you think it proved? How did it refute my argument?

Obviously I can't make you read the studies that support my idea, or even make you recognize the flaws in the studies you keep citing, or help you understand how they don't even make the points you think they're making. So let's pretend this is a hypothetical question.

If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 27, 2012, 07:57:09 AM

If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?

If it were proven that your castration would lead to less victimization of children, would you support it? 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 27, 2012, 08:05:40 AM
When YOUR victimization becomes the theoretical solution to a problem, is that acceptable? 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Anfauglir on July 27, 2012, 08:08:54 AM
Joe, I'm curious; when you adopted your daughters, did you tell the adoption authorities that you're a paedophile?

There were no adoption authorities. One is my wife's daughter from a previous relationship, the other was abandoned by her parents. I don't mean put up for adoption I mean dumped on the streets. My wife took her in when she was still a baby.

If we had gone through the proper adoption channels and someone did ask me, I would say no, for two reasons. First, it is a stupid question based on ignorance and prejudice. It would be the same as denying gay men the opportunity to adopt little boys, or denying lesbians the opportunity to adopt little girls. While a think a lot of people think this should be the rule, I think many realize that would be ridiculous.

Just out of curiosity Joe - what are your wife's thoughts about this thread?  Would she be willing to sign up to WWGHA to participate in this conversation?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on July 27, 2012, 08:13:55 AM

Just out of curiosity Joe - what are your wife's thoughts about this thread?  Would she be willing to sign up to WWGHA to participate in this conversation?

Great question.  I'd be very interested in hearing her perspective.

And I would love to hear about how, in the absence of any "adoption authorities," in an exceptionally bureaucratic communist country, this abandoned child managed to get a birth certificate.  Which Joe claims she has. 

There is too much that doesn't make sense. 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 27, 2012, 09:28:02 AM
I don't know what you're trying to prove here. As PianoDwarf said, ethical dilemmas which concern choosing the lesser of two evils are notoriously difficult. But in this case, it seems reasonable to obtain more data on the use of CGI; perhaps it will prove a viable alternative.
I absolutely agree, research is necessary,
And is ongoing; so it would be sensible to wait and see what transpires.

Quote
but it's likely that simulated porn does not have the same effect as the real thing.
What do you base that claim on?

Quote
The question would then be if it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape to a significantly greater degree than the legalization of similated child pornography alone, would you support it?
I've already given reasons why possession should be criminal. But i think we should do more research into CGI first, and cross that bridge when we come to it.




Quote
So a hypothetical question for you would be: if it were proven that legalizing the possession of CGI child pornography was equally effective in leading to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support the criminalization of possession of actual child pornography?

If not, why not?
No. It's a thought crime.
So, even if we were to demonstrate that legalizing possession of real child-porn was unnecessary because of the beneficial effects of CGI child-porn, you wouldn't change your position at all.

So this digression is a complete waste of our time. 


PS Tomorrow I'm going away for a week, so I'm going to have to leave these discussions - unless I can access the web while I'm away, which I won't know until I get there.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 27, 2012, 09:31:27 AM
Minors who understand the consequences and want to engage in sexual activity.
Minors who don't understand the consequences and want to engage in sexual activity.
Minors who don't want to engage in sexual activity but do not resist.
Minors who don't want to engage in sexual activity and resist.

<cut>
The third is what you're describing. I would call this statutory rape.


I know I said I was done with this topic but this is WRONG! I'm sorry but the third is not "statutory" rape.

Webster:
Quote
enacted, created, or regulated by statute <a statutory age limit>

"statutory" rape is when a minor CONSENTS to sex with an adult. Simply not resisting doesn't ALWAYS mean consent was given. Fear could easily justify the lack of resistance.

I sincerely hope you are misspeaking here Joe.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 09:39:23 AM
If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?
If it were proven that your castration would lead to less victimization of children, would you support it?

Do you have any proof, or indeed any shred of evidence to suggest that I have ever victimized a child? You're just pulling bullshit accusations out of thin air to avoid answering the question. Don't worry, you won't get smited for it. I predict you'll probably get upvoted for one of the most offensive and baseless accusations ever posted on this forum.

When YOUR victimization becomes the theoretical solution to a problem, is that acceptable?

Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? If making it legal to download and view videos of me somehow meant that fewer children would get raped, I would certainly agree, particularly as I wouldn't know who, when, or indeed if anyone was watching them at all. Now, go ahead and move the goalpost.

Oh, and you're dodging again.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Seppuku on July 27, 2012, 09:56:08 AM
Question. What would legalising possession do that legalising the production of CGI versions. CGI can be pretty realistic and can fill every niche of pornography out there. Take the demand away from real kiddie porn and put it into CGI. Why does the child have to be real?

Just because the child has already been abused, it doesn't necessarily mean the child (or even when grown up) will like the idea of people staring at them being sexually abused after the events. The person may or may not know, but probably a good chance they do (they'll know they've been filmed or had pictures taken), but basically there'd be a picture of them they do not want distributed around the internet and there's nothing they could do about it. They could sue nobody, they could not call for it to be taken down and it just means more distress. For example, the man nogodsforme mentioned. The suffering doesn't stop at the abuse. Interesting I could ask for my picture to be taken down from anywhere I've not agreed to if I want because of my data protection rights, but legalisation of posession child porn? I couldn't do that if I was a victim of it.


Your answer to the problem would violate data protection laws. CGI Porn, wouldn't.

Quote from: Quesi
Do you have any proof, or indeed any shred of evidence to suggest that I have ever victimized a child? You're just pulling bullshit accusations out of thin air to avoid answering the question. Don't worry, you won't get smited for it. I predict you'll probably get upvoted for one of the most offensive and baseless accusations ever posted on this forum.

Actually, from I can tell, what Quesi is trying to do is put turn the question around. What if abuse to you (and I guess, by proxy, other pedophiles) meant we saw less victimisation of children, would you accept it? Basically, would you be happy if your rights were infringed to reduce child abuse? I guess what Quesi is implying is that your solution would have other people's rights infringed to reduce child abuse. I think it's easier to say it's okay when it's somebody else, but harder when it's you. You may never hard a child and it may never apply to you, but then if I was an abused child and my picture was floating around the internet, it could be my picture (or my abuse) has no direct effect on how children are abused, but the pictures as a whole would. (Like as if we castrated pedophiles as a whole).

At least this is how I read it. There's no actual accusations in the question, there is the possibility she was implying something, but I see nothing to suggest that she was, so I think the 'accusation' is something you've inferred.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 10:15:26 AM
Quote
but it's likely that simulated porn does not have the same effect as the real thing.
What do you base that claim on?

1. Market trends. Do just as many people buy animated porn as live action porn? No. Stands to reason that they're not getting the same results from the fake stuff.
2. Personal experience. I am not as satisfied by animated porn as live action porn. Are you? Anyone here feel free to answer that.
3. [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley]The uncanny valley[/url]

I've already given reasons why possession should be criminal. But i think we should do more research into CGI first, and cross that bridge when we come to it.
And until then, more kids get abused while a proven solution is already available. Meanwhile in Japan, Denmark, and many other places, children sleep safely.

So, even if we were to demonstrate that legalizing possession of real child-porn was unnecessary because of the beneficial effects of CGI child-porn, you wouldn't change your position at all.

So this digression is a complete waste of our time.

Current research doesn't support that, that is purely hypothetical conjecture on your part. Advances in CGI rendering will need to be achieved in order to overcome the uncanny valley problem. Nevertheless, if somehow it turned out to be true, I'd still be against throwing people in jail who haven't harmed anyone just because they might, based solely on their sexual orientation.

Is this really unreasonable? At one point you yourself agreed with decriminalization, (which is not the same as legalization, but would punish offenders with a fine instead of jail time.)
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: One Above All on July 27, 2012, 10:20:13 AM
I am not as satisfied by animated porn as live action porn. Are you? Anyone here feel free to answer that.

*raises hand*
I'm perfectly satisfied with animated porn. Fact: it makes up the bulk of my porn.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 10:32:06 AM
Minors who don't want to engage in sexual activity but do not resist.
Minors who don't want to engage in sexual activity and resist.
<cut>
The third is what you're describing. I would call this statutory rape.
I know I said I was done with this topic but this is WRONG! I'm sorry but the third is not "statutory" rape.

Webster:
Quote
enacted, created, or regulated by statute <a statutory age limit>

"statutory" rape is when a minor CONSENTS to sex with an adult. Simply not resisting doesn't ALWAYS mean consent was given. Fear could easily justify the lack of resistance.

I sincerely hope you are misspeaking here Joe.

You simply looked up the word statutory. Let me help you:

From duhaime.org (legal dictionary)
Statutory Rape - A statutory definition of rape which allows for conviction regardless of the consent, such as with a minor.

From dictionary.com
Statutory rape - sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of consent, which age varies in different states.

From wordiq.com Statury Rape - Definition

Quote
Some individuals, such as minors and the incapacitated, are considered unable to give consent, and therefore to have sex with them is always rape. The age at which individuals are considered competent to give consent is the age of consent, set differently by each state but usually between 13 and 18. Rape that violates age-of-consent law but is neither violent nor physically coerced is described as statutory rape, usually a legally-recognized category.


You're mistaken. Statutory rape does not mean it was consensual as you stated. It simply refers to all sex with a minor under the age of consent, short of forcible rape. Therefore, as I said, the first three are all considered statutory rape. The third most closely fits the definition here, while the 4th is just plain rape.

Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Seppuku on July 27, 2012, 10:43:35 AM
Quote from: Joe
1. Market trends. Do just as many people buy animated porn as live action porn? No. Stands to reason that they're not getting the same results from the fake stuff.

Which raises the question, if live action porn were illegal and animated porn legal would this change? I'm sure many who do not wish to end up on a sex offender register would prefer the legal option. There's no risk. Would you not be willing to try animated porn if that were the situation?

Also, as far as CG porn goes, are we talking about realistic looking stuff or cartoon porn (like Hentai)?

I suspect CG porn could potentially be a lot cheaper. It wouldn't be very hard to use software like Daz Studio or Poser, which are 3D animation tools that come with premade, modifiable people models and they had a huge online store containing a lot of 3D content to use in your scenes. It's meant to make CG quick, cheap and easy. Useful for many types of businesses out there. Heck Daz Studio is going for free at the moment, though most of the content isn't. All they'd need to do is develop an 'adult' version of these base meshes to add genitals. It's possible to create photorealistic renders in Daz. They may not 100% real, but would be pretty close.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Timtheskeptic on July 27, 2012, 10:47:49 AM
2. Personal experience. I am not as satisfied by animated porn as live action porn. Are you? Anyone here feel free to answer that.

I can get off with animation just fine. Especially with bisexual porn! :laugh:
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: screwtape on July 27, 2012, 10:57:23 AM
Quote from: Joe
1. Market trends. Do just as many people buy animated porn as live action porn? No. Stands to reason that they're not getting the same results from the fake stuff.

The fake stuff is getting better every day and will continue to get better.  As the mainstream movie producers use CGI more and more, it will get cheaper for everyone and quality will improve.  pron will always be 1 generation behind, but so what?  At some point it will be good enough that you cannot tell the difference between cgi and the real stuff. 
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 27, 2012, 10:59:53 AM
You're mistaken. Statutory rape does not mean it was consensual as you stated. It simply refers to all sex with a minor under the age of consent, short of forcible rape. Therefore, as I said, the first three are all considered statutory rape. The third most closely fits the definition here, while the 4th is just plain rape.

I have never heard the terms interpreted or used in the sense you are using them. I may very well have been wrong, I'm not a lawyer and don't know legal uses of the term. But IMO common language statutory implies consent was given. I think it is VERY important to distinguish between statutory consensual rape and non consensual rape. With out this distinction you aren't taking in account the abuse of the victim. I would like to so see you re-do your 4 examples with inclusion of this distinction.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Timo on July 27, 2012, 11:13:55 AM
I remember reading about a sting in a child porn ring like five or so years ago in...I want to say Texas.  I don't remember.  There was one detail that stood out to me that I haven't been able to forget even though I've since forgotten just about everything else about the story.  (Otherwise I would link it.)  Apparently they were producing movies with no audio.  I remember this because it was reported that the FBI intercepted communication in which their customers were asking them to fix that so that they could hear the children cry.  Just saying.

I don't know how much anyone in this thread can really put ourselves in these people's shoes.  However rapey some of his posts can be, joe really isn't a pedophile.  So I'm not sure why we're going into a discussion of whether or not CGI porn would or should be satisfactory to pedophiles.  We're not them.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 11:34:32 AM
Just out of curiosity Joe - what are your wife's thoughts about this thread?  Would she be willing to sign up to WWGHA to participate in this conversation?

Well, she can't read or write or speak English. But from what I know of her, she would think you're all crazy. She knows I'm not dangerous as she knows all normal males are attracted to sexually developed females.

I just asked her my question about legalizing the possession of child pornography and she said whatever choice means less rape is the best, though she thinks it wouldn't make a difference. "Rapists don't have computers, they're crazy people that live on the streets." Sometimes her lack of education is appalling, good thing she's gorgeous.

And I would love to hear about how, in the absence of any "adoption authorities," in an exceptionally bureaucratic communist country, this abandoned child managed to get a birth certificate.  Which Joe claims she has. 

"Exceptionally bureaucratic", haha. I can buy a passport right down the street. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 11:41:42 AM
*raises hand*
I'm perfectly satisfied with animated porn. Fact: it makes up the bulk of my porn.

I can get off with animation just fine. Especially with bisexual porn! :laugh:

I don't know how old Tim is, but I know how old Lucifer is, and that raises a good point. Perhaps the younger generation, raised on animation, aren't nearly as affected by the uncanny valley. It's quite possible that animated porn may be more effective for them.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: One Above All on July 27, 2012, 11:47:41 AM
I don't know how old Tim is, but I know how old Lucifer is, and that raises a good point. Perhaps the younger generation, raised on animation, aren't nearly as affected by the uncanny valley. It's quite possible that animated porn may be more effective for them.

And you know how I was raised? Incredible! Tell me more about myself.

On an unrelated note, your previous post (not the one I'm quoting) tells me, among other things, that I was right about the false-consensus effect on another subject.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 11:55:11 AM
I think it is VERY important to distinguish between statutory consensual rape and non consensual rape. With out this distinction you aren't taking in account the abuse of the victim. I would like to so see you re-do your 4 examples with inclusion of this distinction.

I already put statutory consensual rape and non consensual rape in seperate categories. I've already made the distinction. In fact I created two seperate categories of statutory consensual rape based on the minor's level of understanding, and two seperate categories of non consensual rape based on whether or not the minor resisted.

Can you explain what I'm missing? I don't understand.

Edit: aah I think you want me to label the consensual acts "statutory rape" and the non consensual acts "rape". You see, I don't feel it's accurate to label consensual sex rape, so I called those "second degree sex with a minor" and "first degree sex with a minor". The third is what I would call rape, though I think there should be a distinction between forcible rape and this.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 11:57:27 AM
And you know how I was raised? Incredible! Tell me more about myself.

I know that most of your porn is animated. Of course, my source could be wrong.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: One Above All on July 27, 2012, 11:59:50 AM
I know that most of your porn is animated. Of course, my source could be wrong.

Which has nothing to do with my question, and you know it. If you want to dodge the fact that you're talking out of your ass, do so in a less conspicuous manner.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 12:11:58 PM
Which has nothing to do with my question, and you know it. If you want to dodge the fact that you're talking out of your ass, do so in a less conspicuous manner.

You could be less confrontational you know. You don't have to be a jackass all the time. I didn't say anything about how you, personally, were raised, did I? When you said that most of your porn was animated, and I remembered how young you were, it made me think about the younger generation who are exposed to much more animation and CGI than previous generations. Do you think that obvious fact is "talking out of my ass"?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Anfauglir on July 27, 2012, 12:15:59 PM
You could be less confrontational you know. You don't have to be a jackass all the time.

Just HAD to QFT this!   ;D
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 27, 2012, 12:17:38 PM
Edit: aah I think you want me to label the consensual acts "statutory rape" the the non consensual acts "rape". You see, I don't feel it's accurate to label consensual sex rape, so I called those "second degree sex with a minor" and "first degree sex with a minor". The third is what I would call rape, though I think there should be a distinction between forcible rape and this.

I think it was a miss communication problem. It may or may not have been on my end. If it was me, my apologies.

Joe I'm still not sure if we are understanding one another. In the third one specifically... I understood what you meant in all the other examples. But in the third force could be verbal, physical, emotional, or mental. Basically, would you agree that in the third one it's not as simple as "they didn't fight back"? Would you agree that they may not fight back because of a perceived threat, whether or not one was actually presented?

To be honest I can't even imagine an example where #3 could be consensual. Either the consent would be coerced or non existence. Either way it would be rape with out consent.

Are we in agreement on this?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: One Above All on July 27, 2012, 12:19:26 PM
You could be less confrontational you know. You don't have to be a jackass all the time.

Are you less confrontational and less of a jackass when you call other people on what you perceive to be lies and deceit?
The answer is "no". If you don't want Me to treat you like you treat others... Well, I think you can figure out how that works.

I didn't say anything about how you, personally, were raised, did I?

I assumed that your flawed perspective on how My generation was raised included Myself, since I'm part of My generation.

how young you were

That's funny. Too bad you're not knowledgeable enough to see how funny that is.

Do you think that obvious fact is "talking out of my ass"?

Pretty much. That "obvious fact" isn't so obvious to Me, who was actually raised with the rest of my generation.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Seppuku on July 27, 2012, 01:49:02 PM
Quote from: Joe
Perhaps the younger generation, raised on animation, aren't nearly as affected by the uncanny valley. It's quite possible that animated porn may be more effective for them.

Not sure if that necessarily applies. I mean there's been a lot of animation on the TV for generations and there's a lot of kids TV that has always been, and still is, live action. IIRC OAA is 18? So that sets us apart by 5 years, but I can think of what I was raised on, I can list cartoons I loved (Ed, Eddy & Eddy, Dexter's Lab, Danger Mouse, The Simpsons, South Park...yes, South Park prolly from the age of 8 or 9), but there is also a list of live action stuff to accompany it, that I also loved (Demon Headmaster, The Queen's Nose, some program I forgot the title on it (had a kid obsessed with David Attenborough), Goosebumps, Blue Peter, various kids' game shows, Skippy the Kangaroo, Round the Twist, Bottom (not a kids' show, but I was raised on it), Red Dwarf).

I don't know what kids in Portugal watched when OOA was growing up

Today's generation of kids, to my eyes there's a lot of crap, the only things I'd say have any worth is Spongebob...maybe My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, if you like something softer (because I think it's well geared for its audience, even if it has had the knock on effect of being loved by half of the internet). There's still plenty of live action shows to go around, but really...nothing that could compete with the Demon Headmaster (I'll probably think it's awfully written and poorly acted now I'm an adult).


But I get why you might make the connection - people who watch cartoons growing up more will not be affected by uncanny valley - I think it's logical, but kinda hard to say the two are related. I mean, I know people who grew up on cartoons and don't have a flattering opinion of those who are turned on by pixels (as they put it), I think he also referred to it as wanking over Micky Mouse. I don't know what his opinion would be if 1) Animated porn was the only legal porn and 2) How he'd feel about animated porn rendered to be photo-realistic. I'm only quoting something he said, it's not as if we had an in depth conversation about porn.  &)

I wonder with photorealism, does uncanny valley still exist? Maybe, somebody like Joe could answer or somebody else who couldn't be turned on by an animation (or cartoon or 3D render). Here's a collection of photo-realistic women:
http://www.pxleyes.com/blog/2011/09/50-ultra-realistic-3d-female-models/ (http://www.pxleyes.com/blog/2011/09/50-ultra-realistic-3d-female-models/)
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: One Above All on July 27, 2012, 01:51:26 PM
Just a small FYI for Seppuku: I recently turned 19.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 27, 2012, 02:08:55 PM
Here's a collection of photo-realistic women:
http://www.pxleyes.com/blog/2011/09/50-ultra-realistic-3d-female-models/ (http://www.pxleyes.com/blog/2011/09/50-ultra-realistic-3d-female-models/)

Some of those are very close to life like! I had no idea the technology was that advanced. +1 for the link.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on July 27, 2012, 02:50:27 PM
Quote
but it's likely that simulated porn does not have the same effect as the real thing.
What do you base that claim on?
1. Market trends. Do just as many people buy animated porn as live action porn? No. Stands to reason that they're not getting the same results from the fake stuff.
2. Personal experience. I am not as satisfied by animated porn as live action porn. Are you?
I haven't seen any animated porn which aims for verisimilitude; most producers of it seem to create either fantastic bodies (huge eyes, tiny waists and extraordinary genitals) or fantastic situations (apparently there is a small group of people who get excited by the idea of women having sex with extra-terrestials).

So it would be interesting to see how realistic CG porn could be. Until we've tried that, it's premature to assert that CG child-porn would be unsatisfactory. 

Quote
So, even if we were to demonstrate that legalizing possession of real child-porn was unnecessary because of the beneficial effects of CGI child-porn, you wouldn't change your position at all.

So this digression is a complete waste of our time.
Current research doesn't support that, that is purely hypothetical conjecture on your part.
You're missing my point. We're wasting our time arguing this issue with you, because even if we won, you'd fall back on your 'thought-crime' justification. And we've already explained why that's a fail.

Quote
Nevertheless, if somehow it turned out to be true, I'd still be against throwing people in jail who haven't harmed anyone just because they might, based solely on their sexual orientation.
We already agreed on this point, so I don't know why you're raising it again.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 27, 2012, 03:01:14 PM
OOA, I'm not sure what you're reacting to in Joe's post...

I don't know how old Tim is, but I know how old Lucifer is,

This isn't a statement on how you were raised.  You've stated your age on here before.  While he may not know your exact birth-date, your general age is public knowledge.  This is not controversial.

and that raises a good point. Perhaps the younger generation, raised on animation, aren't nearly as affected by the uncanny valley.

This part is openly speculation, premised on the ideas that:
1. You watch mainly animated porn (you've stated this earlier; it's not supposition on Joe's part)
2. Youth today watch more animation vs live-acted material than older generations did.  This is the only part that's supposition, but it's pretty reasonable supposition, and it's borne out by your statement that he referenced in #1.

It's quite possible that animated porn may be more effective for them.

This is a conclusion about a possibility based upon the above.  Given #1 and #2 above, it's reasonable to speculate about that possibility, isn't it?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Seppuku on July 27, 2012, 03:05:20 PM
To be honest, it's not even as great as technology can actually push it. For stills you can take it quite far, but isn't necessarily viable for animation (because the render times would be too high). There's some really impressive stuff out there than may require a bit of post-processing (in programs like Photoshop), but it is possible to achieve photorealism without the aid of a photo/imaging program. I can't achieve it personally, because my 3D rendering software is outdatted (and not top of the range) and also because I suck at texturing. I do 3D model as a hobby though.

I used that link, because I think the quality is achieveable with animations. I suspect anybody low budget might not, but Daz Studio is an option for anybody who wants low budget animation and has photorealistic content you can use, assuming you pay a measly $70. Of course, you may end up paying more into Daz3D content to get models you wish to use, but it is an easy solution and still cheap. Imagine a low budget porn film looking like the stuff in this link (http://www.daz3d.com/shop/photo-realism-bundle/) (don't worry, it's not porn)

It's not perfect, but damn good for people who can't pay for 3D modellers, texturers and riggers. The person might have to pay for an animator or learn to animate for themselves and know how to achieve the best lighting effects and using the best render settings for the effects, but it's a damn sight easier than doing it all from scratch. I'm sure an idiot could learn it.

Just a small FYI for Seppuku: I recently turned 19.
Okay, cheers.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: One Above All on July 27, 2012, 03:15:10 PM
OOA, I'm not sure what you're reacting to in Joe's post...
<snip>

The purpose of my post was not to try to change his mind about anything except his usual "you're lying!" or "you know exactly what I meant!" accusations that lack any evidence, as well as his usual overreaction and assumption of conspiracy when someone disagrees with him. In short, it was to try to make him grow up.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 27, 2012, 03:18:06 PM
So you were trolling him.  Just to be clear.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: One Above All on July 27, 2012, 03:20:44 PM
So you were trolling him.  Just to be clear.

I wasn't trolling. Just because the purpose was not to change his mind about what we were discussing doesn't mean it wasn't a serious response.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 27, 2012, 03:23:22 PM
You expressed outrage at the claims he was making about your upbringing.  Except that he wasn't making claims about your upbringing, as I just explained (and to which you didn't respond).  I know you usually have a strong faith that you couldn't have made a mistake, but consider it in this case, please.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: One Above All on July 27, 2012, 03:26:23 PM
You expressed outrage at the claims he was making about your upbringing.  Except that he wasn't making claims about your upbringing, as I just explained (and to which you didn't respond).  I know you usually have a strong faith that you couldn't have made a mistake, but consider it in this case, please.

I am well aware of nearly every mistake I've ever made, and I am perfectly capable of recognizing them. However, his generalization of My generation included Myself, since I'm part of My generation. I was also raised during My generation, so I know he's wrong about what he said.
Besides, I had already guessed that he would've tried to use anything to exclude people's experiences that would prove him wrong, as he always does. If you want to point the finger at someone who can't admit when he's wrong, I recommend joebbowers.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 27, 2012, 03:36:01 PM
I am well aware of nearly every mistake I've ever made, and I am perfectly capable of recognizing them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

However, his generalization of My generation included Myself, since I'm part of My generation. I was also raised during My generation, so I know he's wrong about what he said.
About what, specifically?  I isolated everything he'd said.  Pluck it out explicitly.  What was he wrong about?

Besides, I had already guessed that he would've tried to use anything to exclude people's experiences that would prove him wrong, as he always does. If you want to point the finger at someone who can't admit when he's wrong, I recommend joebbowers.
Oh he's got his own problems, to be sure.  But in this case, you're being completely unreasonable.

Not that you're open to that possibility.  You've got the faith I mentioned, and which you expressed directly in your first paragraph above.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: One Above All on July 27, 2012, 03:38:50 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

I would consider that, if not for the enormous amount of mistakes I've made and several other things you don't know about.

About what, specifically?  I isolated everything he'd said.  Pluck it out explicitly.  What was he wrong about?

His supposition and, as a corollary, the conclusion.

You've got the faith I mentioned, and which you expressed directly in your first paragraph above.

You and my ignore list have a date.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 27, 2012, 03:42:35 PM
I would consider that, if not for the enormous amount of mistakes I've made and several other things you don't know about.

Right.  Your intellectual humility is so great that you have perfect knowledge of all your mistakes.   &)

His supposition and, as a corollary, the conclusion.

That your generation's media include a higher proportion of CGI than that of past generations?  Hmm.  My CGI viewership in my teens was restricted to Reboot and Transformers: Beasties.  Yours was similarly limited, across the board?

You and my ignore list have a date.

Faith doesn't like self-examination.  And responds with smites rather than honest responses.  I am not trolling.  I am trying to get you to take responsibility for the tantrum you threw at Joe.  If he's wrong, then tell him what's wrong and why.  Don't troll him.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: nogodsforme on July 27, 2012, 04:18:58 PM
Here's a collection of photo-realistic women:
http://www.pxleyes.com/blog/2011/09/50-ultra-realistic-3d-female-models/ (http://www.pxleyes.com/blog/2011/09/50-ultra-realistic-3d-female-models/)

Some of those are very close to life like! I had no idea the technology was that advanced. +1 for the link.

I made myself look at the CGI women. Not too bad.

If that is the future of porn and no real kids are harmed or even depicted, more power to them that wants this. After all, fantasy is what it's all about anyway, which is why real people have to have extensive plastic surgery and alteration to become stars in that industry.

If someone wants to look at Eurasian women who seem to be 16, with size 4 hips and size 14 breasts, tattoos, facial piercings, one blue eye, one brown eye, blonde crewcut, one arm and bound feet, they can just order them up. No harm no foul.

The only one that weirded me out was the woman falling into the pool cause she looked anorexic. The rest looked perfectly sexy and acceptable to my untrained eye.

Some even looked nearly young enough for Joe.  &)
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Azdgari on July 27, 2012, 05:06:31 PM
OOA has clarified over PM that he has enough evidence, based on his past record of catching his mistakes, to reasonably dismiss the idea that he is making a mistake and not realizing it in any given situation.  Dunning-Kruger at its finest.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Timtheskeptic on July 27, 2012, 06:35:00 PM


I don't know how old Tim is,

I'm a 30 year old man.  :?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 27, 2012, 06:57:16 PM
I made myself look at the CGI women. Not too bad.

There were a few that I really liked, some that were pretty good, 50% meh, and some that were pretty bad IMO.. The ones that I really liked were impressive. The texture of the skin, tone, firmness, softness, all of it was far more superior than what I've personally ever seen.

Like Sep said I wonder how one would actually render images of that quality to a video. I'd imagine it would be very time consuming and expensive to make? Nevertheless, I'm not opposed to it as an alternative.

I don't think I'd be the type of person to enjoy CGI. Simply knowing it's fake would ruin it for me. I guess that makes me a voyeur or something?!? J/k I'm not a voyeur, but I imagine there would be some men like me who wouldn't enjoy CGI. I'd also imagine their would be some pedophiles that wouldn't enjoy it. I can't be the only person in the world who is immediately turned off by the thought of it not being real.

Any ways, long windedness aside I think it would be a safe alternative to child porn. I really don't see why it should be illegal. For arguments sake it's really just art. Art depicting a crime should not be a crime. Not everyone's art is for the majority to enjoy. Many people don't like Jonathan Hobin's (https://www.facebook.com/JonathanHobin.Art) "exploitation of children (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1379780/Art-exploitation-Photographer-uses-children-enact-tragic-historical-events-9-11-angers-parenting-groups.html)[1]" . He uses real children in his In The Playroom (https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.474266843923.258875.59972568923&type=3) photo shoots. They are depicting real crimes. They are also legal.
 1. This is a 2nd link. I used two hyperlinks next to each other. Bad form, I know.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Kimberly on July 27, 2012, 07:34:31 PM
You and my ignore list have a date.

Faith doesn't like self-examination.  And responds with smites rather than honest responses.  I am not trolling.  I am trying to get you to take responsibility for the tantrum you threw at Joe.  If he's wrong, then tell him what's wrong and why.  Don't troll him.

OAA, I agree with Azdgari on this one.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 09:13:20 PM
Here's a collection of photo-realistic women:
http://www.pxleyes.com/blog/2011/09/50-ultra-realistic-3d-female-models/ (http://www.pxleyes.com/blog/2011/09/50-ultra-realistic-3d-female-models/)

Some of those are very close to life like! I had no idea the technology was that advanced. +1 for the link.

Most of those are rendered and then edited in PhotoShop. It takes hours to create a single image. This is not the type of quality you should expect from full motion animated films anytime in the immediate future, but in a few years we'll be close to this.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 09:18:52 PM
We're wasting our time arguing this issue with you, because even if we won, you'd fall back on your 'thought-crime' justification. And we've already explained why that's a fail.

I didn't bring it up, don't blame me for wasting your time. And who are you referring to when you say "we've already explained why that's a fail"? Some people agreed with me, some people agreed with you, and I don't think your argument was very convincing. The fact that CGI porn is illegal on the other hand proves beyond any doubt that it is thought crime. There is no child involved anywhere in it's production, yet the punishment is the same.

Quote
Nevertheless, if somehow it turned out to be true, I'd still be against throwing people in jail who haven't harmed anyone just because they might, based solely on their sexual orientation.
We already agreed on this point, so I don't know why you're raising it again.

Because you asked me why I would still be against criminalizing the possession of child porn. If you don't want me to repeat myself, stop asking me questions I've already answered.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 09:23:35 PM
The purpose of my post was not to try to change his mind about anything except his usual "you're lying!" or "you know exactly what I meant!" accusations that lack any evidence, as well as his usual overreaction and assumption of conspiracy when someone disagrees with him. In short, it was to try to make him grow up.

Not sure how that applied at all to the quote you responded to. Also, my accusations never lack evidence.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 09:26:27 PM
OOA has clarified over PM that he has enough evidence, based on his past record of catching his mistakes, to reasonably dismiss the idea that he is making a mistake and not realizing it in any given situation.  Dunning-Kruger at its finest.

That is good to know. Thanks for sharing it.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 10:02:29 PM
I am well aware of nearly every mistake I've ever made, and I am perfectly capable of recognizing them. However, his generalization of My generation included Myself, since I'm part of My generation. I was also raised during My generation, so I know he's wrong about what he said.

I am not wrong. It's an undeniable fact that today's generation is exposed to more animation than previous generations. Most special effects and stunts in films today are CGI. What used to be hand-drawn has been replaced with cell-shaded renderings, what used to be claymation has been replaced by full 3D animation. And not only on movies and TV, but consider the games we play. When I was young, there were no 3D games. I remember when Wolfenstein was blowing everyone's minds with it's next-generation graphics. Today we're surrounded by games that are fully 3D rendered complete with motion tracking based on real live actors.

I said that your generation has been raised on animation. Whether or not you yourself were is irrelevent, an exception doesn't disprove a generalization. You are engaging in what I like to call the WWGHA fallacy. This is the fallacy of responding to a general rule with a rare exception and claiming that the rule is invalid. Similar in spirit to the reducto ad absurdem. I call it the WWGHA fallacy because some people around here do it all the time, more than any other forum I participate in.

If I stated that dogs have four legs, but your dog doesn't have four legs because it lost one in an accident, would that make me wrong? There are possibly thousands of dogs around the world missing limbs for various reasons. Does that make me wrong? Or is it understood by any intelligent person that those are exceptions to the general rule that dogs have four legs?

Besides, I had already guessed that he would've tried to use anything to exclude people's experiences that would prove him wrong, as he always does. If you want to point the finger at someone who can't admit when he's wrong, I recommend joebbowers.

You think your experience proves me wrong? Do I have to point out that you haven't actually said anything about yourself to contradict my theory? You sarcastically implied that I don't know anything about you, but you still haven't explained how your personal experience proves me wrong. Even if you hadn't been raised on animation, at best you'd be an exception. You wouldn't be proving me wrong.

However, you already stated that most of your porn collection is animation. Even if you suddenly acquired all of your porn yesterday, as opposed to building your collection over time, you'd still be far ahead of where I was at your age. When I was 19, I had very little animated porn. My dad's generation and every generation before that had none. Everything about what you've said only supports my argument.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Seppuku on July 27, 2012, 10:48:35 PM
Here's a collection of photo-realistic women:
http://www.pxleyes.com/blog/2011/09/50-ultra-realistic-3d-female-models/ (http://www.pxleyes.com/blog/2011/09/50-ultra-realistic-3d-female-models/)

Some of those are very close to life like! I had no idea the technology was that advanced. +1 for the link.

Most of those are rendered and then edited in PhotoShop. It takes hours to create a single image. This is not the type of quality you should expect from full motion animated films anytime in the immediate future, but in a few years we'll be close to this.

I think you can get quite close without having them edited in photoshop. Daz Studio's solution as an example. Whilst something with photoshop would be better. This is without the post processing. There's a lot you can do with lighting, texturing and shaders. Heck real-time shaders can be really impressive and can actually create really realistic looking effects, currently not viable for the games market, but possible with today's technology, I know not realistic for my suggestion either, but it shows what the future may hold in computer graphics. Regardless, I think you can still achieve something that looks pretty realistic without the need for post-processing in photoshop.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 27, 2012, 11:01:56 PM
I think there's still a wide gap between "Hey that looks human enough that it doesn't distract me from the story." to "Hey that's just as sexy as a real woman." Particularly considering that the effects of the uncanny valley are amplified by motion.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Seppuku on July 28, 2012, 04:07:04 AM
Fair point and it's not as if they're gonna spend the kind of money you need for motion capture (and even of that face). I've seen some pretty damn good examples of motion capture.

Would still renders work? (Where post processing can be used animation causes no problems)
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on July 28, 2012, 04:36:32 AM
Would still renders work? (Where post processing can be used animation causes no problems)

You could make a still that would be indistinguishable from a real photo, but still photos don't have the same effect on sating sexual desire as video.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on August 07, 2012, 05:51:27 PM
Joe, I was re-reading the thread this evening and came across this exchange, which was then abandoned:
So how did you get a birth certificate for a child abandoned on the street, if you did not go through formal adoption channels?
I'll remind you that I live in China.
I don't understand your answer. What is your residence in China supposed to signify?

Please answer Quesi's question less obliquely.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on August 12, 2012, 07:08:26 AM
#235
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on August 12, 2012, 11:09:11 AM
Ah, OK, Quesi came back to the question a week later. My mistake.

Reply #235:
And I would love to hear about how, in the absence of any "adoption authorities," in an exceptionally bureaucratic communist country, this abandoned child managed to get a birth certificate.  Which Joe claims she has. 
"Exceptionally bureaucratic", haha. I can buy a passport right down the street. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
Well, that's not very clear. You seem to be doing your usual trick of making ambiguous statements and letting people jump to the wrong conclusions.

In this case, I'm inferring that your daughter has a fake birth-certificate bought on the black market.

Do correct me if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: nogodsforme on August 12, 2012, 12:44:13 PM
If you get caught buying fake documents by the Chinese authorities you will go to a very unpleasant jail for a very long time. Correct me if I am wrong.[1]
 1. And please be careful what you put online under your real name with your actual photo while living in a dictatorship. I lived in a scary African dictatorship (Congo/Zaire during the Mobutu era) so I know a bit of what I am talking about.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: HAL on August 12, 2012, 01:26:50 PM
If you get caught buying fake documents by the Chinese authorities you will go to a very unpleasant jail for a very long time.

Not to mention that the Chinese spider Baidu is all over this forum all the time -

Baidu    12:22:15 PM    Viewing the topic     Gnu asks joe a question about adoption

http://www.baidu.com/

Quote
[wiki]Baidu[/wiki], Inc. (Chinese: ??; pinyin: Baidù, pronounced BY-doo in English, NASDAQ: BIDU), incorporated on January 18, 2000, is a Chinese web services company headquartered in the Baidu Campus in Haidian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.[3]

Baidu offers many services, including a Chinese language search engine for websites, audio files, and images. Baidu offers 57 search and community services including Baidu Baike, an online collaboratively built encyclopedia, and a searchable keyword-based discussion forum.[4] Baidu was established in 2000 by Robin Li and Eric Xu. Both of the co-founders are Chinese nationals who studied and worked overseas before returning to China. In September 2011, Baidu ranked 6th overall in the Alexa Internet rankings.[5] During Q4 of 2010, it is estimated that there were 4.02 billion search queries in China of which Baidu had a market share of 56.6%. China's internet-search revenue share in second quarter 2011 by Baidu is 76%[6] In December 2007, Baidu became the first Chinese company to be included in the NASDAQ-100 index.[7]

Baidu, Inc. (Chinese: ??; pinyin: Baidù, pronounced BY-doo in English, NASDAQ: BIDU), incorporated on January 18, 2000, is a Chinese web services company headquartered in the Baidu Campus in Haidian District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on August 15, 2012, 01:46:42 AM
In this case, I'm inferring that your daughter has a fake birth-certificate bought on the black market.

Do correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't know how you got that idea. That's absolutely wrong. It's all perfectly legal.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: magicmiles on August 15, 2012, 02:31:11 AM
1 - What is the normal process for obtaining a birth certificate in China? Does it involve liaison with some type of government department?

2 - How was your daughters birth certificate obtained, specifically?

3 - If it was obtained by a different means than normal, how was is it still legal?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on August 15, 2012, 06:33:21 PM
^^^
Quote
1 - What is the normal process for obtaining a birth certificate in China? Does it involve liaison with some type of government department?
I found this academic paper (http://iussp2009.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=91902) which discusses these issues. I hope it's accurate. It first defines the concept of Birth Registration (BR), pn Page 3:
Quote
In China, BR refers to the system that records a child’s birth, testifies to its citizenship, and registers its permanent residence, known as Hukou, by the household registration department (Wang, 2001). Hukou registration is the only symbol that BR has been carried out and completed, and Hukou registration is one of the most important components of the household management system in China. A child cannot acquire most of his or her rights without Hukou registration.

It goes on to specify the criteria for obtaining BR:
Quote
The references that need to be provided when applying for BR include a medical birth certificate (MBC) issued by the Public Health (PH) department, a birth certificate (BC) issued by the Population and Family Planning (PFP) department, and the parents’ Hukou booklets or identity cards issued by Public Security (PS) departments.
So this discussion with Joe needs to distinguish between BR and the BC.

Joe, on Hai Feng's new birth-certificate, is the information on it accurate and correct? For example, who does it name as her mother? Your wife, or the biological mother?

Also, does she have BR and Hukuo registration? 

In this case, I'm inferring that your daughter has a fake birth-certificate bought on the black market.

Do correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't know how you got that idea.
<sigh> Here we go again. Perhaps it might be connected to the language you used? You said:
And I would love to hear about how, in the absence of any "adoption authorities," in an exceptionally bureaucratic communist country, this abandoned child managed to get a birth certificate.  Which Joe claims she has. 
"Exceptionally bureaucratic", haha. I can buy a passport right down the street. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
1. In the UK passports are 'applied for', not 'bought'.
2. And you can't obtain a passport here 'down the street' - only from a central national agency (the Identity and Passport Service, which is part of the Home Office). Same in China (the Exit and Entry Administration, part of the Ministry of Public Security). The colloquial expression 'down the street' means 'anywhere'.

So when you say, "I can buy a passport right down the street", that implies obtaining fake certification from the black market. I don't see any other way of interpreting the sentence. Perhaps you could re-phrase it so that it expresses what you meant more clearly?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Quesi on August 15, 2012, 07:15:57 PM
Quote
Today, the BR procedure remains very complex and three references are involved in
BR application. As Figure 1 shows, the couple first needs to apply for the BC from the
PFP department during the period of pregnancy and then for the MBC from the PH
department after birth. Only with these two references, can they register Hukou for the
child at their local police station with their Hukou booklets. For an adopted child, the
foster parents cannot register Hukou for the adopted child unless they receive adoption
documentation following special adopting procedures that are very strict.
However, the
government bureaus make these procedures simpler during national and local censuses.

(page 13-14)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Joe has said he did not go through any adoption process. 

Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: nogodsforme on August 16, 2012, 03:23:54 PM
It looks like Joe is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Or maybe he is trying to be obscure on purpose? Or maybe there is more than one Joe?  :-\
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Anfauglir on August 17, 2012, 04:54:44 AM
It looks like Joe is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Or maybe he is trying to be obscure on purpose? Or maybe there is more than one Joe?  :-\

Guys, recall that.....

If you get caught buying fake documents by the Chinese authorities you will go to a very unpleasant jail for a very long time. Correct me if I am wrong.[1]
 1. And please be careful what you put online under your real name with your actual photo while living in a dictatorship.

.....I do not think there is any point in pressing Joe to state unequivocally whether or not he has deliberated flouted Chinese law.  Given that, is there any point in this thread remaining open?
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on August 17, 2012, 08:34:19 AM
^^^

1. Joe already said he doesn't like being 'censored':

Has this topic played out yet?  Has everyone had their fill of it?  Can I lock it? Please let me know.
How about you stop trying to censor opinions you disagree with and let us have a conversation?

2. Joe just said in his last post (my bold):
In this case, I'm inferring that your daughter has a fake birth-certificate bought on the black market. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
I don't know how you got that idea. That's absolutely wrong. It's all perfectly legal.

3. Joe is an adult who can take responsibility for his own words and actions. Nobody's forcing him to discuss these issues and he can drop out of the conversation whenever he wants.

So personally I see no reaon to close the thread.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on August 18, 2012, 07:09:35 AM
It looks like Joe is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Or maybe he is trying to be obscure on purpose? Or maybe there is more than one Joe?  :-\

Guys, recall that.....

If you get caught buying fake documents by the Chinese authorities you will go to a very unpleasant jail for a very long time. Correct me if I am wrong.[1]
 1. And please be careful what you put online under your real name with your actual photo while living in a dictatorship.

.....I do not think there is any point in pressing Joe to state unequivocally whether or not he has deliberated flouted Chinese law.  Given that, is there any point in this thread remaining open?

Smart mod is smart.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on August 18, 2012, 09:10:27 AM
^^^

If Joe doesn't want to answer our current questions about his 'perfectly legal' behaviour and is taking the Fifth... then I have no more questions for him.

Gnu.

PS: Anf, I'd appreciate it if you would leave the thread open for a little while, to let others in the discussion have a final word, if they want to.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: nogodsforme on August 18, 2012, 01:29:41 PM
I want to amend my previous remark after having thought about it:

Please be careful what you put online under your real name with your actual photo while living.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Gnu Ordure on August 18, 2012, 07:10:03 PM
I want to amend my previous remark after having thought about it:

Please be careful what you put online under your real name with your actual photo while living.

Nogods, I asked Joe the same question right at the beginning of this discussion:
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?

Joe said that he knows what he's doing:
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.
Yet, Joe is now asking the Mods to close the thread on the grounds of the Fifth.

Because he used his own name, and because he didn't like the direction the discussion took. So now he's running away from the questions about illegal activity.

This would be laughable if it wasn't so serious.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: joebbowers on August 18, 2012, 09:30:26 PM
I want to amend my previous remark after having thought about it:

Please be careful what you put online under your real name with your actual photo while living.

While living? Got it. Although I'll bet it's probably a lot more difficult to post stuff when you're not living.

And I'm not "running away" you fucking moron.
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 18, 2012, 09:59:43 PM
Joe, no need for the insult.  
Title: Re: Gnu asks joe a question about adoption
Post by: Ambassador Pony on August 18, 2012, 10:02:43 PM
This thread is closed.