Why paedophilia is not bad

[Huzington]

Because it consists of all the elements of heterosexuality and homosexuality.

Firstly, heterosexual homosexuality is a sexual fondness of the traits peculiar to the opposite sex in the same sex. Homosexual men who like effeminate men are like this. I believe that the concept of heterosexual homosexuality is essential to understanding paedophila. For I have discovered that it is an identifying property of the paedophile.

In the boy the heterosexual homosexual (i.e., homosexual paedophile) sees things that he finds attractive in the woman: hairlessness, good skin, girlish facial structure, submissiveness, etc. Yet his mind is such that he can only have romantic feelings for the same sex. He would like these traits in other men. Other men, however, generally do not have many of these traits. But attractive boys have them. Therefore, he is forced to seek sexual relationships with boys. In the boy he observes legs which are hairless and effeminate, skin which is soft and girlish. And only in the boy does the paedophile get womanlike submissiveness in a male. And only in the boy can he find that effeminate, and therefore to him desirable, facial structure in a male. In a word, homosexual paedophilia is heterosexual homosexuality.

Heterosexual homosexuality is one of two possible syntheses of the two mediating preferences, which stand violently contradicting one another: heterosexuality and homosexuality. The other possible synthesis is homosexual heterosexuality, which is the exact opposite of the first synthesis. A man with homosexual heterosexuality is attracted by females (opposite of the first synthesis wherein the man is attracted by males); he is attracted by masculine traits in females (another opposite of the previous synthesis); he is attracted by females his own age because young girls are insufficiently masculine for his tastes (another opposite).

To state it differently:
In all three ways -- sex, gender, and age -- the homosexual heterosexual and the heterosexual homosexual are opposite each other. By "sex" is meant the biology of that to which he attracted: does it have a penis or a vegina? The heterosexual homosexual asks for the penis, whereas the homosexual heterosexual asks for the vegina. By "gender" is meant the traits of that to which he is attracted: is it masculine or feminine? The heterosexual homosexual asks for feminine traits in a male (thus prefering boys), whereas the homosexual heterosexal asks for masculine traits in a female (thus prefering persons his own age). By "age" is meant the chronology of that to which he is attracted: is it young or old? The heterosexual homosexual asks for the young, whereas the homosexual heterosexual asks for the old.
To repeat, in all three ways -- sex, gender, and age -- the homosexual heterosexual and the heterosexual homosexual are opposites.

And this I find most fascinating.

The homosexual and the heterosexual, being opposites, are like thesis and antithesis. Two possible syntheses of them -- of homosexuality and heterosexual -- are homosexual heterosexuality and heterosexual homosexuality.

[livius drusus]

Sigh. And I was so sure it wasn't Totalitarianist. Sorry, Gurdur. Looks like you were right all along. What are you thinking, Hunt? Do you imagine that starting a flood of these threads is going to be any better received than your past attempts to get people to see the world your way?

[Huzington]

Originally posted by livius drusus
Sigh. And I was so sure it wasn't Totalitarianist. Sorry, Gurdur. Looks like you were right all along. What are you thinking, Hunt? Do you imagine that starting a flood of these threads is going to be any better received than your past attempts to get people to see the world your way?

First I am said to be Genghis Pwn, then Pat Kelley, now Totalitarian, and some other names which I do not remember. I don't get it.

[dangin]

You are being confused/compared with people who have trotted out this tired shit again and again in the past. If you are not any of them, then I apologize. If you are, then your lying here is as repugnant as many people find your topics.

May I suggest that you do a search for these folks you are being compared to. Once you see that you are only parroting their earlier words, you can decide if you wish to continue these threads.

Although the point of them is beyond me. No one here is shocked by the sexuality of the human animal. So you are wasting your time trying to "freak out the squares". And discussions of intergenerational sex are fraught with unpleasantries for people who are ill at ease with the subject.

Finally, all the research in the world is really not all that telling. Most research cited about this has counter research that dismisses it. And further studying pedophilia is like studying smoking, it is unethical to have a control group of smokers and non smokers in a medical study. Because your study will harm the people who have to smoke to stay in their group. You can't have clinical trials of smokers, you can only study volunteer smokers, and data from people who have smoked in the past.

Well, the same is true for studying pedophilia. A researcher cannot have a group of 7-year-olds that has sex with an adult and a group that doesn't to see how it affects them. So the studies are done anecdotally. Not the strongest of science.

In other words the same ethical/scientific loophole that lets the CEOs of the big tobacco companies say that smoking hasn't been proven to kill people (not proven only because the study is unethical), allows people like you to say that pedophilia is not harmful (because the study proving it is unethical).

[Donnmathan]

Sorry, but you have yet to answer a point that has been made over and over on the multitude of threads you have started on the same subject. Take a good look at the chart and slides following it at this site (http://www.bhc.edu/EastCampus/leeb/adpsy/chapt04/sld007.htm), which I bleieve is accurate enough for our purposes. OK, here we notice that, generally, children prior to the formal operations stage (starts showing up at age 12) have no ability to handle abstract concepts - 'love' and 'relationship' would fit right in with the examples they give. They lack the mental training to put these concepts together, therefore DO NOT understand them. Sorry, that 8 y.o. has no clue what love really means - they simply repeat it in the concept it is given to them in. Other abstract concepts they'll have trouble with - 'deception' and 'manipulation' - are also problems; they don't know what those things are, and hence have no defense against them.

Now, society has a problem; even though there may be adults who would never hurt a child while engaging in pedophilia, there are many who would. Beyond that, the child has no real concept of what is going on - the relationship portion of the action is one-sided. There is a name for an one-sided relationship in which one participant gets everything they want from the other by taking advanatage of ignorance and inexperience: "manipulation". The adult would commonly be called a "user". There is nothing healthy about this sort of relationship, especially since the manipulator can shape the ideas and expectations of the victim without any real resistance. So, what is society to do? The answer most come up with is to outlaw pedophilia. If these so called 'heterosexual homosexuals' (nevermind the fact that the two terms clearly contradict, and your synthesi (?) look like they were created solely to muddy the waters) want woman-like men, there is always a she-male or the legal fetish scene. Leave the kids alone.

[Huzington]

Sorry, but you have yet to answer a point that has been made over and over on the multitude of threads you have started on the same subject. Take a good look at the chart and slides following it at this site (http://www.bhc.edu/EastCampus/leeb/adpsy/chapt04/sld007.htm), which I bleieve is accurate enough for our purposes. OK, here we notice that, generally, children prior to the formal operations stage (starts showing up at age 12) have no ability to handle abstract concepts - 'love' and 'relationship' would fit right in with the examples they give. They lack the mental training to put these concepts together, therefore DO NOT understand them. Sorry, that 8 y.o. has no clue what love really means - they simply repeat it in the concept it is given to them in. Other abstract concepts they'll have trouble with - 'deception' and 'manipulation' - are also problems; they don't know what those things are, and hence have no defense against them.

Essentially you are saying that a child must understand highly abstract concepts which describe emotions to be able to feel those emotions which they describe, or to be allowed to. Ah, so a child would have to understand the abstract principles of art to enjoy art. He would have to understand the abstract principles of music to enjoy music, which he clearly enjoys. Children can enjoy music with no or little understanding of it. I believe that they can understand the idea of love, and many developmental psychologists are in disagreement with Mr. Piaget. But even if they cannot, nonetheless, they still have the mental capacity to enjoy love.

Now, society has a problem; even though there may be adults who would never hurt a child while engaging in pedophilia, there are many who would.[/quoet]

Even though there may be adults who would never hurt a child while engaging in homosexuality, there are many who would.

[quote]Beyond that, the child has no real concept of what is going on - the relationship portion of the action is one-sided.

No, it is not. Both sides equally profit emotionally from the relationship. And since it is only but slightly sexual in nature, the child can easily profit therefrom. And when it is sexual, the child is biologically capable of deriving pleasure from the sexual sensations; hence profit. And besides that, even philosophers have difficulty in defining "love". Difficulty in defining or describing a thing is an example of a lack of understanding of it. But a difficulty in defining or describing an emotion is not an example of an inability to experience it.

There is a name for an one-sided relationship in which one participant gets everything they want from the other by taking advanatage of ignorance and inexperience: "manipulation". The adult would commonly be called a "user".

Thus the relationship between mother and child is manipulative; the mother is a "user". For the child, according to you, does not and cannot have any understanding of love, is ignorant of it, is not fully informed about it; yet the mother is profiting from the relationship, from the love, and has an adequate understanding of it; therefore the relationship is one-sided, according to you.

It must be borne in mind that paedophilic relationships are not as sexual or "genitalised" or "penetrative" as commonly supposed. The paedophilic relationship is foremost a caring, romantic friendship with sexual elements wherein both sides profit.

[dangin]

Originally posted by Huzington
Both sides equally profit emotionally from the relationship.

What the fuck is wrong with adults who profit emotionally from sex with children and not from sex with other adults????

[veniceboy]

This isn't "shocking", but it is plain sad and scary if the original poster actually believes this garbage.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by dangin
What the fuck is wrong with adults who profit emotionally from sex with children and not from sex with other adults????

What is wrong with male homosexuals who profit emotionally from having sex with males and not females?

What is wrong with children who profit emotionally from having sex with adults? Of course, sex is the least important element -- for the child and for the paedophile -- in a paedophilic relationship. Friendship, romance, etc., are of far greater importance. They are the driving force of the relationship and the principle substance of of it. Sex is the shiny, golden wrapping with which the tasty chocolate is covered.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by veniceboy
This isn't "shocking"

Good. Being "shocking" does not tend to change beliefs.

[dangin]

Originally posted by Huzington
What is wrong with male homosexuals who profit emotionally from having sex with males and not females?

What is wrong with children who profit emotionally from having sex with adults? Of course, sex is the least important element -- for the child and for the paedophile -- in a paedophilic relationship. Friendship, romance, etc., are of far greater importance. They are the driving force of the relationship and the principle substance of of it. Sex is the shiny, golden wrapping with which the tasty chocolate is covered.


Nice assertion, I have to go take a shower now, and I'm a pervert. (mature ladies watch out)

Put all your hallmark card pedophilia appreciation day crap aside, answer the question. Why is there increased benefit for an adult who partners in a relationship with a child, over an adult who partners in a relationship with another adult?

In case you failed to notice, I'm only talking about the adult here.

[dangin]

Originally posted by Huzington
Sex is the shiny, golden wrapping with which the tasty chocolate is covered.


Sounds like the voice of experience to me. :eek:

[Bookman]

Originally posted by Huzington
No, it is not. Both sides equally profit emotionally from the relationship.

You continue to assert this without any basis. You have not shown that such a relationship that does not do lasting harm to the child is typical. Without that, your arguments fail utterly.

Your study does not address this point.
Your personal experience is not a basis from which to derive a general principle.
Your personal incredulity ("I don't see how it could be harmful") is not an argument.
Your OP in this thread is an argument is an argument, but your initial statement from it asserted without basis and so it fails.

I do not know what your circumstances are, but if you have these feelings yourself I suggest you seek a counselor and make the authorities aware of your presence in the community before you hurt someone.

Bookman

[HelenM]

Originally posted by Huzington
It must be borne in mind that paedophilic relationships are not as sexual or "genitalised" or "penetrative" as commonly supposed. The paedophilic relationship is foremost a caring, romantic friendship with sexual elements wherein both sides profit.

I don't believe you.

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by HelenM
I don't believe you.

That's the problem.

Amen-Moses

[Jolimont]

You touch my kid and I'll rip you up one slice at a time.

[dangin]

Originally posted by Huzington
[BIt must be borne in mind that paedophilic relationships are not as sexual or "genitalised" or "penetrative" as commonly supposed. The paedophilic relationship is foremost a caring, romantic friendship with sexual elements wherein both sides profit. [/B]


Most of the time it is sweet, until it is time to get buggered. . .:rolleyes:

Actually, sounds like a perfect relationship between child and adult, if you take out the sex. If the sex is not that important, as you say, then why is it necessary at all??

[dangin]

Originally posted by Jolimont
You touch my kid and I'll rip you up one slice at a time.

Yes, and you would be justified, but it is doubtful this person is any threat to you or yours. I know this is emotional, but since this is a virtual conversation/debate, it is much more fun to play kickball with the poor ideas presented here, than with the offending person themself.

[Donnmathan]

Essentially you are saying that a child must understand highly abstract concepts which describe emotions to be able to feel those emotions which they describe, or to be allowed to.

Not at all, please do not put words in my mouth. You are asserting that children can be a part of a two-way, loving (ie, romantic) relationship, yet the child is clearly not able to identify love for what it is! Experience it? Perhaps; lacking the ability to think in abstract doesn't eliminate the emotion, merely the ability to communicate it or identify it. It also removes the ability to sort love out from infatuation, generic affection, friendship, and other emotions. If you hit a child, and tell him that is love, he will likely grow up attaching the label "love" to the emotion of fear and the feeling of pain. Likewise, if someone were to have a pedophilic relationship with a small child and tell him that is "love", of course that is what the kid will tell the social worker or survey taker! Is it? Likely not, but that is what the child has been told that label means.

Even though there may be adults who would never hurt a child while engaging in homosexuality, there are many who would.


Splitting hairs? Homosexual conduct with a child is STILL pedophilia; mixing labels doesn't change the reality of the action. Pedophilia covers ANY adult having a sexual relationship with a child - no gender mix makes it any better or worse.

No, it is not. Both sides equally profit emotionally from the relationship. And since it is only but slightly sexual in nature, the child can easily profit therefrom. And when it is sexual, the child is biologically capable of deriving pleasure from the sexual sensations; hence profit. And besides that, even philosophers have difficulty in defining "love". Difficulty in defining or describing a thing is an example of a lack of understanding of it. But a difficulty in defining or describing an emotion is not an example of an inability to experience it.


OK, what part of this don't you get? The child (under age 12-15) is not capable of abstract thought, and has not assigned permanent labels to the more esoteric emotions, like love. They'll believe whatever someone they trust tells them, and children will trust until you give them a GOOD reason not to! Example - the Santa Claus story! That trust, combined with a lack of understanding, makes children vulnerable - exactly what most pedophiles seem to want, or else what would be wrong with the adult alternatives - namely, the adult (and legal) fetish scene. Your OP claims that what a pedophile really wants is a girlish man - well, just walk into any good porn shop and look for the fetish section - you'll find them, and those are LEGAL!

Thus the relationship between mother and child is manipulative; the mother is a "user". For the child, according to you, does not and cannot have any understanding of love, is ignorant of it, is not fully informed about it; yet the mother is profiting from the relationship, from the love, and has an adequate understanding of it; therefore the relationship is one-sided, according to you.


Bullcookies! The child is obviously profiting from that relationship - they get fed, clothed, sheltered, taught, and loved (no strings attached, I might add); all but the last are things that even my pet cat could figure out! The main problem with your argument is that most pedophiles aren't offering love, they are offering LUST, which is an entirely different animal. Many pedophiles don't seem to know the difference, and neither would most kids until it is far too late.

[dangin]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
That's the problem.

Amen-Moses


No it's not. That is A problem of understanding between helen and huzington. THE problem is that all studies aside, intergenerational sex is a tough tough subject.

Sex between consenting adults screws people up, and they are supposed to be able to handle it. Throwing children into the mix ads geometrically to the problem.

It may be as all the supporters of this behavior posit, and if we got rid of all the social prohibitions against intergenerational sex we'd all be mentally healthier, but it is also possible that the inequality inherent in a relationship between an adult and a child would remain and that inequality is truly the potential source of problems.

And finally, is anyone ever going to defend the adult who prefers sex with children to sex with adults. Regardless of the impact on the child, one would have a hard time convincing me that the adult in that relationship is not lacking something that makes them seek out children for sex.

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
OK, what part of this don't you get? The child (under age 12-15) is not capable of abstract thought, and has not assigned permanent labels to the more esoteric emotions, like love. They'll believe whatever someone they trust tells them, and children will trust until you give them a GOOD reason not to! Example - the Santa Claus story!


I know plenty of people over 50 who still believe in God, should they not be allowed to have sex either?

Not understanding love, mistaking it for infatuation etc are HUMAN traits, they are present in everyone from cradle to grave. There is no magic age at which one suddenly uinderstands these things, and worse there is no way of learning them without experiencing them so a 30 year old who has never had a relationship is just as incapable as a 10 year old.

Amen-Moses

[openeyes]

I could see where it would be bad because the younger the person involved the more unlikely he/she is able to think of anything other than "paedophilia" or sex in general. (If kids get involved with sex at a young age, even early teens, it may set patterns in their brains that make it difficult to live a balanced life as an adult, IMO.)

Any obvious examples anyone? :rolleyes:

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by dangin
No it's not. That is A problem of understanding between helen and huzington. THE problem is that all studies aside, intergenerational sex is a tough tough subject.


You misunderstand, I am saying that is the problem with discussing these issues as even if I put a person in a room full of people who were not harmed they will just claim that they don't believe them, it is a fruitless topic of discussion because people do not discuss it, they can't discuss it.

Amen-Moses

[dangin]

AM this is in response to your post two up.

Ehhh, maybe. The thirty year old has a lot more cognitive development and experience to go on. More books read, more couples observed, more conversations overheard. Priests give marital advice, and they've never been married. Granted I think it is idiotic, but I'm certain some of the priests understand marriage and love better than most 10-year-olds, even though they've never done it.


And Amen-Moses you and I have always skated around each other on this issue, and I can't fault your logic and arguments about most of these things. However would you take a crack at defending the "rightness" or "normalcy" of an adult who can only engage in sex with children?

[dangin]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
You misunderstand, I am saying that is the problem with discussing these issues as even if I put a person in a room full of people who were not harmed they will just claim that they don't believe them, it is a fruitless topic of discussion because people do not discuss it, they can't discuss it.

Amen-Moses


Ahh yes, those who have been indoctrinated in anything are hard to convince otherwise even whey you are pounding them with the evidence. I have that problem with helen all the time, and she just won't believe that I am jesus.

Seriously helen, how many lepers do I have to heal, how much water do I have to walk on???

But, I am not any of those people. I believe that sexuality is a normal part of childhood. My children examine and touch their own genitals on a daily basis in the bath.

My understanding of primate behavior informs me that our primate bretheren (and so we too logically in our earlier evolutionary days) engage is sex freely and openly in front of children all the time(in front of, not with).

But would a game of poker be fair between an average 30-year-old and an average 8-year-old?

Would a business partnership between an adult and a child be real, and or fair because of the limits on the "average" child?

Would a marriage be fair between an adult and a child?

Would a debate be fair between an average child and an average adult?

The answer to all of these is no. But a sexual relationship IS fair????

[keyser_soze]

My vote is that it's totalitarian...which means it's also ghengis and pat kelly, who I suspect were all the same person. Geez, this crap get's old.

[Bookman]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
You misunderstand, I am saying that is the problem with discussing these issues as even if I put a person in a room full of people who were not harmed they will just claim that they don't believe them

I wouldn't claim that. I do however assert that their lack of harm is utterly irrelevant.

Whether a single individual (or some imagined room full of people) had such an experience and was not harmed does nothing to validate the claim that this is the typical case, and does nothing to dispel the notion that these relationships carry with them unacceptable risks to the well being of the child.

In other words, it does nothing to answer the claim that these relationships are likely to cause unnecessary harm.

B

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by dangin
However would you take a crack at defending the "rightness" or "normalcy" of an adult who can only engage in sex with children?

Define normalcy. ;)

Of course not, "normal" is defined by the majority, when we say "normal" what we really mean is "as practiced by the majority".

If within a culture the majority do in fact find engaging in sexual activities with "children" perfectly allowable (say for example ancient Geeks or some Pacific Island culture or even Bonobos) then yes it is perfectly normal for them to do so and they would be astounded to think that anyone thought otherwise but in "our" (i.e western dominated christian biased) cultures we don't think that way.

What keeps coming up in these discussions is the "well if they can do it with children then they can do it with adults" speech, this to a paedophile is like saying to a homosexual "well if you can do it with men then why not with women", they just aren't able to relate to adults in the same way. Whether it is biological or "nurture" is hard to determine but it just is, how we deal with it should be the main aim of these types of discussions.

Personally I tend to stick to the "harm" side of the equation, if it really is *always* harmful then there really is no argument but I have seen far too many people for whom it was not harmful and for whom "normal" life continued unabaited that I can't logically go with that argument, otoh if it is say 60% harmful or even 40% then there is still an argument for the laws which we already have. I would only really argue for the specifics of those laws, i.e the actual age at which consent is really an issue or specific cases. For example if an adult an a child (pick whatever definition of child that suits you) where to engage in a relationship whereupon the adult did not desire to penetrate the child would that be allowable?

Amen-Moses

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Bookman
In other words, it does nothing to answer the claim that these relationships are likely to cause unnecessary harm.


A claim which is still unproven, I carried out a survey on another board (an atheist based board similar to this one) which asked at what age people had engaged in"first contact" and what the age difference between participants was, the vast majority responded with ages below the age of consent and that one of the participants was above the age of consent, none claimed it to be harmful.

Amen-Moses

[Bookman]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
A claim which is still unproven, I carried out a survey on another board (an atheist based board similar to this one) which asked at what age people had engaged in"first contact" and what the age difference between participants was, the vast majority responded with ages below the age of consent and that one of the participants was above the age of consent, none claimed it to be harmful.

Amen-Moses

Bit of a straw man there, A-M. I'm not arguing for any particular age-number claim or arguing against a specific alteration in the age of consent to a different number. I have expressed an opinion that when the question is posed in an unqualified way ("Do you think its okay for a child (of undefined age or circumstance) to enter into a sexual relationship with an adult?") that I'm sufficiently convinced of the possibility of harm to support the current laws. I think that it is proven that these relationships can be harmful to children.

I understand the point that you're making with your remark about the board survey, but the anecdotal claims of a self-selected group of respondents doesn't shed any light whatsoever on the general issue of the likelihood of harm to children in these relationships.

B

[Rider]

Originally posted by Huzington
First I am said to be Genghis Pwn, then Pat Kelley, now Totalitarian, and some other names which I do not remember. I don't get it.

I don't recall seeing anyone using the Pwn on the name Genghis when trying to determine who you are, if you've never heard the name how did you know the whole name?

-Rider

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Rider

I don't recall seeing anyone using the Pwn on the name Genghis when trying to determine who you are, if you've never heard the name how did you know the whole name?

Actually, I think I did.

In any case, I very seriously doubt Huzington is Genghis Pwn; GP had an entirely different style, as well as the Lolita complex as someone pointed out.

I also very seriously doubt that Huzington is Pat Kelly; PK showed a consistant style extremely different again.

I suspect Huzington of being Totalitarianist/Trebaxian Vir; if this is true, I would recommend a bit of charity in dealing with him, since IMHO Tote/Trebax is working his way through various problems, and is not so much an offender as a victim.

'Course, it could simply be someone new.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Rider
I don't recall seeing anyone using the Pwn on the name Genghis when trying to determine who you are, if you've never heard the name how did you know the whole name?

-Rider

I was told to do a search, remember?

[Huzington]

Originally posted by dangin
Sounds like the voice of experience to me. :eek:

What are you insinuating?

[Huzington]

Originally posted by dangin
Nice assertion, I have to go take a shower now, and I'm a pervert. (mature ladies watch out)

Put all your hallmark card pedophilia appreciation day crap aside, answer the question. Why is there increased benefit for an adult who partners in a relationship with a child, over an adult who partners in a relationship with another adult?

In case you failed to notice, I'm only talking about the adult here.

Okay, I shall respond to that question which has not hitherto been asked.

The problem is one of communication. What precisely do you mean by "increased benefit"? What vagueness! It is not a mere trade in which you give a quantity of one thing of value for a quantity of another thing, and then blame the other man for being unfair. Most absurd! Besides, an imbalance of every sort is inevitable in any relationship.

There is increased benefit, however -- for the child, I would judge. The child gets friendship, romance, sexual pleasure, education, a role model, etc., etc., etc. The adult typically gets the first three, as in most relationships -- whether between man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, or whatever else is possible.

And as for love: it is rather like colour: cannot be defined and impossible to understand without experiencing it!

And with the preceding paragraph many of my opponents arguments are shattered.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
Not at all, please do not put words in my mouth. You are asserting that children can be a part of a two-way, loving (ie, romantic) relationship, yet the child is clearly not able to identify love for what it is! Experience it? Perhaps; lacking the ability to think in abstract doesn't eliminate the emotion, merely the ability to communicate it or identify it. It also removes the ability to sort love out from infatuation, generic affection, friendship, and other emotions. If you hit a child, and tell him that is love, he will likely grow up attaching the label "love" to the emotion of fear and the feeling of pain. Likewise, if someone were to have a pedophilic relationship with a small child and tell him that is "love", of course that is what the kid will tell the social worker or survey taker! Is it? Likely not, but that is what the child has been told that label means.

Yes, but we are not talking about labels. Labels are meaningless without -- meaning. A child can be told that red is blue, and blue is green: we get the same result. If a child says "love" and defines love as "a circle" or "yellow buttons" he is talking about something completely different; he uses it as a completely different word with a completely different meaning. In his mind they are completely different words, different from that word with the same spelling in your mind. No one denies that a child might misdefine a word. How he defines the words "love" or "harm" has no bearing on anything, no bearing on his experiencing said emotions.

Oh yes, and what if you tell a child repeatedly that "touching private parts" is "harm"? Or define it as "bad"? Well, answer already. Of course the child will say it is harmful -- when perhaps it is not -- when he is asked about his paedophilic experiences!! Amazing, is it not?

Splitting hairs? Homosexual conduct with a child is STILL pedophilia; mixing labels doesn't change the reality of the action. Pedophilia covers ANY adult having a sexual relationship with a child - no gender mix makes it any better or worse.

I think you are misunderstanding something, though I do not know precisely what.

OK, what part of this don't you get? The child (under age 12-15) is not capable of abstract thought, and has not assigned permanent labels to the more esoteric emotions, like love. They'll believe whatever someone they trust tells them, and children will trust until you give them a GOOD reason not to!

Yeah, kind of like how we tell children that all kissing is "bad" and all touching is "bad", is "harm", etc., etc., etc? They'll believe whatever someone they trust tells them!

Example - the Santa Claus story! That trust, combined with a lack of understanding, makes children vulnerable - exactly what most pedophiles seem to want, or else what would be wrong with the adult alternatives - namely, the adult (and legal) fetish scene. Your OP claims that what a pedophile really wants is a girlish man - well, just walk into any good porn shop and look for the fetish section - you'll find them, and those are LEGAL!

It is kind of like water. Separate the elements which compose water (hydrogen and oxygen): you will notice that there are qualities of water which both hydrogen and oxygen in separation do not possess! Fascinating!

Syntheses are generally like this.

The child is obviously profiting from that relationship - they get fed, clothed, sheltered, taught, and loved

Surely, but he does not truly understand any of that, according to you. PLUS the child profits splendidly in caring paedophilic relationships.

all but the last are things that even my pet cat could figure out! The main problem with your argument is that most pedophiles aren't offering love, they are offering LUST, which is an entirely different animal. Many pedophiles don't seem to know the difference, and neither would most kids until it is far too late.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Then do tell me: why are paedophiles mostly concerned about romance? Do you honestly think it does not exist in their minds?

*sighs*

Next time you talk about paedophiles in general, do not include paedophilic rapists, just as I do not include heterosexual rapists or sadists when I am generalising about heterosexuals.

[DixieNurse]

from Gurdur:..I suspect Huzington of being Totalitarianist/Trebaxian Vir; if this is true, I would recommend a bit of charity in dealing with him, since IMHO Tote/Trebax is working his way through various problems, and is not so much an offender as a victim...'Course, it could simply be someone new.


I agree with your assessment, Gurdur---
(like it matters at this point) Feel free to take the rest of the day off, won't you?


Dixie:(

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by DixieNurse

(like it matters at this point)
Well, you never know, it may just help. Doubtful, but worth a try.

Feel free to take the rest of the day off, won't you ? I took your advice before I saw it.
;)

[dangin]

Originally posted by Huzington

There is increased benefit, however -- for the child, I would judge. The child gets friendship, romance, sexual pleasure, education, a role model, etc., etc., etc. The adult typically gets the first three, as in most relationships -- whether between man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, or whatever else is possible.


A child can get all these things from a parent, teacher, family member or kind neighbor to name a few options. And they can get them without sex. The sex seems to make things more complicated, like it always does.

[dangin]

In Kansas and other states everyone can have sex with anyone over the age of 16.

In most other states the age of consent is 18.

In canada, if what I read here is correct, everyone over the age of 14 is of the age of consent.

With this spectrum of sexuality available to everyone in North America, why do prepubescent children even need to be thrown into the mix?

AM made the point that sexual age is a cultural thing, and in some cultures children involved in sex was normal. This is a good point, but I don't think it makes a complete argument.

We don't find too many examples of sex between adult and juvenile animals in the natural world. Most animals are in it because of the smells. And it is foolish to think we aren't affected by scent too. Granted we are visually aroused too, but smell plays a role. Perhaps even a very large one.

Do prepubescent children even produce the hormones and pheromones necessary to create an odor that indicates they are sexually responsive?

The smells are thought to indicate fertillity. They are signals that say, hey, I'm open for business here. Even among homosexuals the smells are present and working because both people are adults. But I don't think this is the case with children.

I will go out on a limb and say that adults who seek this sort of relationship are stunted, or lacking in something that allows them to fulfill their role in adult relationships.

If you want to argue that intergenerational sex is appropriate, I don't want to talk about the child and the harm that may or may not happen to them. I want to talk about why an adult sexually prefers children to adults.

Maybe Fr. Andrew can stop by with his "knee job" story and we can really get cooking.

[DixieNurse]

from dangin:...Do prepubescent children even produce the hormones and pheromones necessary to create an odor that indicates they are sexually responsive?

Nope. The "smell that we can't smell" of pheromones is found exclusively in the post-pubescent---and they are indicators of fertility....not only do they send the "open for business" message, but pheromones are also thought to be responsible for regulating the length of a female's ovulation time, which, along with the fact that (as you probably know) women do tend to initiate sexual contact more often during this time, would seem to rule out the notion that pedophilia has to do with any instinctive odor...

again from dangin:I will go out on a limb and say that adults who seek this sort of relationship are stunted, or lacking in something that allows them to fulfill their role in adult relationships.

And I will go out there with you--that inability to cultivate relationships with adults, along with rationalization of the deviant behavior, and denial of its significance, are indicative of psychiatric illness...

Nothing personal (boy?), Huzington--really.

from dangin:...The sex seems to make things more complicated, like it always does.

*sigh*....this is truth, no matter what the topic is...


Dixie

[Huzington]

To sum up:

1. You have essentially said that adults are better at sex.

2. You define paedophilia as harmful; then you "demonstrate" that it is harmful.

3. You personally attack me.

[Gurdur]

Originally posted by Huzington

To sum up:

1. You have essentially said that adults are better at sex.

2. You define paedophilia as harmful; then you "demonstrate" that it is harmful.

3. You personally attack me.
To sum up:
1) Who is "you" ?
2) You have claimed all children are "simpletons"
3) But you think adults should be allowed to use children for sex anyway
4) So you think using "simpletons" is OK
5) and you make an unsubstantiated general attack on children, especially female ones.

This is not what is technically termed as "brilliant" or "rational".

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Gurdur
To sum up:
1) Who is "you" ?
2) You have claimed all children are "simpletons"
3) But you think adults should be allowed to use children for sex anyway
4) So you think using "simpletons" is OK
5) and you make an unsubstantiated general attack on children, especially female ones.

Okay, I shall state it differently. I would judge that children would make most stupid parents; therefore children should not ever be parents.

And a simpleton, a fool, whatever you want to call it, is perfectly capable of having sex, perfectly capable of wanting it, perfectly capable of enjoying it, etc. But, besides, I say that children are only simpletons in that they would make stupid parents.

I have not made any "attacks" on female children. Simply, a parent -- I repeat, a parent -- should not be highly defective at making judgements, i.e. should not be a simpleton.

And Gurdur, if each person here were a simpleton, I am sure that he would nonetheless be capable of, enjoy, and want sex.

[DixieNurse]

from Huzington:..Okay, I shall state it differently. I would judge that children would make most stupid parents; therefore children should not ever be parents.


*note to self--never let your kids be parents...* :confused: (didn't know they could, but OK---I got it!)


again from Huzington:....But, besides, I say that children are only simpletons in that they would make stupid parents.


Um...okay again then! :) *children = simpletons = bad parents*


one more time for the West Coast audience:..Simply, a parent -- I repeat, a parent -- should not be highly defective at making judgements, i.e. should not be a simpleton.


Got it...hang on....*good parents have some defects in judgmental thinking....simpleton = children* OK (thought we went over that) :rolleyes:


Whoopsie, I missed one:..And Gurdur, if each person here were a simpleton, I am sure that he would nonetheless be capable of, enjoy, and want sex. [/B]


Okie dokie then....*children = simpleton = bad parents = good sex* Sounds simple enough to me! :banghead:


You have absolutely nothing of substance to say right about now, do you, hon?


Dixie

[Gurdur]

And you think I savage people too much, Dixie Nurse !
:eek:
You make me look like an amateur.
;)
:)

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by dangin
We don't find too many examples of sex between adult and juvenile animals in the natural world. Most animals are in it because of the smells. And it is foolish to think we aren't affected by scent too. Granted we are visually aroused too, but smell plays a role. Perhaps even a very large one.


OK, I think you're heading in the right direction but thumbing one lift too many here.

I have seen a puppy barely old enough to walk attempting to fuck a childs teddy bear (and don't get me started on luvvy wittle bunny wunnies :eek: ).

Yes pheremones (sp?) are responsible for all those unwanted hard-ons whilst sitting in class, all it takes is for one female teacher or older student to be in heat and the body reacts appropriately (regardless of what your brain thinks about it!). But I think we are all agreed that the wiring up top is not foolproof, in fact I would doubt that it is possible to find someone in which the wiring could be deemed perfect.

What I am saying is that the immense amount of wiring and the equally immense amount of possibilities for cross wiring or faulty wiring means that those ancient parts of the brain that react directly to sexual stimuli can easily be triggered by the ten tons of horse manure most people grow on top of them, in the same way my puppy can screw a teddy bear (or was it maybe giving out doggy pheremones?) before it even knows it's name (or makes a passable impersonation of knowing it at least) humans of all ages and abilities can be confused and assign sexual meaning to all sorts of daft things, why should anyone be surprised that certain people get turned on by children yet not surprised at people being turned on by high heel shoes or plastic underwear.

Amen-Moses

[dangin]

The puppy is masturbating, not attracting an adult to have sex with it. The point is not the young one, it's the adult.

I'm not denying that some people do develop sexual attractions to all sorts of things. (hello, brown shower) Just because they do, does not mean it is not harmful.

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by dangin
The puppy is masturbating, not attracting an adult to have sex with it. The point is not the young one, it's the adult.

Ahh but the bunny wabbits!!! It makes my eyes water just thinking about it, I'll never keep bunnies again, at least not more than one and not with any other pets. My poot cat still hasn't recovered you know.

I'm not denying that some people do develop sexual attractions to all sorts of things. (hello, brown shower) Just because they do, does not mean it is not harmful.

Doesn't mean they ARE either. The interesting thing is that most books I've read on the subject suggest that these sexual oddities or perversions if you prefer actually originate in childhood, at a time when we are supposed to be sexually inactive and maybe even incapable of understanding so how come that happens? How do we make sexual connections so early in life if we aren't actually sexual yet?

Amen-Moses

[dangin]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
The interesting thing is that most books I've read on the subject suggest that these sexual oddities or perversions if you prefer actually originate in childhood, at a time when we are supposed to be sexually inactive and maybe even incapable of understanding so how come that happens? How do we make sexual connections so early in life if we aren't actually sexual yet?

Amen-Moses [/B]

That's the nature/nurture issue isn't it? For everything, not just sexuality. Like any behavior the reason it exists lies with the parents because of genetics (nature) or environment (nurture) The issue is discovering how much of each and what it is about each that creates these issues.

And I've never said we aren't "sexual" early in life. Once again, I'm far more interested in the adult who has a deficiency to form relationships with adults and so seeks out children. Even if this behavior stems from childhood, what was it in the childhood that led to this, and how easy is it to point and say that it is "abuse" that caused the behavior in the first place.

If something happens to a person (chidhood sexual experience [read abuse]) that makes them grow up and be unable to form adult sexual relations, then the source of their failing is a problem regardless of what they say they feel about it.

For example " getting buggered by that priest was fun, but I've never had a relationship with an adult and I am now 50. I don't see the harm in integenerational sex, because it didn't hurt me. Now will you look at the ass on the 6-year-old over there".

Is this meant to be absurd? Yes, but it illustrates the point none-the-less.

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by dangin
For example " getting buggered by that priest was fun, but I've never had a relationship with an adult and I am now 50. I don't see the harm in integenerational sex, because it didn't hurt me. Now will you look at the ass on the 6-year-old over there".

Is this meant to be absurd? Yes, but it illustrates the point none-the-less.

But isn't this just a caricature? Have you actually ever met anyone that would state such a thing?

Personally I have met or conversed with (personally, via the internet, CB radio, email etc) hundreds of people who have undergone what most would constitute abuse as children who claim the exact opposite, i.e that they have perfectly normal relationships as adults and have not interest whatsoever in children themselves. In fact I have NEVER met anyone, even amongst those actually convicted of abuse, that would fit your caricature even though doing so would seem a sensible way of diverting the "blame" for their acts onto the "priest".

Amen-Moses

[Grimly Fiendish]

>> What keeps coming up in these discussions is the "well if they can do it with children then they can do it with adults" speech, this to a paedophile is like saying to a homosexual "well if you can do it with men then why not with women", they just aren't able to relate to adults in the same way. >> Amen-Moses, Why paedophilia is not bad September 4, 2003 12:17 AM

All things being equal, gay people and paedophiles are not. A gay relationship is between consenting adults. Paedophiles impose their will and desires upon children who are unable to give their consent.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

>> What keeps coming up in these discussions is the "well if they can do it with children then they can do it with adults" speech, this to a paedophile is like saying to a homosexual "well if you can do it with men then why not with women", they just aren't able to relate to adults in the same way. >> Amen-Moses, Why paedophilia is not bad September 4, 2003 12:17 AM

As adults, paedophiles may choose to deny any desires they feel, as may any of us. If paedophiles choose not to deny their desires for incongruent relationships with children then Society is justified in taking action against them for the safety of it's children.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

>> What keeps coming up in these discussions is the "well if they can do it with children then they can do it with adults" speech, this to a paedophile is like saying to a homosexual "well if you can do it with men then why not with women", they just aren't able to relate to adults in the same way. >> Amen-Moses, Why paedophilia is not bad September 4, 2003 12:17 AM

Adults who find themselves unable to form meaningful relationships of any kind with other adults require psychotherapeutic assistance from Society that they may reconfigure their character. That the desires of paedophiles for children are authentic phenomena does not justify their fetish for children.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

>> For example if an adult an a child (pick whatever definition of child that suits you) where to engage in a relationship whereupon the adult did not desire to penetrate the child would that be allowable? >> Amen-Moses, Why paedophilia is not bad September 4, 2003 12:17 AM

Any sexual activity between adults and children is harmful to children. Platonic romantic relationships between adults and children are harmful to children.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

>> The child gets friendship, romance, sexual pleasure, education, a role model, etc., etc., etc. >> Huzington, Why paedophilia is not bad September 4, 2003 05:04 AM

No.

Children are nothing but fetish objects to paedophiles.
Such relationships as you endorse are to be prevented. Those who endorse such relationships are to be subject to close scrutiny.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

>> Next time you talk about paedophiles in general, do not include paedophilic rapists, just as I do not include heterosexual rapists or sadists when I am generalising about heterosexuals. >> Huzington, Why paedophilia is not bad September 4, 2003 05:27 AM

A paedophile is a paedophile. There is no distinction. There can be no justification.

Your position is vile.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Donnmathan]

Originally posted by Huzington
Yes, but we are not talking about labels. Labels are meaningless without -- meaning. A child can be told that red is blue, and blue is green: we get the same result. If a child says "love" and defines love as "a circle" or "yellow buttons" he is talking about something completely different; he uses it as a completely different word with a completely different meaning. In his mind they are completely different words, different from that word with the same spelling in your mind. No one denies that a child might misdefine a word. How he defines the words "love" or "harm" has no bearing on anything, no bearing on his experiencing said emotions.

Oh yes, and what if you tell a child repeatedly that "touching private parts" is "harm"? Or define it as "bad"? Well, answer already. Of course the child will say it is harmful -- when perhaps it is not -- when he is asked about his paedophilic experiences!! Amazing, is it not?

Yes, labels and how the child defines harm certainly does have a bearing on the topic at hand, and you prove it with that second paragraph. You look like you are attepmting to use the fact that children will believe the labels they are given to defend your position, stating that children tell people it was bad because they are always told it is bad.

My point: that only applies in a brief contact situation. If your hypothetical pedophile only gets one or two tries at the kid, the old labels of 'touch below the belt = bad' will hold, and the child will respond in such a fashion to a later interview. If the adult has extended contact, such as having the child in his care, the occasional contact with the 'touch below the belt = bad' idea will not hold against this trusted adult who tells him 'touch below the belt = good/love'. This is wholly an example of a label making every sort of difference in the argument, and a good reason why the studies you quoted probably went the way they did. It matters not a bit what the child REALLY thinks or feels, they are being told that is what is happening, so that is how they respond. If this adult who does something tells him that it is 'love' and 'good', that's exactly what the poor kid is going to tell a survey taker, if surveyed before societal mores have a chance to re-assert themselves. As you said, amazing, no?



Yeah, kind of like how we tell children that all kissing is "bad" and all touching is "bad", is "harm", etc., etc., etc? They'll believe whatever someone they trust tells them!

And extended contact with a pedophile telling them the opposite will give them the opposite response, whether they are really feeling it or not. Keep making my points for me, thank you!

It is kind of like water. Separate the elements which compose water (hydrogen and oxygen): you will notice that there are qualities of water which both hydrogen and oxygen in separation do not possess! Fascinating!

Yes, but water is not, by definition, an oxymoron like "homosexual heterosexual." There is no reason to pre-suppose a synthesis in the latter case, unlike the quite obvious chemical one in the former. One just can't go around making up a synthesis whenever one feels like it and assume it must be valid; should I begin looking for athiest fundamentalists?


Surely, but he does not truly understand any of that, according to you. PLUS the child profits splendidly in caring paedophilic relationships.

Get rid of that pesky amendment to the constitution that got rid of slavery, then, too; slaves profited splendidly in a caring slave/master relationship.


Then do tell me: why are paedophiles mostly concerned about romance? Do you honestly think it does not exist in their minds?


If they are so concerned about romance, why do they insist on sexual contact of any sort? There is absolutely nothing in romance that pre-supposes sex or sexual contact of any kind. If you follow to that ever-so-pure intention, then you should have no trouble with parental permission and can knock yourself out being romantic towards a child. Unless, of course, the goal really is sexual contact, ie, lust, in which case we are dealing with a totally different situation. No matter how you approach it, lust for a child puts the child in the role of a sexual object. And yes, that applies for adults, too - a relationship founded solely on lust will not likely get too far, unless love develops along the way. Here come those pesky labels again - if you tell a child that the lust you show them is in fact love, they won't know the difference! The real question is - do the pedophiles?


Next time you talk about paedophiles in general, do not include paedophilic rapists, just as I do not include heterosexual rapists or sadists when I am generalising about heterosexuals.

Unless it involves absolutely NO sexual contact, a pedophilic relationship is rape, by law. You have narrowed the discussion to a very small and select group of individuals, no less so than if you started talking about the ethics of S&M relationships. If I am going to discuss that group, I am going to discuss ALL of it; you would have the same right to include heterosexual rapists if we discussed heterosexual relationships. Wonder what the comparison between the percentage of pedophilic rapists and heterosexual rapists would look like, by the way. I'll even grant you a definition of rape that needs use of force, rather than the strict legal one...can you find any reliable studies on that one?

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Donnmathan
Wonder what the comparison between the percentage of pedophilic rapists and heterosexual rapists would look like, by the way. I'll even grant you a definition of rape that needs use of force, rather than the strict legal one...can you find any reliable studies on that one?

Ummm, the vast majority of "paedophiles" are heterosexual, in fact most of them are happily married with children.

The second problem with such a comparison is you need to define percentage of what? Do you mean as a percentage of the population or percentage of some subset of the population, at a guess (and no I don't know of any studies) rape by force is much more likely to be at it's highest percentage of the population amongst the testosterone packed end of the scale, the Tysons of the world if you will. Somehow I can't imagine a high percentage of them ever admitting to paedophilic feelings so such a study is doomed from the start.

Amen-Moses

[Donnmathan]

Amen-Moses: I was proposing a comparison of the rapist subset of the strictly adult heterosexual population (expressed as a percentage of the large group) and the rapist subset of all members of the group labeled adult 'pedophiles' (expressed as a percentage of the large group). The futility of getting accurate numbers for a comparison is not lost on me - it was strictly a speculation, nothing more. That it will tend towards Tyson-types is outside the area of speculation.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
>> What keeps coming up in these discussions is the "well if they can do it with children then they can do it with adults" speech, this to a paedophile is like saying to a homosexual "well if you can do it with men then why not with women", they just aren't able to relate to adults in the same way. >> Amen-Moses, Why paedophilia is not bad September 4, 2003 12:17 AM

All things being equal, gay people and paedophiles are not. A gay relationship is between consenting adults. Paedophiles impose their will and desires upon children who are unable to give their consent.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.


That is what is being discussed. No evidence, no justification, no anything: someone always has to repeat the claim in question about which we are arguing without argumentation. You ought to re-read everything we have been so far discussing.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
>> The child gets friendship, romance, sexual pleasure, education, a role model, etc., etc., etc. >> Huzington, Why paedophilia is not bad September 4, 2003 05:04 AM

No.

Children are nothing but fetish objects to paedophiles.
Such relationships as you endorse are to be prevented. Those who endorse such relationships are to be subject to close scrutiny.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.



A fetish is something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification, according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

Paedophiles, on the other hand, not infrequently have highly romantic feelings for children. Even the most anti-paedophilic experts acknowledge the fact that in children the paedophile sees a companion, a friend, a lover, etc. Children are very often someone with whom the paedophile can easily form deep and meaningful relationships. The paedophile is primarily attracted by children romantically; and his "fantasies" consist almost wholly of hugging and similar things, consist with being with children, with having them look up to him, with love, and so forth. The paedophilic relationship is identical with the heterosexual relationship in every way save that it is intergenerational: even such similaries exist as "crushes". They are so much alike, in fact, that trivial similaries can be traced: blushing on eye-contact, -- a common reaction for humans -- etc.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
[FONT=courier new]>> Next time you talk about paedophiles in general, do not include paedophilic rapists, just as I do not include heterosexual rapists or sadists when I am generalising about heterosexuals. >> Huzington, Why paedophilia is not bad September 4, 2003 05:27 AM

A paedophile is a paedophile. There is no distinction. There can be no justification.

Wow! What a brilliant confutation! You have persuaded be wholly!

Your position is vile.

What a crude substitute for an argument.

[Huzington]

My point: that only applies in a brief contact situation. If your hypothetical pedophile only gets one or two tries at the kid, the old labels of 'touch below the belt = bad' will hold, and the child will respond in such a fashion to a later interview. If the adult has extended contact, such as having the child in his care, the occasional contact with the 'touch below the belt = bad' idea will not hold against this trusted adult who tells him 'touch below the belt = good/love'. This is wholly an example of a label making every sort of difference in the argument, and a good reason why the studies you quoted probably went the way they did. It matters not a bit what the child REALLY thinks or feels, they are being told that is what is happening, so that is how they respond. If this adult who does something tells him that it is 'love' and 'good', that's exactly what the poor kid is going to tell a survey taker, if surveyed before societal mores have a chance to re-assert themselves.

The word "love" is expressed to the child when the child is hugged and kissed by his mother, when people are happy, when refering to a family member, and in innumerous other instances and things of which the child is most fond. The word love invariably has pleasant associations for a child. The child being told, even a thousand times, that things by which the child is harmed is "love" is not sufficient to destroy the already existing associations the child unavoidably has for said word. The word love is already reinforced by experience and has the correct associations. It cannot be got rid of or replaced by a contradictory association so easily. And especially when his behaviour is appropriate for his love of the person. If, when he uttered the word "love", he had negative associations and its meaning in his mind were more or less that of the word "harm", then one would expect that his behaviour would be appropriate for the emotion designated by the word "harm". But so often this is not the case. And what about when the child grows up, and still refers to his experiences as love?

Yes, but water is not, by definition, an oxymoron like "homosexual heterosexual." There is no reason to pre-suppose a synthesis in the latter case, unlike the quite obvious chemical one in the former. One just can't go around making up a synthesis whenever one feels like it and assume it must be valid; should I begin looking for athiest fundamentalists?

The term, to be sure, is an oxymoron by the literal definitions of the two words which compose it. Homosexual heterosexual, however, only implies that the person is sexually attracted by the opposite sex, but that he is attracted by the same gender -- i.e. traits of the same sex in the opposite sex. The first word implies gender; the second, sex.

Get rid of that pesky amendment to the constitution that got rid of slavery, then, too; slaves profited splendidly in a caring slave/master relationship.

Do you know why this is a weak analogy? Do you?

If they are so concerned about romance, why do they insist on sexual contact of any sort?

Because (a) it is not harmful, and (b) it is the nature of the attraction to be sexual, just as it is the nature of heterosexuality to be sexual. Of course, it may, and often is Platonic, but that is contrary to nature.


There is absolutely nothing in romance that pre-supposes sex or sexual contact of any kind. If you follow to that ever-so-pure intention, then you should have no trouble with parental permission and can knock yourself out being romantic towards a child. Unless, of course, the goal really is sexual contact, ie, lust, in which case we are dealing with a totally different situation. No matter how you approach it, lust for a child puts the child in the role of a sexual object. And yes, that applies for adults, too - a relationship founded solely on lust will not likely get too far, unless love develops along the way. Here come those pesky labels again - if you tell a child that the lust you show them is in fact love, they won't know the difference! The real question is - do the pedophiles?

You repeat the same already refuted claims once again. Saying them over and over again won't help.

Unless it involves absolutely NO sexual contact, a pedophilic relationship is rape, by law. You have narrowed the discussion to a very small and select group of individuals, no less so than if you started talking about the ethics of S&M relationships. If I am going to discuss that group, I am going to discuss ALL of it; you would have the same right to include heterosexual rapists if we discussed heterosexual relationships. Wonder what the comparison between the percentage of pedophilic rapists and heterosexual rapists would look like, by the way. I'll even grant you a definition of rape that needs use of force, rather than the strict legal one...can you find any reliable studies on that one?

Paedophilia is by your definition "rape" anyway: what is the point? "Proving" that it is rape would be circular.

[dangin]

One piece of evidence that we have not been talking about is all the priests. All their victims are called "victims". The settlements are huge amounts of money, and the "victims" are, for the most part in therapy, or recovered from therapy, or in need of therapy.

This reality doesn't seem to gel with the "intergenerational sex is harmless" ideas I keep hearing.

[dangin]

Also, all of you involved in this discussion. You have a magic wand or a genie in a bottle and have god like powers. When you wave your magic wand or make your wish, how would the world be different (in terms of sex) after your wish is granted? Don't dance around, explain exactly how you would change the world to make children available to the sexual appetites of adults.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by dangin
One piece of evidence that we have not been talking about is all the priests. All their victims are called "victims". The settlements are huge amounts of money, and the "victims" are, for the most part in therapy, or recovered from therapy, or in need of therapy.

This reality doesn't seem to gel with the "intergenerational sex is harmless" ideas I keep hearing.

Of course they are going to be harmed when they are raped. Everyone is harmed by rape.

By the way, one paedophilic experience lacking the element of rape is sufficient to disprove the claim that paedophilia is a type of rape.

[dangin]

And one last thing, then I am going to lunch. When I have sex, I'm a talker. I'm a dirty talker. I'm graphic, the language alone is X rated. What can I say?

Do pedophiles do this with kids????? We protect children from seeing and hearing things. If you are comfortable with kids under ten having sex with adults, are you comfortable with "the language of sex" being a part of that?

The words, the meaning, the raw lust of it. It adds a whole new facet that, if it is possible, makes it even more off limits to involve children.

Would you let you pre ten year old kids listen to NIN's I wanna fuck you like an animal? That is a doctor seuss rhyme compared to what is really said in sex sometimes.

[dangin]

Originally posted by Huzington
Of course they are going to be harmed when they are raped. Everyone is harmed by rape.

By the way, one paedophilic experience lacking the element of rape is sufficient to disprove the claim that paedophilia is a type of rape.


Oh please, you think these priests were all tackling kids in the rectory bushes and forcing themselves on them. These kids were coerced, tricked, and intimidated into these situations. Which is what adults can do to children. But if you want to categorize it as rape, then I'm fine with that.

[dangin]

Originally posted by Huzington

By the way, one paedophilic experience lacking the element of rape is sufficient to disprove the claim that paedophilia is a type of rape.


No it's not. One paedophilic experience lacking the element of rape is sufficient to prove that not all paedophilia is "violent" rape.

It has nothing to do with the actual ability to grant consent on the child's part.

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by dangin
Don't dance around, explain exactly how you would change the world to make children available to the sexual appetites of adults.

I wouldn't even want to, I would just line anyone up that professed to have a "sexual appetite" and shoot them, that would sort out the problem.

It would certainly be a nice peaceful world after that. ;)

Amen-Moses

[Donnmathan]

On the whole label bit (I refrain from quoting the whole thing in the intrest of space):

You are changing points, here. I claimed a specific point, one which is re-inforced very rarely: the societal label of "bad" applied to sexual contact as opposed to the paedophile, who applies the label "love" or "good" to the same action. Now, here's the part where we seem to be tangling: in most childrens' experience, the labels "love" and "good" are always associated with physically pleasent experience. Along comes Mr. Paedophile, who tells little 8 y.o. Jimmy that he loves him, and does this thing that feels pleasent to Jimmy. Since "love" and "good" have mostly been attached to pleasent things before, Jimmy accepts the label. Unless someone comes along to re-enforce that old sexual contact="bad" label that isn't often repeated to 8 y.o.'s, the new label will stick. Presto, a child that has no idea what the complex emotion "love" really means yet will now tell a survey taker that he "loves" the paedophile and that what they do is "good;" all because the paedophile told him so, and without contradicting his already accepted, if severely limited, view of what "love" means.

You want harm? Fast forward a few years, perhaps to age 12. First, Jimmy is now comming into increasing contact with the social idea that for someone his age, sexual contact = "bad," a situation that leaves Jimmy with a blow to his self-confidence. He suddenly begins wondering if he is a bad person! Then something else happens - little Jimmy starts growing hair in odd places, his voice drops, etc. The paedophile starts to become less attracted to Jimmy, and eventually leaves to once again find someone who is what he wants in a "romantic intrest," a younger boy. After all, Jimmy growing up is not likely to change Mr. Paedophile's sexual orientation, is it? This is another blow to Jimmy; this person who said he loved Jimmy doesn't want him anymore! Add that to the social disapproval, and Jimmy gets a quick trip to severe emotional depression and/or other problems!

There - no recourse to moral views needed, and we have Jimmy coming out with severe trauma, while your paedophile moves on to greener pastures. This all supposes the paedophile is a total altruist; if he worked to foster dependancy, or acted even a little manipulative, Jimmy could wind up emotionally crippled or suicidal.

The term, to be sure, is an oxymoron by the literal definitions of the two words which compose it. Homosexual heterosexual, however, only implies that the person is sexually attracted by the opposite sex, but that he is attracted by the same gender -- i.e. traits of the same sex in the opposite sex. The first word implies gender; the second, sex.


You need to wrok up a better desciptive term, then, because the one you are using can be used to describe a totally different group: men who are attracted to adult transexuals or "she-males", as well as women who are attracted to 'butch' or transexual women. Such men fit your definition of 'homosexual heterosexual," and without resorting to saying that the only outlet for their affection is a child. The only term that means "a person who is attracted to a child" is a paedophile.

The slave/master analogy I used was used to demonstrate a point; you can have a benificial relationship that is still harmful by definition. The mother/child relationship does not fit that desciption, though it can become harmful in specific and isolated examples. See my example above for a good explaination of how the child/paedophile relationship is always harmful, and note that while a child will eventually leave home, there is no automatic point at which a mother just stops loving them.

Because (a) it is not harmful, and (b) it is the nature of the attraction to be sexual, just as it is the nature of heterosexuality to be sexual. Of course, it may, and often is Platonic, but that is contrary to nature.


First, check the dictionary.com definition of romance - it implies love, but in no way implies sex as such. Second, it most certainly is harmful, see above for how. Third, heterosexuality is sexual by nature because heterosexuality is the process by which reproduction happens. Can the same be said for paedophilia?

I also must have seriously missed something, because I haven't seen anywhere that the lust basis for most paedophilia I proposed has been at all refuted; I saw it dismissed for no reason, built into a strawman and knocked down, and ignored, but never actually refuted. Proper studies, links, or other supporting scientific data, please?

Paedophilia is by your definition "rape" anyway: what is the point? "Proving" that it is rape would be circular.

No, it is the law's definition that makes paedophilia rape. True, as Amen-Moses pointed out, I am asking for something that is just as impossible, because the lines between the groups blur. So how about this - I wonder what percentage of ALL paedophilic 'relationships' involve rape? For the purpose of that question, I define rape as 'sexual contact by force, coerceon, or manipulation', rather than the legal one. And no, you can't exclude the preditor incidences any more than I could if the question were aimed at heterosexuals.

[Donnmathan]

Originally posted by dangin
Also, all of you involved in this discussion. You have a magic wand or a genie in a bottle and have god like powers. When you wave your magic wand or make your wish, how would the world be different (in terms of sex) after your wish is granted? Don't dance around, explain exactly how you would change the world to make children available to the sexual appetites of adults.

I'd remove the paedophilia from the adults, and then we wouldn't have to worry about the children! :D

[Fr.Andrew]

Originally posted by dangin
Maybe Fr. Andrew can stop by with his "knee job" story and we can really get cooking.

(Fr Andrew): You just have no control over it, do you? :D

[senor boogie woogie]

Hola!

Pedophiles should be helped, not persecuted. Why? The reason is that the pedophile is born this way, he cannot help that he likes children. Sexual orientation is not learned, it is genetics.

I have learned this fact from my friends in the gay community. They wont admit the truth that most pedophiles are gay also, but in addition in being born this way, most all homosexuals are pathological liars too.

SENOR

[Kalkin]

Hola!

Pedophiles should be helped, not persecuted. Why? The reason is that the pedophile is born this way, he cannot help that he likes children. Sexual orientation is not learned, it is genetics.

I have learned this fact from my friends in the gay community. They wont admit the truth that most pedophiles are gay also, but in addition in being born this way, most all homosexuals are pathological liars too.

SENOR

Lol. "friends." More like "objects of obsessive, irrational hate."

Defend your views of gays in the threads you started on the subject before you bring them up on random other threads.:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[HelenM]

Originally posted by Huzington (on another thread)
Any definition of good is arbitrary and irrational. So it does not matter what I say. The belief that killing is good is just as irrational as the belief that helping others is good. Though they are both irrational, yet the majority are naturally fonder of the latter claim. That is sufficient for me: since the majority are fonder of the latter, the latter view will be more likely to be successful as a moral doctrine. I choose the latter, i.e. that helping others is good, not because it is true, not because it is rational, but because it is more likely to be a successful moral doctrine. I choose the fittest moral. If killing is good were fit, I would choose that. But it is not. It has no chance of being a successful moral doctrine.

That is how I define good and bad.

If you're right that good and bad are arbitrary, your premise for this thread, i.e. 'pedophilia is not bad', is meaningless. All your arguments in favor of pedophilia become meaningless, irrational and arbitrary, if, as you assert, concepts of good and bad are meaningless, irrational and arbitrary.

Helen

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Huzington
Wow! What a brilliant confutation! You have persuaded be wholly!

I do not care to persuade you. It is my view that you should not be allowed to put forward your arguments in favour of the rape of children, for such acts and views are abhorrent. There are plenty here who seem happy to engage you in a form of debate. I feel that such posts are counterproductive and only allow you to feel that you have a position which is worthy of rational debate. Your views are unworthy of rational debate. Your views are not only a danger to you but to those people around you and demand energetic opposition. The horrible nature of your beliefs cannot hide behind debate.

<speculations about another user removed by moderator>

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Huzington
What a crude substitute for an argument.

I do not argue with you as you have no argument. You have a disgusting and criminal devotion to sexual relationships with children and you are attempting to promote your beliefs here.

You cannot hide behind a facade of rational debate. Your promotion of the rape of children is vile.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Huzington
A fetish is something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification, according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

I have nothing but contempt for those who throw dictionaries, for an attack on terms shows a cowardly and dishonest retreat from salient and significant points. It is the tactic of the caviller and it does not even slow me.

The fact is that, to paedophiles, children are nothing but objects. Paedophiles are drawn to children owning specific physical, behavioural and emotional characteristics. This is the template of their fetish.

Paedophiles regard children as nothing more than convenient fucktoys. Paedophiles pretend to the world, to their victims and to themselves that they care for children when in fact the reverse is true; paedophiles hate children. Their sexual satisfaction is sadistic in nature.

Paedophilia is vile. Your views are vile.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Huzington
That is what is being discussed.

There is no discussion to be had here; there is only the perversion you promote and it's rightful opposition.

Only this week in the United Kingdom a man has received a custodial sentence for fucking a sixteen month old baby. He deserved far worse.

Paedophilia is not to be tolerated. Your position is vile.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Huzington
You ought to re-read everything we have been so far discussing.

I have read everything you have said on this subject. I recognise you. Your views are used by many paedophiles to justify their disgusting lusts and sadistic behaviour.

Your views are not rational. Your views are not valid. Your views are vile.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Leah]

Grimly Fiendish:
:notworthy
Thank you for your support on this.
Although I have so far not participated in any discussion on this kind of topic (Huzington seems to throughly enjoy), It is so important that only the children (equals: victims), or former children, have the right to make satements such as those Huzington does.
And I can assure you all that anyone having experienced such scenarios as a child would not agree with any of Huzingtons statements.

[Fr.Andrew]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
Any sexual activity between adults and children is harmful to children.
Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.
[/FONT]

(Fr Andrew): This is incorrect. I don't advocate intergenerational sex particularly (and never have), but am driven to set the record straight. It is not the case that all such activity, in every circumstance, is harmful to the child.

Source (http://www.just-well.dk/rotterd.htm)

[premjan]

is undue influence upon a developing infant. we should leave children to develop more autonomously else they will be unduly influenced at an early age in a manner they are probably unable to consciously control.

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
I do not care to persuade you.


Then you are wasting your time, persuading others that your pov is the correct one is the main point of debate. In attempting to do so you can of course find that your pov is incorrect in which case the other person "wins" the debate and you learn something.

Just saying "ner-ner-ner, you are wrong" is not debating btw. ;)

Amen-Moses

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by premjan
is undue influence upon a developing infant. we should leave children to develop more autonomously else they will be unduly influenced at an early age in a manner they are probably unable to consciously control.

Should we take the same tact in all arenas of physical and mental development?

i.e should we maybe reevaluate whether schooling is actually required? Should we instead leave children to "autonomously" learn what they require in later life rather than forcing our own views on them?

(btw what makes it "undue" is the entire quetsion, what is your input on this?)

Amen-Moses

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Fr.Andrew
I don't advocate intergenerational sex particularly (and never have), but am driven to set the record straight. It is not the case that all such activity, in every circumstance, is harmful to the child.

Your denial that the sexual abuse of children by adults harms children physically and emotionally, immediately and biographically, is your advocacy of child rape and your approval of child rape.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
Then you are wasting your time

The opposition of rape is never a waste of time.

If you choose to defend the causes of monsters and debate the merits of their sadism then you are living in CloudLand. This is not a matter for sophistry.

Do you oppose paedophilia ? It seems you do not. It seems, rather, that you prefer to defend the rights of child rapists to promote their vile acts.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
Just saying "ner-ner-ner, you are wrong" is not debating btw.

I am not saying such. I am saying that the rape of children is a vile act. So it is. I am saying that the promotion of child rape is likewise vile. So it is.

There is no debate to be held about paedophilia. It is the rape of children and the lifelong pain of adults.

That you seek to promote a debate defending paedophilia speaks of a sterile heart, at the least. You appear to possess an unsettling lack of empathy and compassion. I fear for your children.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[premjan]

sex is the strongest drive of a human (or infant). it has the capacity to totally change (warp?) the psychology of a baby. education is widely accepted as useful to a person's adult well-being (albeit it may be useful to have an alternate form of education such as home-schooling in many cases).

The main reason why it is undue influence is because it makes a child subject to the strong nonaltruistic desire of an adult. An adult's desire for a child to be educated is relatively altruistic: better survival of the infant in a later stage of life.

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
There is no debate to be held about paedophilia.


{insult deleted-AV}

Amen-Moses

[Leah]

Originally posted by Amen-Moses
{insult deleted-AV}

Amen-Moses

As long as there was even just the thought that touching a child in any sexual thought or action was acceptable,

noone is going to shut those up that wish to protect our most valuable treasure and the future of human kind

-----> OUR CHILDREN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Grizzly]

Hello all,

For those that are relatively new to the IIDB or have just recently started posting in the Moral Foundations and Principles, I would first like to say welcome! This particular forum can contain some extremely volatile topics (such as this one). We allow these types of discussions because overall we feel they contain a lot of informational value. However, we watch these threads very closely and we will not tolerate ad hom attacks or insults. Please keep the discussion above board and on topic.

Furthermore, it would greatly aid discussion if we can get past simple statements of belief. Just stating that “Sex with children is vile” over and over is not going to advance the discussion. If you believe this to be true, that’s fine. But a better argument against pedophilia would include reasons as to why this is true.

Grizzly

[Fr.Andrew]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
Your denial that the sexual abuse of children by adults harms children physically and emotionally, immediately and biographically, is your advocacy of child rape and your approval of child rape.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

(Fr Andrew): You misunderstand. Because you want to, I suppose. According to the study I linked, some children who have had sexual experiences with adults deny that said experience had been abusive. Even later in life. So it is not the case that all sexual contact between children and adults is harmful.
It serves no useful purpose for you to fuel hysteria with misinformation, imo.

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Leah
As long as there was even just the thought that touching a child in any sexual thought or action was acceptable,

noone is going to shut those up that wish to protect our most valuable treasure and the future of human kind

-----> OUR CHILDREN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one is trying to shut anyone up, this is a forum for debate so saying "there is no debate" is the same as saying "I have nothing to offer here". Those with nothing to offer who post anyway are just wasting bandwidth, if they wish to go preach then there are plenty of places designed with that in mind.

Amen-Moses

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Grizzly
a better argument against pedophilia would include reasons as to why this is true.

Truth comes down to the observation of fact and the rule of reason. I am sure there are many here who agree with me that truth can never be absolute, that truth can only ever be contextually consistent. This being so I exhort all members reading this post to get into context and speak to children or adults who as children have been sexually abused by older people.

On this issue I shall not quote from dubious studies for that would be only an appeal to paper. Better to argue from authentic affect, for the reality of affect is fact, and the physical facts of child abuse which are clear to those who care to understand. Speak with those affected by paedophilia of their experiences of abuse then reason and compassion will guide you to the truth of this issue.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Grizzly
Just stating that “Sex with children is vile” over and over is not going to advance the discussion.

This discussion is going to advance about as far as an enumeration of waltzing pinhead angels. Best to call a spade a spade and speak frankly. None but paedophiles would deny that paedophilia is vile.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
On this issue I shall not quote from dubious studies for that would be only an appeal to paper. Better to argue from authentic affect, for the reality of affect is fact, and the physical facts of child abuse which are clear to those who care to understand. Your assertion that anecdotal evidence has more value than scientific research is vile.

Respectfully,

viscousmemories

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Grizzly
Just stating that “Sex with children is vile” over and over is not going to advance the discussion.

Should I define vile I should then have to define it's referents, and their referents ad infinitum. Best to understand only that vile is visceral. One does not think about vile; one feels it when one is confronted by vile facts.

Critical analysis is admirable, however do not disown your affect.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
Best to understand only that vile is visceral. One does not think about vile; one feels it when one is confronted by vile facts.
Translation: Eschew reason, go with your gut. If something repulses you, it's repulsive. If something offends you, it's offensive. Nevermind reason or proof. Act now to enforce your will in the world. So it shall be written, so it shall be done. Esto quod esse videris.

Your redundant commentaries are monotonous.

Respectfully,

viscousmemories

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by Grizzly
We allow these types of discussions because overall we feel they contain a lot of informational value.

The informational values of Huzington's discussions are shallow. The bottom line of all of the posts in his discussions is that there are those who favour paedophilia and those who oppose it. The advocates of paedophilia enjoy sex with children because they get to orgasm in a manner which conforms to their fetish while the opponents of paedophilia are so because they cannot stand by and allow the rape of children to go unchallenged. I am of the latter. I am simply more direct than most because I appreciate and respect the issue fully and see it for what it is; a horror.

There is one other unfortunate fact apparant here; that there are those for whom the pain and suffering of others is not real and to whom it holds no significance other than as a subject against which to demonstrate their pretence to intellectualism. Kill the pretence and deal with the facts. If you are unaware of the facts then go and speak with children who have been fucked by adults.

Rational debate is best applied to hard scientific and philosophical issues. It should not be used to destroy the rights of sections of our Societies. After it has been argued that children are not harmed by their rape will the board next argue whether black people, gay people, disabled people and unemployed people are harmed by their rape ?

Unless one recognises the true issue, that paedophiles fuck children because they enjoy it and that this damages children, then one may as well fuck children also, for a halfhearted opposition is no opposition. All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
The informational values of Huzington's discussions are shallow. The bottom line of all of the posts in his discussions is that there are those who favour paedophilia and those who oppose it. Typical witch-hunt rhetoric. You're one of us or one of them. Grab a torch and join the mob or get yourself an asbestos jumpsuit.

The advocates of paedophilia enjoy sex with children because they get to orgasm in a manner which conforms to their fetish while the opponents of paedophilia are so because they cannot stand by and allow the rape of children to go unchallenged. More boring hyperbole.

I am of the latter. I am simply more direct than most because I appreciate and respect the issue fully and see it for what it is; a horror. And so few people realize child rape is a horror. What a special gift of vision you have. :rolleyes:

There is one other unfortunate fact apparant here; that there are those for whom the pain and suffering of others is not real and to whom it holds no significance other than as a subject against which to demonstrate their pretence to intellectualism. Kill the pretence and deal with the facts. If you are unaware of the facts then go and speak with children who have been fucked by adults. Your redundant assertion that anecdotal evidence is more valid than scientific research or rational deduction is vile.

Rational debate is best applied to hard scientific and philosophical issues. It should not be used to destroy the rights of sections of our Societies. After it has been argued that children are not harmed by their rape will the board next argue whether black people, gay people, disabled people and unemployed people are harmed by their rape ? Slip sliding, away.

Unless one recognises the true issue, that paedophiles fuck children because they enjoy it and that this damages children, then one may as well fuck children also, for a halfhearted opposition is no opposition. All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Contrary to what you seem to believe, your judgement of truth and righteousness is not decisive.

vm

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Translation: Eschew reason, go with your gut. If something repulses you, it's repulsive. If something offends you, it's offensive. Nevermind reason or proof. Act now to enforce your will in the world. So it shall be written, so it shall be done. Esto quod esse videris.


Once you have reasoned that children do not feel pain, as fishermen argue of fish, shall you then move on to argue that black people, gay people, disabled people and unemployed people are not fully human ? In truth it is the nihilistic scepticism apparant in this discussion which defines it's more unempathic authors as less than human.

Children are harmed physically and emotionally, immediately and biographically, as a result of the sexual attentions of adults. I am not ashamed to admit that I find this disgusting. My position is informed by fact, reason and compassion. Paedophilia is vile.

If you have a case to argue against my position that paedophilia is vile, rather than it's confessed cause, then argue it. Address the message, not the messenger.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Your redundant commentaries are monotonous.

If you wish to impugn my position then please state your own. Commit yourself and outline your case and it's causes, if you have a case to argue, as I have commited myself to my case and to it's causes.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Your redundant assertion that anecdotal evidence is more valid than scientific research or rational deduction is vile.


You feel that the first hand experience of children who have been subjected to sexual abuse of adults is invalid ?

Stay within context. The testimony of children who have been subjected to sexual abuse by adults is the subject of and the evidence for the scientific studies to which you appeal. With this issue the safety of children is more important than the observation of method.

Your response to my posts appears to be awfully ad hominem. Calm down and think about what you are writing.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
Children are harmed physically and emotionally, immediately and biographically, as a result of the sexual attentions of adults. As I have said to you time and again, prove it. I know it seems like common sense, but I am a skeptic. I do not consider an argument from common sense valid. I want scientific evidence. If you know of any studies that support your point of view, cite them. As much as I would love to take your word for it that the "sexual attentions of adults" necessarily harms children, I would prefer to see evidence to that effect. Repeating your assertion ad nauseum is not an argument.

vm

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
If you wish to impugn my position then please state your own. I have stated my position repeatedly. I will not accept anecdotal evidence or unsupported assertions as conclusive.

Commit yourself and outline your case and it's causes, if you have a case to argue, as I have commited myself to my case and to it's causes. We are participating in a debate about the effects of pedophilia on children. Huzington has put to us that adult/child sexual interaction is not inherently harmful to children. Many people have challenged his opinion, a few have supported it, and nobody on either side has presented any useful scientific support for their assertions.

My case is the search for truth. I will not join a witch-hunt anymore than I would condone child molestation. I suspect strongly that adult/child sexual interaction is immoral. However, I refuse to argue that position from a soapbox. If I can't prove my position rationally and scientifically, I don't have a position.

vm

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
You feel that the first hand experience of children who have been subjected to sexual abuse of adults is invalid ? I feel that anecdotal evidence is insufficient to prove a point. According to Gallup, some 70% of people in America have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. I'm still fairly convinced he died 2000 years ago and isn't saving anyone.

Stay within context. The testimony of children who have been subjected to sexual abuse by adults is the subject of and the evidence for the scientific studies to which you appeal. With this issue the safety of children is more important than the observation of method. So what is your point? If I told you I was molested by a stranger when I was 12 years old and I don't believe any harm came from it, would you respect my point of view and concede that perhaps not all adult/child sexual encounters are inherently harmful? I doubt it. I think you would accuse me of being a liar or a fool, because (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) in your mind the jury is in on this subject.

Your response to my posts appears to be awfully ad hominem. Calm down and think about what you are writing. Oh, that's rich. I've already reported about five of your posts which contained blatant accusations that other members are criminal pedophiles. Do take your own advice.

And on a slightly more personal note, you really should abstain from the automatic "respectfully" you close all your posts with. It just looks silly to accuse someone of being a heinous monster and then say, "Respectfully".

vm

[HelenM]

Originally posted by Grimly Fiendish
You feel that the first hand experience of children who have been subjected to sexual abuse of adults is invalid?

But everyone has 'first hand experience' which supports their own position. Those in favor of adults having sex with children have accounts from people who as children were engaged in sexual activity with adults, who say they enjoyed it and it did them no harm.

What do you do with those 'first hand experience' accounts? Are they as valid as the ones supporting your belief (and mine) that adults should not be allowed to have sex with children.

Helen

[Bookman]

Huzington and Amen Moses,

Can you tell me if you disagree with any of the following premises?

1) A child does not require sex developmentally in the same way that they require food, shelter, education, acceptance, love and so on.
2) Sexual contact can be harmful to children.
3) Children can not be expected to distinguish between people and activities that will hurt them and people and activities that will not.

I believe that these three premises, taken collectively, lead one to the conclusion that we should not allow children the right to consent to participate in this potentially harmful activity. If you disagree with the premises or the conclusion, on what basis do you do so?

Bookman

[Amen-Moses]

Originally posted by Bookman
[B]H