Children love sex

[Huzington]

An interesting study was conducted by Sandfort (1982). He interviewed twenty-five Dutch boys who, when they were interviewed, were involved in paedophilic relationships which lasted up to six years. Each of the boys liked the man with whom he had sexual a sexual relationship; some loved the man.

Of this study Floyd M. Martison, in his Sexual Life of Children, said: ". . . They did not appear to feel coerced into continuing the relationship. . . . [T]hey received from the pedophile friendship. . . ."

Informing us that most studies of child sexuality consist almost entirely of clinical or offender populations, that almost every study only asks for "negative reactions of children" to their sexual experiences, Mr. Martison makes it clear that we have a highly distorted view of childhood sexuality.

He therefore cites a study of a different sort which includes no clinical or offender population by Kilpatrick (1992). Unlike most studies, respondents were actually allowed to give not only negative answers, but neutral and positive answers. It was found that sixty-seven per cent remembered having participated voluntarily in sexual activity and most were active in initiating sexual activity! "Sixty-eight percent reported having had overall positive responses to their sexual experiences. . . . Seventy-two percent felt that their child sexuality was not harmful, and 83 percent felt it was not abusive." Completely discordant with the popular paradigm which is accepted with absolutely no criticism, it was found that the "type or age of partners did not appear to be significantly related to the women's functioning as adults", an assumption which, he adds, challenges the view that "all children are victimized by any type of sexual experience with a person who is five or more years older."

Many other studies show the same thing: for instance, Goldman and Goldman (1988) found that one thousand Australian children had either positive or neutral feelings concerning their sexual experiences.

Now here are some sexual experiences from the same book (Chapter Six):

"My first sexual experience with another boy came at the age of five or six, when I would play with this boy who was about sixteen. He would ask me if I wanted to go into his house for something to eat. . . . I would go. Next he would ask me if I would go into the bedroom with him. Upon entering the bedroom, he would undress and ask me to do the same. . . . After undressing, he would tell me to bend over and then he would insert his erect penis into my anus. . . . He would then stimulate my penis. . . . We also masturbated each other. . . . I also spent some time in oral-genital contact. I did find the whole experience quite pleasing and continued to engage in these activities for a week or two. . . ."

"I [eleven years old] had become friendly with a boy five years younger than myself and soon started thinking of sex. We began by fondling each other's genitals and soon proceeded to playing games involving our sex organs. This relationship went on for a month; we attempted to engage in penile-anal intercourse."

"My [a girl] earliest experience with sex occurred when I was approximately five years old. . . . A buddy of my brother's came over who was eleven years old. . . . He asked me if I wanted to play doctor. . . . I said yes. . . . He was the doctor and I the patient. I was about to have a baby and he was going to operate. He unzipped my pants, took them off, and proceeded to do the same with his. He tried to have intercourse. . . . I thought it was perfectly all right."

The view that childhood sexuality is harmful, the rather when an adult is involved -- a view created entirely by the Christian superstition, a view which did not exist until Christianity -- is thus an absurdity, and those moral arguments using that antisexual position are exposed as unsound.

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Huzington
Of this study Floyd M. Martison, in his Sexual Life of Children, said: ". . . They did not appear to feel coerced into continuing the relationship. . . . [T]hey received from the pedophile friendship. . . ."

Problem #1 - they only appear not to feel coerced. Whether or not they were is a different story.

Also, the study is old (>20 years), so it's probably outdated now.

Just because some children feel it's OK doesn't mean they all do.

I have less of a problem with kid x kid sex than I do with adult x kid sex.

[Shake]

Genghis??? You back?

[winstonjen]

Originally posted by Shake
Genghis??? You back?

No, Genghis has a lolita complex.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by winstonjen
Problem #1 - they only appear not to feel coerced. Whether or not they were is a different story.

Also, the study is old (>20 years), so it's probably outdated now.

Just because some children feel it's OK doesn't mean they all do.

I have less of a problem with kid x kid sex than I do with adult x kid sex.

Thank you for the good response.

It is not outdated because study after study, new and old, indicates the same thing precisely. And it is is still cited by authorities on the subject.

Most such studies use "appear" to sound objective. With every study there is a possibility of the results being mere appearances. The possibility alone is sufficient to justify the use of that word.

And as for my own personal sexual experiences with adults as a child, I thought it pleasurable, I thought it okay and right, continue to think it okay and right, and have no emotional problems in my life whatever -- emotions which are out of the common way, that is. And in addition to that, I like people my own age: it has not affected me by altering my sexual orientation. And study after study show the same thing.

[Bookman]

Your experiences and the study would seem to indicate that it is possible for a person to have such an experience and not be harmed. It does not seem to me that either would indicate that this is typical.

I do not believe that it follows from the mere possibility of this that arguments that 'childhood sexuality is harmful' are thereby 'exposed as unsound'.

I can demonstrate that it is possible for someone to be in an auto accident while riding with a drunken driver and not be harmed; it would be clearly erroneous to conclude that 'riding with drunken drivers is not harmful'.

Bookman

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Bookman
[B]Your experiences and the study would seem to indicate that it is possible for a person to have such an experience and not be harmed. It does not seem to me that either would indicate that this is typical.

I do not believe that it follows from the mere possibility of this that arguments that 'childhood sexuality is harmful' are thereby 'exposed as unsound'.

I can demonstrate that it is possible for someone to be in an auto accident while riding with a drunken driver and not be harmed; it would be clearly erroneous to conclude that 'riding with drunken drivers is not harmful'.

But it is typical. When the offender population is not considered, which creates a distorted picture of reality, and when the respondents are actually allowed to report that they did not feel abused, that they enjoyed it, or that they had ambivalent feelings about it -- when they are allowed to not respond negatively! -- when this is the case, we see that it is quite typical. And when we study various primitive tribes across this planet, or even civilised cultures, wherein paedophilia is socially acceptable, we see the same thing. Imagine the distortion of reality that would be apparent if we examined heterosexuality by limiting our studies to heterosexual offenders --- to rapists, to sexual sadists, to exhibitionists! Imagine how absurdly wrong our description of heterosexuality would be!

[Bookman]

Originally posted by Huzington
But it is typical.

That's as may be, but neither your personal anecdote nor the study in question supports this claim.

B

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Bookman
That's as may be, but neither your personal anecdote nor the study in question supports this claim.

B

I still have not figured out how sexual pleasure itself can cause emotional harm.

[Bookman]

Originally posted by Huzington
I still have not figured out how sexual pleasure itself can cause emotional harm.

I can't imagine how sexual pleasure itself could happen in a vacuum; unless one's brain is somehow being stimulated directly sexual pleasure must always take place in the context of a relationship (either with another person or with one's self, if you'll permit the oxymoron) and we must therefore examine the potential emotional harm of these relationships.

Not that your point is in any way responsive to the disconnect between your evidence and your conclusions, by the way.

Bookman

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Huzington

But it is typical. When the offender population is not considered, which creates a distorted picture of reality, and when the respondents are actually allowed to report that they did not feel abused, that they enjoyed it, or that they had ambivalent feelings about it -- when they are allowed to not respond negatively! -- when this is the case, we see that it is quite typical.
Since you willfully ignored Calzaer's saying he had been an abuse victim on your other thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=61698), then you are obviously ignoring whatever doesn't fit your propaganda picture.

IOW, you are merely trying to justify the using of children for sex by adults. You do not care about the children themselves.
Imagine the distortion of reality that would be apparent if we examined heterosexuality by limiting our studies to heterosexual offenders --- to rapists, to sexual sadists, to exhibitionists! Imagine how absurdly wrong our description of heterosexuality would be!
You make me laugh.
:D
You complained on the other thread that "Criminalisation of a sexual orientation [paedophilia] -- in practise nothing less than genocide".
I guess you think rapists should also be tolerated then, since it's just as much an "orientation" as paedophilia is, and you wouldn't want those poor rapist dears to be "genocided", now, would you ?

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Gurdur
Since you willfully ignored Calzaer's saying he had been an abuse victim on your other thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=61698), then you are obviously ignoring whatever doesn't fit your propaganda picture.

People are sexually abused. I obviously acknowledge that fact. What is your point? You seem to believe that paedophilic relationships and child molestation are synonymous. That they are not identical can be proven, for instance, by my own sexual experiences as a child. In fact, entire cultures, ancient and modern, civilised and primitive, confute your entire position.

But you will continue to ignore all this.

IOW, you are merely trying to justify the using of children for sex by adults. You do not care about the children themselves.

You make me laugh.

My motives -- irrelevant. Your idea of what my motives are -- completely wrong.

Typical bourgeois individualism, Gurdur. All discussions become "to the man".

You complained on the other thread that "Criminalisation of a sexual orientation [paedophilia] -- in practise nothing less than genocide".
I guess you think rapists should also be tolerated then, since it's just as much an "orientation" as paedophilia is, and you wouldn't want those poor rapist dears to be "genocided", now, would you ?

Rape my definition causes harm. Heterosexuality, homosexuality, paedophilia -- there is nothing inherently harmful about these sexual preferences or acting upon them. True, it can and does happen that a paedophile rapes a child. It is also true that some homosexual men rape other men and that some heterosexual men rape women.

[Huzington]

Bookman:

Okay, so sexual pleasure itself does not cause harm for children. I agree with you there. But, you say, although that is true, sexual pleasure must be viewed within the context of the relationship. To this I also concur.

To what, then, in the paedophilic relationship, do you object, if, as you say, sexual pleasure itself causes no harm?

Thanks for the good response.

[Gurdur]

OOOOoooooo ! You're not done with me after all !
Tra-la !

Originally posted by Huzington

People are sexually abused. I obviously acknowledge that fact.
Only now. :D
What is your point?
That your pretense of caring about children is nothing more than a cover for wanting to justfiy adults using children for sex.
:D
You seem to believe that paedophilic relationships and child molestation are synonymous.
D'oh
That they are not identical can be proven, for instance, by my own sexual experiences as a child.
Bollocks.
It is a tenet of many that children must be protected against exploitation by adults --- whether sexually or economically.
Too bad for you.
In fact, entire cultures, ancient and modern, civilised and primitive, confute your entire position.
Blooop blooopittty bloop blooop bloop.

There are cultures who practise cannabilism, ritual murder, theft on grand scales. Doesn't make it right.
:)
But you will continue to ignore all this.
Naaaaw, I will give you my full attention.
:D
My motives -- irrelevant.
Wrong.
Your idea of what my motives are -- completely wrong.
Prove it.
:)
Typical bourgeois individualism, Gurdur.
Trebaxian Vir a.k.a. Lady Antonos a.k.a. Totalitarianist etc. etc. etc., is that you ?
Answer honestly now.

[Xeno]

With all due respect Huzington (take that how you want :) ) you are willfully ignoring several key points brought up by other posters who are not ignoring points.

1. Health risks (STD's, pregnancy leading to abortions, etc.)
2. Potential for abuse from adults (coercion, rape, manipulation, etc.)

Yes, it's possible that a child of 13 years of age will have the emotional maturity to handle a relationship of this kind, but is it plausible? It is possible a child of 8 years of age will be ready to birth a child and be emotionally prepared for child rearing (I'm being very generous to you here), but is it plausible? Generally, are most children of that age ready for such a thing? The answer is obvious. The laws are there to protect possible harm being caused to children (as history shows does happen when these laws are not in place and enforced).

Do you think children are capable of understanding the emotional depth of "love"? Not even people of 21 years of age understand it, but the potential for manipulation is a lot less the older a person is. A person of 21 years of age can tell when they are being taken for granted, a 13 year old will be a lot more naive about "love" and such manipulations will be more numerous and more plausible to occur.

It is the potential for abuse and the potential health risks that children will generally be ignorant of that is more then sufficient support for these laws to be in place. Frankly, if you don't have history on your side, you are just spitting ideological nonsense with no practical worth.

These willful dismissals of key arguments is not helping your case at all, and speaks volumes for the actual strength of your argument.

[Bookman]

Originally posted by Huzington
Bookman:

Okay, so sexual pleasure itself does not cause harm for children. I agree with you there. But, you say, although that is true, sexual pleasure must be viewed within the context of the relationship. To this I also concur.

To what, then, in the paedophilic relationship, do you object, if, as you say, sexual pleasure itself causes no harm?

Thanks for the good response.

First, I do not believe that children have the mental capacity to make an informed decision about entering in to such a relationship. It is clear that these relationships can cause harm and I do not believe that children have the ability to make choices that are ultimately in their best interests.

Furthermore, the general acceptance of such relationships would afford what you refer to as the 'offender population' a much greater latitude to do harm, and the risk of such is sufficient to me to restrict the rights of adults to enter into these relationships.

B

[Lonely_Road_Of_Faith]

Let's put it this way, If I had kids and a pedophile (heterosexual OR homosexual) was messing with them, I wouldn't care who thought it harmful and who didn't.

If I were sufficiently angry, I'd give serious thought to inflicting bodily harm to the pedophile... considering that I was in the military, I'm more then able to do so.

Were this not an option (which it probably would not be) I would endeavor to see to it that they were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I'm not a parent, but my ex-wife had a kid, so I have an understanding of that perspective.

Some things are just wrong, they're wrong because they cause harm to children, weather this is immediately obvious or not.

Somebody called pedophelia a "sexual orientation." It's not.

The DSM IV lists pedophelia as a PARAPHELIA (sexual disorder, the word literally means "love of the unusual.") More to the point, it's the kind of thing that reasonable homosexuals and heterosexuals alike want nothing to do with.

By comparison, homosexuality, which was once listed similarly, was removed from the DSM in 1973 and declassified as a mental disorder.

Just a thought, but are any of ya'll parents?

[veniceboy]

This thread will get the interest of FBI investigators.

Children cannot make these kinds of informed decisions.
And if they do, let them do it with other children who similarly cannot make the informed decisions. We as adults can control ourselves to at least give children an opportunity to enjoy a "normal" life.

[HelenM]

Originally posted by Huzington
The view that childhood sexuality is harmful, the rather when an adult is involved -- a view created entirely by the Christian superstition, a view which did not exist until Christianity -- is thus an absurdity, and those moral arguments using that antisexual position are exposed as unsound.

Here we go again...

You will find your viewpoint strongly opposed here and almost all those who oppose you are not Christians. So much for it being merely Christian superstition that childhood sexuality is harmful.

Helen

[Lonely_Road_Of_Faith]

Originally posted by HelenM
Here we go again...

You will find your viewpoint strongly opposed here and almost all those who oppose you are not Christians. So much for it being merely Christian superstition that childhood sexuality is harmful.

Helen

No kidding, Helen...most of my Muslim or Jewish friends would second that, as would almost all of the Atheists that I personally know...and anyone who has kids, irrespective of religion.

I'm a liberal/moderate Christian who doesn't exactly "play the role" I have tattoos and piercings, I smoke, I'm a recovering alchoholic, and I live with my girlfriend, I also study logic, philosophy, psychology, and even a little bit of the harder sciences...so I personally don't go for "superstitions" generally speaking.

I walked under a ladder every day for a week, and once broke a mirror, with a black cat right in front of me, and I still have good luck, so I kinda discounted anything that could possibly be labeled as superstition a loooong time ago.

hehehe.

[The Other Michael]

It appears that we're already due for the standard pedophilia thread message from the MF&P moderators:

Keep in mind the MF&P Forum Rules (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55192) as well as the general IIDB behavior rules.

Civil discourse, address the arguments not the individual, derailing of the discussion frowned upon, etc etc.

Huzington, since p(a)edophilia looks to be a subject of interest to you let me suggest that you do a search in the MF&P forum on pedophilia and read some of the threads that the search will direct you to.

This topic and the usual arguments have been hashed and rehashed a number of times, and looking at those threads, if nothing else, may help you to avoid submitting arguments previously refuted so that you can instead focus your time on arguments that may contain new information.

In closing, everyone needs to keep in mind that we expect you all to behave in a manner appropriate to the forum and the rules referenced above.

Threads (this one or others) that begin to sink into the morass will be closed.

Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by Huzington
It is not outdated because study after study, new and old, indicates the same thing precisely.

Can you cite some of these studies? So far you have only cited one.

[Bookman]

Originally posted by Godless Dave
Can you cite some of these studies? So far you have only cited one.

Not only that, but the study he cites does address the question of typical reactions, as it makes no attempt to use a representative sample.

B

[Shake]

Originally posted by winstonjen
No, Genghis has a lolita complex. Oh yeah, that's right! Gurdur's got it, I think. Notice how there's been no response since then.

[Donnmathan]

Originally posted by Huzington
When the offender population is not considered, which creates a distorted picture of reality...

This is the cause of your problem, Huzington. Your study, which ignores the offender population, is no more accurate than one that deals ONLY with the offender population. To grant an accurate and objective perspective, you need to find a study that takes both into consideration. I'm betting you'll find that, if it was scientific, it in no way supports your position, but will show a minority to support you. Face it, most kids under the age of 12 are not able to make abstract statements or judgements about them. A good guideline that suggests this can be found here (http://www.bhc.edu/EastCampus/leeb/adpsy/chapt04/sld007.htm); the structure presented is accurate enough for this discussion. Notice that abstract thought and deductive reasoning appear no earlier than the 12+ Formal Operations stage; before this, an animalistic reasoning process (if it feels good, it must be good) opens them up to whole worlds of emotional and mental coersion. Simply put, an 8 y.o. needs exactly what Gurdur claims:

Originally posted by Gurdur
It is a tenet of many that children must be protected against exploitation by adults --- whether sexually or economically.


If one waits for the majority to actually enter the formal operations stage, then most children could determine what they want for themselves no earlier than 15 or 16, completely contradicting your claim that a young child can decide for themselves that they want sexual contact at such a young age. Do they say it feels good? Yes, they might. Are they capable of seeing a manipulating adult or dangerous pedophile for what they are? NO, and so they must be protected.

(Edit: Umm...Bookman, did I just duplicate your last point? If so, I wasn't attempting to step on toes.)

[Bookman]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
(Edit: Umm...Bookman, did I just duplicate your last point? If so, I wasn't attempting to step on toes.)

I think 'strengthened' would be a better word than 'duplicated'. ;)

B

[xorbie]

Huzington

I don't know why you even bothered to cite that study. According to what you quoted, the study included no clinical or predator population. Even so, there was still almost 1 in 5 cases of abuse. Do you know how amazingly high that is? That means 1 in 5 little 10 or 12 year olds is being physically or emotionally abused in these situations. 3 in 10 don't find that the situation helps. And this is excluding the kids who ended up having to go into clinics or those predatorial pedophiles. This is outrageous. I think that study you posted basically sums up the argument for the other side. I don't even need to argue here, the numbers say it themselves. 1 in 5 man, 1 in 5.

20% change of being physically or emotionally abused. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

I can't say it enough.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Xeno
1. Health risks (STD's, pregnancy leading to abortions, etc.)
2. Potential for abuse from adults (coercion, rape, manipulation, etc.)

I have addressed both of those. Number two evinces the fact the fact that you have ignored half of what I have been saying.

STDs: It is a well known fact that paedophilic sexual relationships consist mostly of fondling, caressing, kissing, hugging, and very little if any penetration, and besides involve a low level of physical intimacy. When fellatio occurs, it is usually the man who orally stimulates the boy. Penetration, however, among the offender population alone is not the norm. And of course, the offender population is not an accurate representation of the vast majority of persons with that sexual preference.

Pregnancy: Highly unlikely, even among the molester and exploitative peadophiles who penetrate and who are not however the norm. And you will find in countries whose children are highly educated sexually from an early age -- therein you will find, despite a regular rate of teen sex, an almost non-existence of teen pregnancy. And we are talking about girls who are wholly different from boys. Preteen girls, unlike most boys, do not even masturbate. The girl does not, unlike the boy, as Freud said, go through a homosexual stage. The girl very rarely likes sex. And I do not even like to talk about girls because, besides what I said, I know nothing of them.

Yes, it's possible that a child of 13 years of age will have the emotional maturity to handle a relationship of this kind, but is it plausible?

One does not need special skills in order to be in a relationship of this sort, in order to experience pleasurable sensations, besides the ability to love and to experience those sensations.

Now, more important -- please -- define these relationships. Which properties do these relationships must needs have which make them incompatible with the emotional maturity, or whatever, of the typical thirteen year old? This is another key question which I suspect will never be answered.

It is possible a child of 8 years of age will be ready to birth a child and be emotionally prepared for child rearing (I'm being very generous to you here), but is it plausible?

Good point: girls ought never to experience coitus. This is probably why the laws for homosexual sex and heterosexual sex ought to be different.

Generally, are most children of that age ready for such a thing? The answer is obvious. The laws are there to protect possible harm being caused to children (as history shows does happen when these laws are not in place and enforced).

I agree that girls, who are simpletons, should not have children. They would be most horrid mothers.

Do you think children are capable of understanding the emotional depth of "love"?

Certainly. There is no doubt in my mind.

Not even people of 21 years of age understand it, but the potential for manipulation is a lot less the older a person is.
Absurd.

A person of 21 years of age can tell when they are being taken for granted, a 13 year old will be a lot more naive about "love" and such manipulations will be more numerous and more plausible to occur.

Why the pessimism? Pessimism is a type of wishful thinking, though a strange one. "Love", a manipulation! For what? Sex? You have it completely wrong. Love is the end, even in paedophilic relationships: not sex. In fact, genuine sex is but a trivial element, almost a non-entity, in paedophilic relationships.

It is the potential for abuse and the potential health risks that children will generally be ignorant of that is more then sufficient support for these laws to be in place.

Your wishful thinking is becoming more and more manifest.

These willful dismissals of key arguments is not helping your case at all, and speaks volumes for the actual strength of your argument.

Me?! Hah! I have made too many arguments, asked too many key questions, which no one has made an attempt to answer.

[Godless Dave]

Do you have citations for any of those other studies you mentioned?

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Lonely_Road_Of_Faith
Let's put it this way, If I had kids and a pedophile (heterosexual OR homosexual) was messing with them, I wouldn't care who thought it harmful and who didn't.

If I were sufficiently angry, I'd give serious thought to inflicting bodily harm to the pedophile... considering that I was in the military, I'm more then able to do so.

Were this not an option (which it probably would not be) I would endeavor to see to it that they were prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
IMO your passionate reaction is completely justifiable, but as an argument it falls short as it's no more than an appeal to emotion. There are people who think video games are harmful to kids. Would such a person be within their rights to make a statement like the one you just did about people who give kids quarters to play video games? I'm not equating the very real harm of child molestation with the imagined harm of video games, either. I'm just saying that the fact that the behavior pisses you off is not an effective argument against it.

As an aside, your claim that you would "give serious thought to inflicting bodily harm to the pedophile" and are "more than able to" enact vigilante justice as a result of your military training is in my opinion nearly as offensive as the claim that adult-child sex is okie-dokie. It's all a matter of perspective.

I'm not a parent, but my ex-wife had a kid, so I have an understanding of that perspective.

Some things are just wrong, they're wrong because they cause harm to children, weather this is immediately obvious or not. Whether you are a parent has nothing to do with the accuracy of your moral view. I agree that harming children is wrong, and shouldn't be tolerated. I also agree that there are things which are harmful to children which are not immediately obvious. However, you seem to be claiming that you will be the judge of what is and isn't harmful, and will consider enforcing your verdict regardless of the will of the majority. That strikes me as more disturbing than noble.

Somebody called pedophelia a "sexual orientation." It's not. According to Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=1&q=sexual%20orientation), "sexual orientation" is "The direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes." Using that definition it seems to be accurate to call pedophilia a "sexual orientation".

The DSM IV lists pedophelia as a PARAPHELIA (sexual disorder, the word literally means "love of the unusual.") More to the point, it's the kind of thing that reasonable homosexuals and heterosexuals alike want nothing to do with.

By comparison, homosexuality, which was once listed similarly, was removed from the DSM in 1973 and declassified as a mental disorder. It's also notable that pedophilia was recently declassified as a mental disorder as well, but public outcry had it put back in the DSM. You may be right about what "most reasonable homosexuals and heterosexuals alike want nothing to do with", but I don't know how the DSM's definition of pedophilia indicates the veracity of that claim.

Just a thought, but are any of ya'll parents? Irrelevant.

You should also note that the definition of pedophilia itself has changed quite a bit over the years. What was once a purely clinical term (as you mentioned) to describe a specific sexual disorder characterized by an adults disruptive sexual obsession with prepubescent children, is now commonly used to describe the entire range of sexual interest, attraction, and activity between adults and any child under 18 years old. A fairly comprehensive examination of the recent morphing of the term is available at Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia).

Note that I am not a proponent of adult-child sexual relationships. I just prefer to see more carefully articulated arguments against child endangerment before before I grab a torch and rope and join the parade.

vm

[xorbie]

Another important point to make here is that I am making no double standards here (though I have not argued much). I am generally against a relationship in which one person is twice the age of the other. This could mean 60-30, 40-20, or 20-10. It is just not right, because people in a relationship of this variety should generally be of somewhat equal life experience.

I am not a huge fan of 10 year olds having sex with one another, but, so long as they are educated about it, I am far less bothered by this than when a 20 year old has sex with a 10 year old. This really is not such a difficult concept.

[keyser_soze]

Hey there pat, I mean totalitarian...no wait, I mean ghengis...Glad to see you're back, but I seriously wouldn't mind if somehow you lost the ability to use a computer suddenly..

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
......
Whether you are a parent has nothing to do with the accuracy of your moral view.
That would almost seem to be implying there is such a thing as an "objective moral view", to which accuracy is a valid criterion.
Serious problems there.
Being a parent has no doubt something to do with the focus and motive power of one's moral views, which may be well relevant here.
Mind you, I'm not a parent, but I guess if it's quibbling time, I just wanna quibble along too.
:)
It's also notable that pedophilia was recently declassified as a mental disorder as well, but public outcry had it put back in the DSM. You may be right about what "most reasonable homosexuals and heterosexuals alike want nothing to do with", but I don't know how the DSM's definition of pedophilia indicates the veracity of that claim.
Yeah, well, DSM-IV and everything. I mean you only need to look at the history of Multiple Personality Disorder under all its various guises (Three Faces Of Eve and all that junk) to realise that the DSM is far from perfect ---- which is of course merely to state that there is a strong social intersubjective component to deciding just what in fact is a psychological disorder, and that cannot be otherwise.

Another example is how religious mania got dropped (IIRC, at the same time as homosexuality). Ah well, we are but humans.

A fair enough point, one on which I am guilty myself.
However, for practical purposes, I include immediately-post-pubescent children in the general category of "children" for the sake of the issue (for reasons of life's practicalities).
Quite simply, because on the whole an average 14-y-o. say, is not terribly well-equipped to handle sexual relationships with adults.

Fairly obviously, there's a sharp curve from 12 to 16; yet there's no doubt that that curve exists, and some arbitrary point is necessary on that curve.
[quote]I just prefer to see more carefully articulated arguments against child endangerment
I think you'll find that those "carefully articulated arguments" were made here quite often, especially on the Pat Kelly threads.
before before I grab a torch and rope and join the parade.
We're not all vigilantes, you know.
:)
I myself strongly support the prohibition of vigilantism. Moreover, I'm not into lynch mobs; my being for the criminalization of adult sexual relations with 14-y-o's does not mean I am a supporter of lynching, the death penalty, tacitly allowing rapes in prison, tacitly allowing killings in prison, tacitly allowing victimization of convicted paedophiles, or anything else like that.

'Course, I'm just talking for myself in response to a post you wrote directed at someone else; but hey, a mild bit of quibbling and kerfuffling cannot be denied me, or ?

[Beleg_Strongbow]

What do you mean children love sex? Sex drive doesn't develop until puberty, a child wouldn't get the same pleasures out of it that an adult would. I remember when my mom explained to me about sex when I was 7. My reaction was "Eeeeeeeeew gross! i'm never going to do that!" And that stayed the way I viewed it until just recently (i'm 15 now). Have you all forgotten what it's like to be a child?

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Beleg_Strongbow
What do you mean children love sex? Sex drive doesn't develop until puberty


Tell that to my 6 year old son, two years ago (when he was 4 just in case your math is bad ;)) I had to explain to him why it was wrong to masturbate in public, nowdays he does it in private so at least he took notice. I had a similar discussion with my daughter when she was about 5 and with my other two sons when they were about the same age. Maybe they have the sex-maniac gene or something (if they have it is from their mother ;)) but discussions with other parents lead me to believe they are not unusual in this regard.

Amen-Moses

[xorbie]

Well I can assure you your children are freaks. Seriously. I have never heard of 4 year olds masturbating in public, sorry.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by xorbie

Well I can assure you your children are freaks. Seriously. I have never heard of 4 year olds masturbating in public, sorry.
A-M probably means playing with one's own genitals. It's common among male children, but of course it does not equal masturbation.

[Beleg_Strongbow]

Masterbation of young children and having sex with someone are different things. My little brother masterbates all the time, and I did too at a very young age, not understanding what it was. I still had no desire for sex with another person.

[Gurdur]

Another good point, Beleg, despite the fact I'ld quibble with you about the term "masturbation" in this context.

Moreover, wanting to have sex does not mean that in fact that someone should be allowed to have sex.

The stock paedo argument is that (allegedly) children love sex, so why deny them ?
Quite apart from the self-serving nature of the agitprop, it ignores the fact that children may want all sorts of things they are in fact on average not capable of handling.

The next argument would be that paedo is a sexual orientation, therefore it should be fully decriminalized.
Well. bollocks.

Habitual rape can also be described as a "sexual orientation". That does not mean it should be legalized.

Ditto for paedophilia (and by that I will include adults wanting sex with 14-y-o'; while 14-y-o's are post-pubescent, they are not on average terribly well psychologically or experiantially equipped to handle sex with adults).

Claiming that the average paedophile does not use violence does not alter the fact that it is inappropriate for adults in many ways to use children for sex, and there is no need for an adult to do so. Moreover, possible emotional problems in children who do want sex with adults are well-worth looking into.
If the need for warmth is expressed through sex-seeking behaviour, that can often bode ill for later development.

[Rider]

It is the thought that anyone who thinks out of the norm thinks that's the way things are. It's a psychological disorder that has been proven in "study after study" that pedophilia victims become the aggressor and justify that disease with the notion that it feels good... so it must be ok.

I honestly hope that the FBI does read this thread, my best friend in the world become one of these mentally disturbed individuals and sexually touched my other friends daughter. While doing this the daughter never said anything because he kept saying it's ok, it's normal, and doesn't it feel good? You know that it can't be bad if it feels good right?. This information was relayed to the girls father after she was convinced to tell someone what had happened by her friends who knew it was wrong. She was brainwashed into thinking it was ok by someone who wanted to get his kicks.

If you keep the disease alive by lies, it continues to spread.

I realize this has no relation to the OP of same age child sex, but it is similar and ANY adult who will argue that what they do is ok should be locked up in a mental ward and the key locked away in the smallest box possible. It is these adults who would watch while the children do it.

My apologies for offending anyone... except you Huzington.

-Rider
(prepares to be banned)

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Beleg_Strongbow
What do you mean children love sex? Sex drive doesn't develop until puberty, a child wouldn't get the same pleasures out of it that an adult would. I remember when my mom explained to me about sex when I was 7. My reaction was "Eeeeeeeeew gross! i'm never going to do that!" And that stayed the way I viewed it until just recently (i'm 15 now). Have you all forgotten what it's like to be a child?

Not I. And I had a lot of sex when I was a young boy (I am still a boy, by the way); sometimes I disliked it, sometimes I loved it. And when I disliked it, it was not traumatic; it was comparable to a dislike of the taste of a certain food, or a type of music. And not only did I have sex with a young man, but also on several occasions I engaged in "sex play", and enjoyed it very much indeed. Why, the phenonemon of "sex play" is sufficient proof for the fact that children enjoy experiencing sexual sensations. Children's obsession with "dirty" jokes, with drawing "private spots", is proof that children have an interest in sex (which however they are too embarrassed to talk about because they are forced to express their interest in such moronic forms). And in some communities, even in Western, civilised nations wherein sex is regarded as perfectly acceptable behaviour, children show a more striking, a more earnest, interest in the sexual act. And then we find that it is not infrequent for boys to stimulate their penises by means of what children like to call "humping". And so forth ad infinitum (one could go on forever).

And as for you, you were an abnormal child. And I suspect that you are female. And perhaps you were conditioned to associate sex with pain, which is almost universal in Western countries.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Huzington
....
And I do not even like to talk about girls because, besides what I said, I know nothing of them.
......
I agree that girls, who are simpletons, should not have children. They would be most horrid mothers.
Originally posted by Huzington
.......
And as for you, you were an abnormal child. And I suspect that you are female. ...

Huzington/Totalitarianist,

Knock off the anti-women bigotries.
They don't help you, and will only hinder you.

[Huzington]

Knock off the anti-women bigotries.
They don't help you, and will only hinder you.

I agree that girls, who are simpletons, should not have children. They would be most horrid mothers.

But Mr. Gurdur, ALL kids are simpletons. Girls are therefore simpletons. Therefore, like boys, they would make most horrid parents.

That is not "anti-women" bigotry. I think no one here can deny that

And as for you, you were an abnormal child. And I suspect that you are female. ...

I say this, Mr. Gurdur, because girls are taught to hate sex and to associate sex with harm moreso than boys are. I say this also because it is the constitution of the young girl's body to enjoy sex but little.

And so that is not "anti-women" bigotry, either.

Huzington/Totalitarianist

Was it not Mr. Kelley before? What is it? Make up your mind already, Mr. Gurdur sir.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Gurdur
That would almost seem to be implying there is such a thing as an "objective moral view", to which accuracy is a valid criterion.
Serious problems there.
Agreed. I don't believe in an objective moral view. I just meant to say that I don't think being a parent makes anyone's opinion of moral equations involving children any more or less valid.

Being a parent has no doubt something to do with the focus and motive power of one's moral views, which may be well relevant here.
Mind you, I'm not a parent, but I guess if it's quibbling time, I just wanna quibble along too.
:) Are you implying that a non-parent is more likely to argue the pro-pedophilia position than a parent would be? In either case, does the "focus and motive power of one's moral views" impact whether the views are reasonable?

Yeah, well, DSM-IV and everything. I mean you only need to look at the history of Multiple Personality Disorder under all its various guises (Three Faces Of Eve and all that junk) to realise that the DSM is far from perfect ---- which is of course merely to state that there is a strong social intersubjective component to deciding just what in fact is a psychological disorder, and that cannot be otherwise.

Another example is how religious mania got dropped (IIRC, at the same time as homosexuality). Ah well, we are but humans. Well, don't forget economics. Keeping people thinking they're dysfunctional in one way or another is a hugely profitable business. And it keeps the focus of a lot of people away from things they really have no business thinking about, like politics and economics.

A fair enough point, one on which I am guilty myself.
However, for practical purposes, I include immediately-post-pubescent children in the general category of "children" for the sake of the issue (for reasons of life's practicalities).
Quite simply, because on the whole an average 14-y-o. say, is not terribly well-equipped to handle sexual relationships with adults.

Fairly obviously, there's a sharp curve from 12 to 16; yet there's no doubt that that curve exists, and some arbitrary point is necessary on that curve. I think 14 is a perfectly reasonable arbitrary line to draw when talking about the sexual nature of children.

I think you'll find that those "carefully articulated arguments" were made here quite often, especially on the Pat Kelly threads.
We're not all vigilantes, you know.
:) Oh, I know. But then you're not the person I was addressing my comments to.

I myself strongly support the prohibition of vigilantism. Moreover, I'm not into lynch mobs; my being for the criminalization of adult sexual relations with 14-y-o's does not mean I am a supporter of lynching, the death penalty, tacitly allowing rapes in prison, tacitly allowing killings in prison, tacitly allowing victimization of convicted paedophiles, or anything else like that. And until you start making comments that betray a contrary belief, I promise I'll make no such accusations.

'Course, I'm just talking for myself in response to a post you wrote directed at someone else; but hey, a mild bit of quibbling and kerfuffling cannot be denied me, or ? I wouldn't think of denying you quibbling, and I couldn't possibly deny you kerfuffling without knowing what it is. :D

vm

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Huzington
Not I. And I had a lot of sex when I was a young boy (I am still a boy, by the way); sometimes I disliked it, sometimes I loved it. And when I disliked it, it was not traumatic; it was comparable to a dislike of the taste of a certain food, or a type of music. And not only did I have sex with a young man, but also on several occasions I engaged in "sex play", and enjoyed it very much indeed. Your anecdotal evidence has very limited value. Plenty of research has been done that indicates that the vast majority of adult/child sexual encounters are physically and psychologically traumatic. That you may or may not have had that experience is not sufficient to disprove the conclusions of the professional community. Even if you could prove that the reasons for this are all cultural, that wouldn't change the fact that those cultural ramifications exist and should be respected.

Why, the phenonemon of "sex play" is sufficient proof for the fact that children enjoy experiencing sexual sensations. Children's obsession with "dirty" jokes, with drawing "private spots", is proof that children have an interest in sex (which however they are too embarrassed to talk about because they are forced to express their interest in such moronic forms). Of course humans of all ages are going to find physical stimulation pleasing, regardless of whether the that stimulation is sexual in nature. And it's equally obvious that humans of all ages are going to have some interest in sex. However, you have provided no evidence for your assertion that kids are "too embarrassed to talk about (sex) because they are forced to express their interest in such moronic forms." That sounds more like an unsupported rationalization to justify having explicit sexual discussions with children.

And in some communities, even in Western, civilised nations wherein sex is regarded as perfectly acceptable behaviour, children show a more striking, a more earnest, interest in the sexual act. And then we find that it is not infrequent for boys to stimulate their penises by means of what children like to call "humping". And so forth ad infinitum (one could go on forever). Please provide sources for these claims.

vm

[Odemus]

Children are way too old. Unborn babies enjoy sex the most!

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Your anecdotal evidence has very limited value. Plenty of research has been done that indicates that the vast majority of adult/child sexual encounters are physically and psychologically traumatic.

Can you show me a single study that is not based on anecdotal evidence?

Amen-Moses

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by viscousmemories

Agreed. I don't believe in an objective moral view. I just meant to say that I don't think being a parent makes anyone's opinion of moral equations involving children any more or less valid. [

Are you implying

heh, I am implying lots of things. :)
One being, that you could be a bit more charitable to Rider.
Rider is a mother, and feels immediately strongly when confronted with this kind of thing.
Rather than doing the whole "make your argument logical" kind of thing straight off first, which could possibly come over as uncaring and rather patronizing at times, perhaps it would be wise to recognise that parents tend to react rather strongly, and acknowledge that that is not necessarily bad, and then go on from there.
that a non-parent is more likely to argue the pro-pedophilia position than a parent would be?
Actually, that was one thing I wasn't implying.
But hey, now that you make me think about the sub-point, I woiuld think that would tend to be true.
I also think it's completely by the by, and doesn't matter. I was talking of focus and motive power, rather than frequency.
In either case, does the "focus and motive power of one's moral views" impact whether the views are reasonable?
[quibble]Objectivism implication ![/quote]
A moral view may be wrong, but that doesn't make it unreasonable.
"The focus and motive power" explains why people may express a certain POV strongly.
Keeping people thinking they're dysfunctional in one way or another is a hugely profitable business.
Possibly unfair to the DSM, that.
I mean, I was going to do a thread myself on pharmaceutical-company perversions of health ideas, but I think you'll find the DSM is more moved by good intentions than by profit motives.
Much more. In fact, I can't think off-hand of a classification in the DSM itself motivated by a pharma company or the like as yet; can you provide an example ?
I think 14 is a perfectly reasonable arbitrary line to draw when talking about the sexual nature of children.
Then I think you better provide a well-reasoned argument for that position, rather than a flat assertion. And what age range do you see parental consent as being vital ?
We've now had 3 very recent threads here and 1 elsewhere precisely on that point, and I've been arguing that adults seeking sex with 14-y-o's should be criminalized, even though with wide judicial discretionary sentencing powers.
The reason being for that the predation upon young kids by some adults.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Huzington

But Mr. Gurdur, ALL kids are simpletons. Girls are therefore simpletons. Therefore, like boys, they would make most horrid parents.
Therefore you are recommending that adults be allowed to have sex with "simpletons" ?
My, my.

Apart from your bigotries regarding children, you're flailing around miserably in your main arguments.
:D
I say this, Mr. Gurdur, because girls are taught to hate sex and to associate sex with harm moreso than boys are. I say this also because it is the constitution of the young girl's body to enjoy sex but little.
Since, as you yourself said before, you know nothing of girls, I am amazed at your omniscient powers.
And so that is not "anti-women" bigotry, either.
Bollocks.
Was it not Mr. Kelley before? What is it? Make up your mind already, Mr. Gurdur sir.
Makes little difference to me.
If you had confessed to being Totalitarianist/TrebaxianVir, I would have recommended you be treated with a bit of charity, as you seem to be working through severe problems.

But if you aren't Totalitarianist/TrebaxianVir, then hey ! I would simply recommend you be treated here with all the respect that your assertions deserve.
A minus quantity, that.
:)

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
Can you show me a single study that is not based on anecdotal evidence?

Amen-Moses Okay, fair enough. I realize after reading Dangin's recent post that the unethical nature of having a control group of pedophilia victims prevents such a study from taking place.

Suffice it to say, then, that I will take my own anecdotal evidence and the testimonies of others that I've met, combined with the little bit I know about human physical, emotional and cognitive development, over the word of a single voice suggesting that if it feels good it must be okay.

vm

[Bookman]

There is nothing preventing the use of representative sampling of the anecdotes to form conclusions, however. Huzington's study and personal testamonials are clearly non-representative.

Bookman

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Gurdur
heh, I am implying lots of things. :)
One being, that you could be a bit more charitable to Rider.
Rider is a mother, and feels immediately strongly when confronted with this kind of thing.
Rather than doing the whole "make your argument logical" kind of thing straight off first, which could possibly come over as uncaring and rather patronizing at times, perhaps it would be wise to recognise that parents tend to react rather strongly, and acknowledge that that is not necessarily bad, and then go on from there. I see your point, but of course I have a couple of problems with it. ;) One is that my first post, to which you were referring, was addressed to Lonely_Road_Of_Faith, and came before Rider had said anything at all. The second is that I do consider it pointless (and therefore "necessarily bad") to debate an issue with someone who consistently resorts to appeals to emotion. So when I am involved in a debate wherein someone has such a strong emotional reaction that they can't contain that impulse, I refuse to interact with them. To be honest, I think the best course of action for such people is to avoid these discussions all together.

Actually, that was one thing I wasn't implying.
But hey, now that you make me think about the sub-point, I woiuld think that would tend to be true.
I also think it's completely by the by, and doesn't matter. I was talking of focus and motive power, rather than frequency. I think it's probably true, too. If it's not relevant, though, I'm still not clear what you mean.

[quibble]Objectivism implication !
A moral view may be wrong, but that doesn't make it unreasonable.
"The focus and motive power" explains why people may express a certain POV strongly. Okay, now I'm totally confused. How can a moral view be 'wrong' if there is no objective moral view?

Possibly unfair to the DSM, that.
I mean, I was going to do a thread myself on pharmaceutical-company perversions of health ideas, but I think you'll find the DSM is more moved by good intentions than by profit motives.
Much more. In fact, I can't think off-hand of a classification in the DSM itself motivated by a pharma company or the like as yet; can you provide an example ? Actually I have no way of knowing what the motivations of the DSM authors/publishers are, but given that it's published in the US I think it's safe to assume that profit generation is number one. When I made the comment about them profiting from dysfunction I was thinking primarily of the fact that, for example, depression diagnoses may be a bit exagerrated to facilitate the manufacture and sales of Prozac, Wellbutrin, Paxil, etc. But that is of course moot to this issue.

Then I think you better provide a well-reasoned argument for that position, rather than a flat assertion. And what age range do you see parental consent as being vital ? Odd that I thought I was agreeing with your assertion, and now you're insisting that I justify it. The reason I went along with it is because I agree a line has to be drawn somewhere to protect the most probably underdeveloped humans from sexual assault by presumably sexually developed humans.

We've now had 3 very recent threads here and 1 elsewhere precisely on that point, and I've been arguing that adults seeking sex with 14-y-o's should be criminalized, even though with wide judicial discretionary sentencing powers.
The reason being for that the predation upon young kids by some adults. And as I said, that sounds reasonable to me. Do you think I somehow suggested otherwise?

vm

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Suffice it to say, then, that I will take my own anecdotal evidence and the testimonies of others that I've met, combined with the little bit I know about human physical, emotional and cognitive development, over the word of a single voice suggesting that if it feels good it must be okay.


And I'll do exactly the same for the converse view. ;)

Amen-Moses

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
And I'll do exactly the same for the converse view. ;)

Amen-Moses So based on your personal experience and what little you know of human physical, emotional and cognitive development, you believe that if something feels good it must be okay?

[Huzington]

Your anecdotal evidence has very limited value. Plenty of research has been done that indicates that the vast majority of adult/child sexual encounters are physically and psychologically traumatic. That you may or may not have had that experience is not sufficient to disprove the conclusions of the professional community. Even if you could prove that the reasons for this are all cultural, that wouldn't change the fact that those cultural ramifications exist and should be respected.

Actually, it shows that molestations are psychologically and physically traumatic: we do not have a good representation of paedophiles. And it is always limited to molestations, sir. And children are actually not allowed to answer positively anyway: therefore the studies are biased. Now how can adult-child sexual counters be "physically traumatic" when most are not penetrative? And many, many adult-child sexual encounters are not truly paedophilic: therefore we are throwing others into the mix, and so again we do not have a satisfactory representation of paedophiles. For just as some heterosexual prisoners have sex with other men, so some heterosexual adults rape children (unfortunately) to alleviate sexual tension. And this includes a significant section of so-called paedophiles: the so-called regressive and exploitative paedophiles. They exhibit no real sexual or romantic attraction to children whatsoever. They consider the child as wholly an object of sexual use. These so-called paedophiles are child molesters. But then there are the so-called "fixated" paedosexuals, of which there are many, whose sexual encounters with children are generally non-penetrative, and they always express romantic feelings for children. Then we must take into consideration the fact that all children are taught that "touching" is "harm", is "bad", is "hurt". Of course they will say it was "harm" or "bad" when asked if they had been "touched". Children are taught to associate sex with harm, with pain, with violence. And so forth and so forth and so forth!


Please provide sources for these claims.

That can be done generally, but which claims in particular?

[HelenM]

Originally posted by Huzington
Children are taught to associate sex with harm, with pain, with violence.

What evidence do you have for that and who do you think teaches them that?

Were you taught that?

Helen

[Huzington]

Originally posted by HelenM
What evidence do you have for that and who do you think teaches them that?

Were you taught that?

Helen

Everyone is taught that.

Every mother has asked her child:
Did he "touch" you? Did he "hurt" you? Etc.

[HelenM]

Originally posted by Huzington
Everyone is taught that.

Every mother has asked her child:
Did he "touch" you? Did he "hurt" you? Etc.

I've never asked my children that.

Helen

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by Huzington
Everyone is taught that.

Not I.

[DixieNurse]

from Huzington:...Everyone is taught that...Every mother has asked her child: Did he "touch" you? Did he "hurt" you? Etc.

Nope! Try again...


Dixie

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Huzington
Actually, it shows that molestations are psychologically and physically traumatic -- we do not have a good representation of paedophiles. And it is always limited to molestations, sir. Okay. And how do you define molestation? The second definition at Dictionary.com, which I believe is appropriate, is "To subject to unwanted or improper sexual activity." Accordingly, since I believe it is improper for adults to have sex with children, in my view there can be no adult/child sexual interaction that is not molestation.

And children are not actually not allowed to answer positively anyway -- therefore the studies are baised. I suspect that your assumption that children are rarely or never allowed to respond to post-abuse interviews in a particular way is mere fantasy. Do you have citations you can point to that defend this speculation?

Now how can adult-child sexual counters be "physically traumatic" when most are not penatrative? Very easily. Children have fragile bodies, and adults are generally much stronger than them. I find it quite easy to believe that bruising and chaffing could occur quite easily in a sexual interaction between an adult and a child, regardless of whether or not sexual penetration was involved.

And many, many adult-child sexual encounters are not truly paedophilic -- therefore we are throwing others into the mix. Again, please cite your sources.

For just as some heterosexual prisoners have sex with other men, so some heterosexual adults rape children (unfortunately) to alleviate sexual tension. You have to make up your mind if you're talking about heterosexual men having concentual homosexual sex because their environment precludes heterosexual encounters, or if you're talking about rape. Also, rape is a violent crime. It is not done to "alleviate sexual tension", it is indicative of aggressive and controlling tendancies.

And this includes a significant section of so-called paedophiles -- the so-called regressive and exploitative paedophiles. They exhibit no real sexual or romantic attraction to children whatsoever. They consider the child as wholly an object of sexual use. These so-called paedophiles are child molesters. If you're going to question the application of the pedophile label by saying "so-called pedophiles", you need to define your terms. What is your definition of a pedophile? Does it coincide with the definition in the DSM-IV? In other words, are you talking about chronic, compulsive, life-disrupting obsession with prepubescent children, or do you have your own definition?

But then there are the so-called "fixated" paedosexuals, of which there are many, whose sexual encounters with children are generally non-penetrative, and they always express romantic feelings for children. And as it should be, IMHO, such people are also criminals because they are exploiting the developmental immaturity of their victim and having an inappropriate sexual relationship with them.

Then we must take into consideration the fact that all children are taught that "touching" is "harm", is "bad", is "hurt". Of course they will say it was "harm" or "bad" when asked if they had been "touched". Children are taught to associate sex with harm, with pain, with violence. And so forth and so forth and so forth! I'm with Helen on this one too. Cite your sources. I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian with a father who was a known child molester, yet interestingly enough I don't remember being taught that to associate sex with harm, pain or violence. I remember being taught that it was dirty and sinful to have sexual relations before marriage, but then I had to consider the messenger, didn't I?

vm

[Huzington]

At any rate, many, many, many people are taught about "good touch bad touch", touch is "hurt", etc., etc. If you were "touched", and if you were a kid, I am sure you would be asked by some adult, "Did he hurt you?" Or, "Did he touch you where no should ever touch you?" "Touch" and "sex" become synonymous with pain, with touch, with violence. And then, probably, the person will use various circumlocutions to refer to your body parts which are supposedly bad and rotten -- thereby clearly demonstrating the reality of the sex-pain or sex-bad or sex-violence association.

[HelenM]

Originally posted by Huzington
At any rate, many, many, many people are taught about "good touch bad touch", touch is "hurt", etc., etc. If you were "touched", and if you were a kid, I am sure you would be asked by some adult, "Did he hurt you?" Or, "Did he touch you where no should ever touch you?" "Hurt" becomes synonymous with pain, with touch, with violence. And then, probably, the person will use various circumlocutions to refer to your body parts which are supposedly bad and rotten -- thereby clearly demonstrating the reality of the sex-pain or sex-bad or sex-violence association.

What makes you think children are taught that some body parts are taught as 'bad' or 'rotten'?

"Don't let people touch you there" is an entirely different message from "that is a bad body part".

Anyway "hurt" is synonymous with "pain"!

Helen

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
......
Okay, now I'm totally confused. How can a moral view be 'wrong' if there is no objective moral view?
Ah. Wrong according to criteria of coherence and cogeny ?
Wrong according to me ? According to intersubjective standards ?
um, I think we're talking past each other; we may have confused the hell out of each other here.
Actually I have no way of knowing what the motivations of the DSM authors/publishers are, but given that it's published in the US I think it's safe to assume that profit generation is number one. When I made the comment about them profiting from dysfunction I was thinking primarily of the fact that, for example, depression diagnoses may be a bit exagerrated to facilitate the manufacture and sales of Prozac, Wellbutrin, Paxil, etc. But that is of course moot to this issue.
Actually, good example. I stand corrected, and agree with you.
And only now, damn it, do I think of Ritalin over-dosage and abusage. Go ahead, whip me.
I shall keep all that in mind if I ever get around to starting a new thread on pharma/DSM corruption.
Thanks for the tip.
Odd that I thought I was agreeing with your assertion, and now you're insisting that I justify it.
Um, yes, well, I don't think 14 was my line.
I've benn trying to avoid a line, but I think 15 or 14 years 9 months with parental consent is valid enough.
My major concern is street kids. I would love to see the arseholes who prey on them criminalized really hard.
As for the rest, let's write it up to confusion. Or you can write it up to my confusion, if you prefer..

And as I said, that sounds reasonable to me. Do you think I somehow suggested otherwise?
Wrong assumptions on my part.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Okay. And how do you define molestation? The second definition at Dictionary.com, which I believe is appropriate, is "To subject to unwanted or improper sexual activity." Accordingly, since I believe it is improper for adults to have sex with children, in my view there can be no adult/child sexual interaction that is not molestation.

Thus, before 1972 (or whatever the exact year was), all cases of homosexuality were molestations. All sexual deviants are molesters, according to this definition. Even if it is enjoyed by both parties, even there is no force or coercion whatsoever involved, even if there is no negative subsequent emotional consequences, even if there cannot be any -- it was a molestation; which shows that this definition is quite unsatisfactory.

I would say that to molest is to subject a person to unwanted sexual activity.

I suspect that your assumption that children are rarely or never allowed to respond to post-abuse interviews in a particular way is mere fantasy. Do you have citations you can point to that defend this speculation?

Post abuse interviews? Abuse is already assumed in post-abused interviews. Once it is assumed, it becomes a reality. People do not go to post-abuse interviews if they are not already thought abused. Besides, and more important, I highly doubt that an "expert" would even be allowed to ask the child, "Did you enjoy it? Did you like the sexual sensations?" That is thought unethical; therefore it is reasonable to assume that it does not, or rarely ever, happens.

Very easily. Children have fragile bodies, and adults are generally much stronger than them. I find it quite easy to believe that bruising and chaffing could occur quite easily in a sexual interaction between an adult and a child, regardless of whether or not sexual penetration was involved.

So mutual masturbation or fondling (very common, according to my studies) might break a child's bone, or bruise him? Of course that can happen. Show me a study which indicates that adult-child sexual encounters usually involve physical harm.

Again, please cite your sources.

Uhm, I thought this too obvious. If a paedosexual is that person who is sexually and romantically attracted by children, then it follows that persons who rape children merely to alleviate sexual tension are not truly paedosexual, just as male otherwise heterosexual prisoners who rape men merely to alleviate sexual tension are not considered as truly homosexual.

You have to make up your mind if you're talking about heterosexual men having concentual homosexual sex because their environment precludes heterosexual encounters,

The latter, but in practise, whatever be their motives, it is the same as rape.

It is not done to "alleviate sexual tension", it is indicative of aggressive and controlling tendancies.

That is very debatable.

If you're going to question the application of the pedophile label by saying "so-called pedophiles", you need to define your terms. What is your definition of a pedophile? Does it coincide with the definition in the DSM-IV? In other words, are you talking about chronic, compulsive, life-disrupting obsession with prepubescent children, or do you have your own definition?

Someone who is sexually oriented to children.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by HelenM
What makes you think children are taught that some body parts are taught as 'bad' or 'rotten'?

"Don't let people touch you there" is an entirely different message from "that is a bad body part".

Anyway "hurt" is synonymous with "pain"!

Helen

You have misunderstood what I said, madam.

And I meant to say that "touch" (or more precisely sexual touching) becomes synonymous with "pain", with "hurt", with violence.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Huzington
I would say that to molest is to subject a person to unwanted sexual activity. In other words you believe that as long as the involved parties consent to sexual interaction, it is okay. Fine. So do you think there is an age at which a child is not capable of giving knowledgeable consent to sexual interaction? If so, what is that age?

Post abuse interviews? Abuse is already assumed in post-abused interviews. Once it is assumed, it becomes a reality. People do not go to post-abuse interviews if they are not already thought abused. As I mentioned, I believe all adult/child sexual interaction is necessarily molestation, which I believe is abuse. If you don't like the phrase "post-abuse interview", call the interviews whatever you want to call them and answer my question.

Besides, and more important, I highly doubt that an "expert" would even be allowed to ask the child, "Did you enjoy it? Did you like the sexual sensations?" That is thought unethical; therefore it is reasonable to assume that it does not, or rarely ever, happens. What you "highly doubt" is irrelevant. I asked you to cite sources to back your claims, if you cannot, you merely need to say as much.

So mutual masturbation or fondling (very common, according to my studies) might break a child's bone, or bruise him? Of course that can happen. Show me a study which indicates that adult-child sexual encounters usually involve physical harm. You asserted that non-penetrative sexual interaction could not be harmful, and I gave you some examples of how it could be. The appropriate response from you now would be to retract your faulty assertion.

Uhm, I thought this too obvious. If a paedosexual is that person who is sexually and romantically attracted by children, then it follows that persons who rape children merely to alleviate sexual tension are not truly paedosexual, just as male otherwise heterosexual prisoners who rape men merely to alleviate sexual tension are not considered as truly homosexual. Um, I thought I explained that people don't rape other people "to alleviate sexual tension". What is obvious is that you are thoroughly misinformed about the nature of rape, so you should probably refrain from using rape scenarios to try to support your arguments.

That is very debatable. Well then, I look forward to debating it. Since I'm the one making the positive assertion, why don't you go ahead and tell me why you believe that rape is used to "alleviate sexual tension"? That will get the debate rolling.

Someone who is sexually oriented to children. Please be more clear about your definition of a pedophile. An adult who is sexually attracted to children? If so, define adult and child.

vm

[Huzington]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
So do you think there is an age at which a child is not capable of giving knowledgeable consent to sexual interaction? If so, what is that age?

No.

As I mentioned, I believe all adult/child sexual interaction is necessarily molestation, which I believe is abuse. If you don't like the phrase "post-abuse interview", call the interviews whatever you want to call them and answer my question.

So all cases of homosexuality prior to 1972 were necessarily molestations and therefore abuse? They are certainly conformable to your definition of the word molestation.

What you "highly doubt" is irrelevant. I asked you to cite sources to back your claims, if you cannot, you merely need to say as much.

All that need be asked is this: Will an expert, in a post-abuse interview or whatever, ask the child, "Did you enjoy it? Were you fond of the sexual sensations?" Will he? Is that probable? I double-doggy dare you to answer.

You asserted that non-penetrative sexual interaction could not be harmful, and I gave you some examples of how it could be. The appropriate response from you now would be to retract your faulty assertion.

I never denied that it could be harmful. I never asserted that it could not be harmful. Do quote me saying this.

Um, I thought I explained that people don't rape other people "to alleviate sexual tension". What is obvious is that you are thoroughly misinformed about the nature of rape, so you should probably refrain from using rape scenarios to try to support your arguments.

Please, then, define rape.

Please be more clear about your definition of a pedophile. An adult who is sexually attracted to children? If so, define adult and child.

An adult is anyone over the age of nineteen; by child is meant anyone under, let us say, fifteen.

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Um, I thought I explained that people don't rape other people "to alleviate sexual tension". What is obvious is that you are thoroughly misinformed about the nature of rape, so you should probably refrain from using rape scenarios to try to support your arguments.


You certainly stated it!

What you are suggesting is that in prison big "tank" murdock wants a fuck and there aren't any women around so he asks around the inmates to see if anyone is willing to bend over for a bit of snout. Unfortunately they all say no they have plenty and anyhow the games on in fifteen and they want to watch it sitting down so tank goes to take a cold shower, on entering the shower in a state of sexual ... tension? ... he spies young kevin bent over trying to pick up the soap. Now tank has had kevin before, nice tight little arse and ohhh so inviting, the next thing tank knows he is availing himself of the pleasure he so desparately wants.

But of course this has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual tension, it's .. how did it go again .. "indicative of aggressive and controlling tendancies.", or to put it into english, "big guy want sex, big guy get sex".

Amen-Moses

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Huzington
No. Okay then. If you think a two-year-old is capable of giving knowledgeable consent to sexual activity, it is pointless for me to continue trying to have a reasonable discussion with you on the subject.

vm

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
You certainly stated it!

What you are suggesting is that in prison big "tank" murdock wants a fuck and there aren't any women around so he asks around the inmates to see if anyone is willing to bend over for a bit of snout. Unfortunately they all say no they have plenty and anyhow the games on in fifteen and they want to watch it sitting down so tank goes to take a cold shower, on entering the shower in a state of sexual ... tension? ... he spies young kevin bent over trying to pick up the soap. Now tank has had kevin before, nice tight little arse and ohhh so inviting, the next thing tank knows he is availing himself of the pleasure he so desparately wants.

But of course this has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual tension, it's .. how did it go again .. "indicative of aggressive and controlling tendancies.", or to put it into english, "big guy want sex, big guy get sex".

Amen-Moses
I can't tell if you think that absurd fantasy scenario relates to anything I said or if you just found it titillating to share. Where did I ever suggest that rapists in prison do so because they've been denied sex by other prisoners?

I'm sure everyone in prison has a degree of unsatisfied sexual tension, yet everyone in prison does not rape other men. Can you tell a witty story that rationalizes that fact?

At the same time, if you know of any research that supports your theory that people rape to "alleviate sexual tension", or contradicts my assertion that rape indicates "aggressive and controlling tendencies", cite it.

vm

[Huzington]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Okay then. If you think a two-year-old is capable of giving knowledgeable consent to sexual activity, it is pointless for me to continue trying to have a reasonable discussion with you on the subject.

vm

Obviously an excuse to retire from responding to my confutations and an excuse to not answer questions which give weight to my confutations.

I do not actually think a two year old should engage in sexual activity particularly with an adult because I do not believe that two year olds have any interest in sex and I believe that they are incapable of deriving any enjoyment therefrom.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Huzington
Obviously an excuse to retire from responding to my confutations and an excuse to not answer questions which give weight to my confutations.

I do not actually think a two year old should engage in sexual activity particularly with an adult because I do not believe that two year olds have any interest in sex and I believe that they are incapable of deriving any enjoyment therefrom. If you can't quote me where I asked you if a two-year-old should engage in sexual activity at all, much less with an adult, then explain why you are answering a question I didn't ask. If you wish to answer my original question differently, do so. If, however, you want to maintain that there is no age at which a person is incapable of giving knowledgeable consent, I won't waste my time trying to continue having a rational discussion with you. If you prefer to call that "an excuse to retire from responding to (your) confutations", feel free.

vm

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
At the same time, if you know of any research that supports your theory that people rape to "alleviate sexual tension", or contradicts my assertion that rape indicates "aggressive and controlling tendencies", cite it.


Guess what, sex indicates "agressive and controlling tendencies" in a huge number of cases. That is why there is such a striking link between sex and jealousy.

Rape is about sex, it isn't always JUST about sex as sometimes there is an element of a sadistic nature in the perpetrators but by no means is it as simple as you seem to want it to be.

And maybe as you are the one making the assertion you would like to back it up, all I have to do is give you ONE single example of a guy (or gal) raping for sexual pleasure to make your assertion baseless.

Amen-Moses

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
Guess what, sex indicates "agressive and controlling tendencies" in a huge number of cases. That is why there is such a striking link between sex and jealousy.

Rape is about sex, it isn't always JUST about sex as sometimes there is an element of a sadistic nature in the perpetrators but by no means is it as simple as you seem to want it to be.

And maybe as you are the one making the assertion you would like to back it up, all I have to do is give you ONE single example of a guy (or gal) raping for sexual pleasure to make your assertion baseless. Of course there is no definitive answer to the question of what motivates rapists, anymore than there is a definitive answer to any question about why we humans behave the way we do. but I think your opinion that it's a lust-motivated crime that occasionally has violent undertones is misguided. Most of the studies I've read have not come to that same conclusion. However, I also think the subject is way off topic, so I'll drop the assertion rather than doing the research and contributing to the derailment of the thread.

Now, if you will just tell me how this sidetrack you've taken us down is related to the issue of adult/child sexual interaction, I'll try to respond as best I can. To be honest, I'm not even sure where Huzington was going with it.

vm

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Now, if you will just tell me how this sidetrack you've taken us down is related to the issue of adult/child sexual interaction, I'll try to respond as best I can. To be honest, I'm not even sure where Huzington was going with it.


Probably this bit:

"If a paedosexual is that person who is sexually and romantically attracted by children, then it follows that persons who rape children merely to alleviate sexual tension are not truly paedosexual, just as male otherwise heterosexual prisoners who rape men merely to alleviate sexual tension are not considered as truly homosexual"

Amen-Moses

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
Probably this bit:

"If a paedosexual is that person who is sexually and romantically attracted by children, then it follows that persons who rape children merely to alleviate sexual tension are not truly paedosexual, just as male otherwise heterosexual prisoners who rape men merely to alleviate sexual tension are not considered as truly homosexual"

Amen-Moses Ah, I see. Huzington's flip from using the word 'paedophilic' to 'paedosexual' lost me for a second. I haven't been involved in many of these discussions, and 'paedosexual' doesn't show up in the dictionary. Since you seem to have picked up where he left off on this point, would you mind telling me your definition of pedophile, pedosexual, and child molester? I just want to be clear on terms before continuing.

Thanks,

vm

[Grimly Fiendish]

Huzington, Children love sex September 2, 2003 08:47 PM
>> And as for my own personal sexual experiences with adults as a child, I thought it pleasurable, I thought it okay and right, continue to think it okay and right, and have no emotional problems in my life whatever -- emotions which are out of the common way, that is. And in addition to that, I like people my own age: it has not affected me by altering my sexual orientation. >> Huzington, Children love sex September 2, 2003 08:47 PM

Then why do you argue the case for paedophilia ?

Clearly your personal experiences have had an effect upon you. As you endorse paedophilia on these messageboards it is fair for your readers to assume that your intention is to promote it to other adults.

It is also fair to address you as well as your message as you have introduced yourself and your experiences as support for your position.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

>> And when we study various primitive tribes across this planet, or even civilised cultures, wherein paedophilia is socially acceptable, we see the same thing. >> Huzington, Children love sex September 2, September 2, 2003 09:23 PM

What is your ultimate agenda ? What is it that you wish for our Society ?

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

>> I still have not figured out how sexual pleasure itself can cause emotional harm. >> Huzington, Children love sex September 2, 2003 09:33 PM

The pleasures of rapists, among which may be numbered paedophiles, causes great emotional and physical harm to their victims.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

>> You seem to believe that paedophilic relationships and child molestation are synonymous. That they are not identical can be proven, for instance, by my own sexual experiences as a child. >> Huzington, Children love sex September 2, 2003 09:48 PM

Then, you still love these adults who had sex with you when you were a child ? You still have sex with them even now, continuing into your adult years the loving and romantic relationships you assert are characteristic of paedophilia ? Or were you discarded once you had grown out of the template of your abusers' fetish, they moving on to abuse other children who conformed more closely to their desires ?

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

>> You seem to believe that paedophilic relationships and child molestation are synonymous. That they are not identical can be proven, for instance, by my own sexual experiences as a child. >> Huzington, Children love sex September 2, 2003 09:48 PM

As you endorse paedophilia as a healthy and beneficial pursuit for both adults and children, are we to understand that you engage in paedophiliac relationships with children ?

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

>> various primitive tribes across this planet, or even civilised cultures, wherein paedophilia is socially acceptable >> Huzington, Children love sex September 2, 2003 09:23 PM

You will notice that those peoples are either extinct or heading rapidly towards extinction.

Paedophilia is not the pursuit of a rational, compassionate and civilised people. It is not to be tolerated.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

>> ALL kids are simpletons. Girls are therefore simpletons. >> Huzington, Children love sex September 4, 2003 05:39 AM

Yet you feel it is perfectly acceptable, indeed healthy, for adults to initiate sexual relationships with children. Why so, when you accept that children are not the equal of adults ?

Your attitude to children, while pretending to frankness, speaks loudly of your contempt for them.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

>> I say this, Mr. Gurdur, because girls are taught to hate sex and to associate sex with harm moreso than boys are. I say this also because it is the constitution of the young girl's body to enjoy sex but little. >> Huzington, Children love sex September 4, 2003 05:39 AM

Is this how paedophiles account for the pain and suffering of girl children as they fuck them, by appeal to social conditioning ? Is this part of the constellation of delusion beneath which these benighted beasts rape and destroy children ?

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

>> Can you show me a single study that is not based on anecdotal evidence? >> Amen-Moses, Children love sex September 4, 2003 10:27 AM

This being the case then we are justified in approaching this issue from our natural prejudices.

Paedophilia is wrong.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Ah, I see. Huzington's flip from using the word 'paedophilic' to 'paedosexual' lost me for a second. I haven't been involved in many of these discussions, and 'paedosexual' doesn't show up in the dictionary. Since you seem to have picked up where he left off on this point, would you mind telling me your definition of pedophile, pedosexual, and child molester? I just want to be clear on terms before continuing.


I think Huzington was trying to distinguish between people who are really paedophiles (i.e by the definition that they are sexually and/or emotionally attracted to pre-pubescents) and those who would just basically fuck anything regardless of age, gender or species.

Amen-Moses

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
>> Can you show me a single study that is not based on anecdotal evidence? >> Amen-Moses, Children love sex September 4, 2003 10:27 AM

This being the case then we are justified in approaching this issue from our natural prejudices.

Paedophilia is wrong.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.


Precisely and as long as you admit that this is so then I have no problem with it.

Amen-Moses

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
>> I still have not figured out how sexual pleasure itself can cause emotional harm. >> Huzington, Children love sex September 2, 2003 09:33 PM

The pleasures of rapists, among which may be numbered paedophiles, causes great emotional and physical harm to their victims.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.


Why do you think I said "sexual pleasure itself"? There is nothing intrinsically harmful about sexual pleasure itself.

And as for the rest of your messages -- once again, typical bourgeois individualism. With bourgeois individualism, motives, the person, etc., become more imortant than argumentation.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
>> You seem to believe that paedophilic relationships and child molestation are synonymous. That they are not identical can be proven, for instance, by my own sexual experiences as a child. >> Huzington, Children love sex September 2, 2003 09:48 PM

Then, you still love these adults who had sex with you when you were a child ? You still have sex with them even now, continuing into your adult years the loving and romantic relationships you assert are characteristic of paedophilia ? Or were you discarded once you had grown out of the template of your abusers' fetish, they moving on to abuse other children who conformed more closely to their desires ?

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.


I do not have sex with anyone anymore. I do still love him. And he did not "discard" me. And I am not myself an adult. I do not have "adult years". But I love it when people assume that I am an adult.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
>> various primitive tribes across this planet, or even civilised cultures, wherein paedophilia is socially acceptable >> Huzington, Children love sex September 2, 2003 09:23 PM

You will notice that those peoples are either extinct or heading rapidly towards extinction.

Paedophilia is not the pursuit of a rational, compassionate and civilised people. It is not to be tolerated.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.


Do you have ANY arguments? Do you have any rationality? For if you do, I shall have an interest in discussing this matter with you.

[Lonely_Road_Of_Faith]

Hunzington,
Dude...it's like this...I don't know how else to say it.

Pedophilia is a mental disorder.

The baseline for something being a disorder is weather or not it's harmful and maladaptive.

It might not be harmful or maladaptive to the pedophile...but it's usually very harmful to the child.

Sexual abuse can cause lots of problems for people later in life... alchoholism, drug abuse, mental illness, maybe even suicide...

That's not all.

It's also illegal.

Somebody mentioned ancient cultures and stuff. The Ancient Greeks practiced Pedarasty...actually it was not only socially acceptable, but it was encouraged AND part of a sort of "apprenticeship" whereby young men in Greek society were educated, and initiated into adulthood and the community.

Of course, the Greeks also practiced human sacrifice at times, add into the mix slavery, a (pretty much) closed class system, and the fact that (with the exception of Sparta) in most places women had no rights. Oh, and did you know that the Oracle at Delphi was actually exposed to a natural occurence of poisonous gases seeping from the earth, which made the oracle babble all sorts of things...which of course were interpreted as "Prophecies" (for a price of course) in the city of Delphi.

In fact, in Sparta, most men were conscripted into the military at puberty, trained as soldiers, and also taught to steal, torture captives, and do all sorts of other things. Oh, and in Sparta, Pedarasty wasn't really the rule...except to say that younger men/boys were at the bottom of the totem pole and forced to "service" older men...there was no consensual aspect whatever... and in Sparta, the only thing a male often really got educated in was how to be a soldier.

I could go into things a little bit further...if you'd like...

All things considered, I'd say there's lots of reasons not to emulate ancient Greeks, or even Romans...

Ya know...that's why it's called the 21st century, and we've made lots of progress since the beginnings of the common era.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Lonely_Road_Of_Faith
Hunzington,
Dude...it's like this...I don't know how else to say it.

Pedophilia is a mental disorder.

A psychosexual disorder. Homosexuality was a psychosexual disorder till 1972. Many still consider it as a sexual disorder.

The baseline for something being a disorder is weather or not it's harmful and maladaptive.

It might not be harmful or maladaptive to the pedophile...but it's usually very harmful to the child.

Repeating the claim in question will not help any. Studies of cultures in which paedophilia is acceptable do not indicate that there is any harm whatever. This suggests that the harm supposedly involved in paedophilic sexual relations in other cultures, such as cultures of Canada, is owing to subsequent conditioning.

Sexual abuse can cause lots of problems for people later in life... alchoholism, drug abuse, mental illness, maybe even suicide...

Stop begging the question. And this goes for the rest of you.

Somebody mentioned ancient cultures and stuff. The Ancient Greeks practiced Pedarasty...actually it was not only socially acceptable, but it was encouraged AND part of a sort of "apprenticeship" whereby young men in Greek society were educated, and initiated into adulthood and the community.

Brilliant.

Of course, the Greeks also practiced human sacrifice at times, add into the mix slavery, a (pretty much) closed class system, and the fact that (with the exception of Sparta) in most places women had no rights. Oh, and did you know that the Oracle at Delphi was actually exposed to a natural occurence of poisonous gases seeping from the earth, which made the oracle babble all sorts of things...which of course were interpreted as "Prophecies" (for a price of course) in the city of Delphi.

Every country on earth practises a sort of slavery. Every country on earth his its superstitions. What is your point?

In fact, in Sparta, most men were conscripted into the military at puberty, trained as soldiers, and also taught to steal, torture captives, and do all sorts of other things. Oh, and in Sparta, Pedarasty wasn't really the rule...except to say that younger men/boys were at the bottom of the totem pole and forced to "service" older men...there was no consensual aspect whatever... and in Sparta, the only thing a male often really got educated in was how to be a soldier.

I know about all this. I admire the Spartans for all those reasons and a thousand more. We "civilised" people have become too soft. But this is irrelevant.

I could go into things a little bit further...if you'd like...

I could go on about almost every country in history, all by which I am disgusted.

Ya know...that's why it's called the 21st century, and we've made lots of progress since the beginnings of the common era.

Scientifically, philosophically, technologically. Plus we have Capitalism, which is superior to all previous systems. But morally? Most certainly not.

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Lonely_Road_Of_Faith
Sexual abuse can cause lots of problems for people later in life... alchoholism, drug abuse, mental illness, maybe even suicide...


So does masturbation, that's why so many male babies are circumcised.

:rolleyes:

Amen-Moses

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Lonely_Road_Of_Faith

Sexual abuse can cause lots of problems for people later in life... alchoholism, drug abuse, mental illness, maybe even suicide...

Originally posted by Amen-Moses

So does masturbation, that's why so many male babies are circumcised.
Amen-Moses, that is simply a ridiculous response of yours.

OK if you want to disagree that early sexual abuse may cause alcoholism. Personally, I wouldn't think so. Alcohol abuse, yes, but not necessarily alcoholism.

But to pretend, as your response seems to, that sexual abuse does not potentially cause a great many emotional problems --- up to the point of suicide --- for many is simply dishonestly ignoring a lot of posters here on SecWeb, who have shared their personal experiences here --- let alone the medical literature.

Why the hell can't you make a decent argument, instead of a deeply ludicrous one-liner ?

[Lonely_Road_Of_Faith]

Originally posted by Huzington
A psychosexual disorder. Homosexuality was a psychosexual disorder till 1972. Many still consider it as a sexual disorder.

...

Repeating the claim in question will not help any. Studies of cultures in which paedophilia is acceptable do not indicate that there is any harm whatever. This suggests that the harm supposedly involved in paedophilic sexual relations in other cultures, such as cultures of Canada, is owing to subsequent conditioning.

...

Scientifically, philosophically, technologically. Plus we have Capitalism, which is superior to all previous systems. But morally? Most certainly not.

First off...remember my key words? Harmful and Maladaptive...

Most of the homosexuals that I know aren't harming anybody and live relatively normal lives, with the exception of the fact that some people don't like gays.

Homosexuality is not a disorder, you can't really use that argument because until the 1960's PMS was also considered a mental disorder. Is (or was) my girlfriend ever mentally ill because she mensturates and this F***'s up her mood for a couple days on occasion? No. Almost all of the homosexuals that I'm personally aware of are consenting adults, my mom is herself a lesbian. From personal experience and knowing a lot of gay people...I know they aren't any different then you or me, except for who they sleep with...

In almost all cases, other consenting adults who happen to be homosexual.

But for christ's sake you ain't even defending teenagers expirimenting to find out if they "swing that way" you're advocating Pedophila...which I find rather disgusting, no thanks.

Pedophiles (adults) are equipped to deal with the emotional and psychological aspects of sex, their victims aren't. Among other things, but I digress.

All things considered, you've read studies that show there's no harm done in cultures where it's acceptable? I can probably find just as many that say there is. I'll grant you a little bit of cultural relativity on this one....

Among various tribal cutures in New Guinea homosexuality and, to a degree, pedarasty, is practiced among adolescent males, it's basically the same sort of mentality that motivated the Spartans...doing this now will make them into strong warriors later. At around 18-19 men are expected to take a wife and then be exclusively heterosexual. The thing ya gotta remember though, is that 50 years ago headhunting and cannibalism were also part of their daily routine.

Hmmm...cannibalism...gives new meaning to "buttering someone up" eh?

My point is, in western culture, not to mention most Asian or middle eastern cultures, pedophilia is presently NOT acceptable.

As for capitalism, etc. I never said it was morally superior to anything else. Where are you getting this from?

[Lonely_Road_Of_Faith]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
So does masturbation, that's why so many male babies are circumcised.

:rolleyes:

Amen-Moses

Eh, I masturbate, I have sex, hell...I have more sex then a lot of people, as if anyone cares.

I'm also a recovering alchoholic, and it has absolutely nothing to do with masturbation, or sex. I grew up in a family where there were a lot of drunks, I drank from when I was 14 or so until I was almost 22.

I'm also circumsized, but that's got nothing to do with masturbation, that's just the way the hospital I was born in did things in 1973, they'd circumsize male babies unless the parents requested otherwise.

:banghead:

[Huzington]

All passages on the harmfullness of paedophila are examples of your not infrequent unwillingness to avoid begging the question.

To repeat: Repeating the claim in question will not help any. Studies of cultures in which paedophilia is acceptable do not indicate that there is any harm whatever. This suggests that the harm supposedly involved in paedophilic sexual relations in other cultures, such as cultures of Canada, is owing to subsequent conditioning.

Pedophiles (adults) are equipped to deal with the emotional and psychological aspects of sex, their victims aren't. Among other things, but I digress.

This is what we are debating. The only evidence you can find is that adult-child rape is emotionally harmful. Once again, you beg the question.

All things considered, you've read studies that show there's no harm done in cultures where it's acceptable? I can probably find just as many that say there is...

I am sure you cannot.

As for capitalism, etc. I never said it was morally superior to anything else. Where are you getting this from?

I never said you said that. You said that we have progressed. I agree. Therefore I said that we progressed scientifically, philosophically, etc., but also that we have Capitalism which is superior to all previous systems. But we have not progressed morally.

[Lonely_Road_Of_Faith]

Hunzington...

I don't care weather you think I or anyone else is "begging the question." Though I do try to avoid logical fallacies, especially in a place like this... the fact is that we have a difference of opinion which is not going to go away just because you would like to convince me of the rightness of your view.

I think pedophelia is sick, and wrong, and my copy of the DSM-IV TR that I keep on my book shelf states that it is a mental disorder. I don't give a flying rat's ass if you think it isn't. It's also highly illegal, and for that matter, something that I find both repugnant (to me personally) and morally indefensible in gener