GreenDestiny

Interesting point, Dak! I had to think about it a bit. I'm still not quite sure about the alcohol issue, so I will first talk about the rest. So your argument is that it's the decision itself which shouldn't be allowed to make, because the risk of making a mistake is too high. Well, as I already said in my last post, I'm not so sure about that. I think there are definitely cases where one can be sure that the child really wants it. To name an example I once read a story about a guy who knew a boy who almost begged the guy to perform fellatio on him... I think he was sleeping over at his apartment and even got out of his clothes and tried to persuade him, but the guy declined (that was the purpose of his posting, he wanted to know if it was legal. But ok, the boy was already 14, not 12 or 13 and also it was just a posting on an internet forum a couple of years ago, so I can't tell for sure if it is completely true). Then there once was a news story about a 13yo girl who had a 21yo (or somthing like that) boyfriend. She got pregnant and it came out because of that and so the guy was punished, but only mildly because it was clear to the judge that they loved each other and no real harm had been done. I think they even planned marrying later. Well, I'm not sure if she should really have gotten pregnant, because this might cause problems with her education, but apart from that it should really have been clear in this case that they loved each other. Whatever, I think if you know someone for quite some time and really care for him, you should be able to tell if he really wants it. And if the relationship is consenting, I don't think that the chances for heavy psychological traumata are that big. I mean, many girls have their first time very young today... a lot of them even as young as 13 I think (of course usually not with adults). I wouldn't be surprised if the experience was not always 100% positive for all of them, but even if some might regret if afterwards, that doesn't mean that they have been seriously psychologically damaged. But I'm not completely sure about this myself. We'd need some good information about this, not only studies about people from clinics who have been damaged, but also about people with positive experiences. But especially positive adult-minor relationships will probably remain secret most times, so it's hard to tell how big the risk really is. At least there are also opinions from scholars like the one Merle Noir posted: Then there's the Rind study, which on the other hand is dismissed by some other people. But again on the other hand I wouldn't count people like Coral Rhedd as objective. So there are probably two rather biased sides... maybe there's even a difference between different kinds of sexual contact (penetration, oral sex, mastubatory sex, kissing). But I agree that if the chance of seriously damaging the child is really rather high, it shouldn't be allowed to make that decision. Still I also think that it should be possible to decide if the kid really wants to have sex - if it would really be a consensual act, in contrast to situations like the child letting it happen out of shyness, the child letting it happen as a favor, coercion of the child by the adult, rape, etc. I was talking about the adult. Regarding the flaws you pointed out, I already wrote above that I'm not completely sure that the risks are indeed that high, so that making the decision should not be allowed. Well, as I said, I imagine that one could be sure that the 15yo girl was consenting and I don't think the risk of damage would be very high then, so from a moral point of view I don't think you'd have to refrain from it then. Not breaking the law and the risks for both persons involved would still be good reasons not to do it. Well, you might be right about this. As I said, I think that it is indeed possible for the adult to make a responsible decision regarding this issue. Still, not everyone will do that. Many will maybe tend do make rationalizations in order to justify it or maybe simply think only about themselves and their hormones. The question would then be if allowing people to make the decision would result in more cases of child abuse with serious psychological damage. But again, I'm not sure about this. Maybe the people who would do this are mainly the same people who don't care about the laws even now. Also, people like this would still be punished under new laws, so perhaps it would pretty quickly be clear to everyone that this decision has to be made very carefully. But I'm not sure - maybe you are right and this would really increase the amount of serious child abuse cases - that would be a pretty strong argument against new laws. Of course it would suck if the people who were unbiased and intelligent enough to make a good, responsible decision would also have to be banned from doing that because of others. Of course it matters, because it affects a lot of persons. Many kids could be prohibited from having sex and it also makes a difference about who is allowed to have sex with whom. As for the age, that's the onset of puberty for many kids, so from thereon there should also be real interest about having sexual contacts on the kids part. I'm still worried about some points apart from the pedophile issues. With the current laws in Germany it's illegal to have sex for anyone under 14. Two kids under that age wouldn't have to fear any consequences of course, but if one kid is above there might be some. And this just sounds very unreasonable to me, apart from all adult-minor issues. Yes, I think this is a good way for many pedophiles as well. Of course according to some people like Bettina even this would be wrong - but if you can control yourself and nobody doubts that, why should it be different for pedos? And the argument, it wouldn't really matter if you failed to control yourself because you are both adults, doesn't really count IMO. Men can also force adult women to have sex with them. Maybe it's easier to do that to children and maybe it'd be easier to deal with such situations afterwards for adult women, but still they could also have psychological damage. How many women are there who suffer from abusive relationships? Well, whatever, at least I believe in self-control - and the implications of completely staying away from contact with kids would just be too severe for pedophiles. It's like demanding from men to stay away from women in any aspect for their whole life. I can understand the demand of refraining from sex, but this - I don't think this is a reasonable demand. Ok, finally, regarding the alcohol: I'm not completely sure about this and about how high the risk of making a wrong decision is. Well, I'm maybe not the best person to judge this since I don't drink that much alcohol myself and have never been completely drunk, but at least I have been in a position where I would not have gotten behind the wheel, because I had the feeling that it would have been to dangerous then. So I don't think it is impossible to make that decision, but maybe it is difficult. Especially when you are just a bit above the limit you might not really notice how it affects your skills. I'm no expert on this, so I can't make a final decision here. Maybe it is really not possible to decide if you are sober enough to drive or not. Then it would make sense to forbid making the decision, because that would rather be a question of luck then.

There is this story of a boy who had half of his brain removed because of serious damage, but developed quite normal afterwards. Information can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/880478.stm And there is also a book about his story and his rehab: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521783070/ EDIT: I just re-read the two links and I think those are in fact two different boys - one named Harrison and the other named Nico. Well, whatever, doesn't really change anything regarding my questions. Very interesting story, but I recently had some additional thoughts about it. The brain seems to be most important regarding consciousness - but which part of the brain is actually responsible for that? If they removed half of his brain, wouldn't they remove part of his consciousness as well? How does this work? Would it also have worked, if the boy had had a healthy brain and they had removed half of it? Or another very interesting, though only theoretical scenario: What if they had made a clone of him, removed the brain of the clone and then transplanted half of the brain into the clone - could this work? But what about his consciousness, his personal experience of the world? Which of the two boys would be him? Everyone perceives the world from his personal position, but this boy could not be inside two bodies at the same time, could he? Or maybe they would actually rather be two new persons then... Can anyone give some answers about this?

Well, I think that if they could really demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are sober enough to drive safely, they should not be punished. I just don't know how it could be possible to show that. But theoretically I think that in such cases it should not be illegal. As I said regarding AoC laws: If there is a case in which it is clear that no harm was done and both persons really wanted the sexual contact and were happy with it, it should not be punished. And indeed there are such cases, albeit they might not be that frequent. Anyway, at least an AoC of 16 is a bit high I think. 12 or 13 seems more reasonable to me. In Germany it is 14, that's ok. But with 12 or 13 most kids are into puberty today, so that sounds like a good age in contrast to 16. And you're not completely stupid at that age either, as some seem to think. Of course you don't have that much experience of life and are thus more likely to make mistakes - but this is also still true for many teenagers, even above the AoC. So IMO the apporach should not be prohibition, but rather openness and education. Even if prohibited, a lot of kids will have sex anyway, just secretly and unlawfully then. And I'm not primarily speaking about pedophile relationships here. Another difference between these examples is that most people can live very well without driving after they have drunk more than 2 units. Not being allowed to have sex can be a more significant restriction for two people who love each other. I don't think I agree with this. The possibility of being wrong doesn't really depend on the age, rather on the person making the judgment. I think when reasoning about such a decision one shouldn't think about the age or the laws mainly, but about the other person. People above the AoC can very well not be ready, might just want to do it to be cool, do it in order to do a favor to the other person, not really want to do it but agree out of shyness, be talked into it or whatever. So one should always first think about the question whether the other person really wants to do it and if it is ok, because IMHO the most important thing is not being law-abiding, but not doing harm to someone else. If you do that, the possibility of making a wrong judgment will not necessarily increase as the age of the child decreases, at least not that much. Well, unless you are not being honest to yourself and are merely driven by your own wishes, because the younger the person, the more likely it is that your decision should be "No". But I don't want to promote breaking the law here, my main point is simply that there are more important things, more precisely not doing what is wrong. Even if it were legal, one shouldn't do something which one considers harmful.

When arguing this way you have to keep in mind that there are always risks in life, whatever you do. Just imagine you were in a relationship where your boyfriend didn't want to have sex at the moment (maybe he feels he isn't yet ready for it or he just doesn't want to have premarital sex) - there'd also be the risk that you might just get so horny that you would force him to do it. Or if this doesn't sound realistic, just turn the situation the other way round with the boy forcing you. But would you really do that to someone you love? I think it is very unlikely. Yes, you never have absolute 100% certainty in life, but that doesn't mean that you are in imminent danger of seriously doing harm to someone, especially someone you love. Actually, I happen to believe in willpower and of course I wouldn't want to hurt someone who is most important to me. How could I live with that afterwards? Of course you just assume that I would do that anyway. You don't know me and you don't even say I could do that, no, you are just certain I am a "scorpion" and would do it, without any basis for this thesis whatsoever. You just think that's simply the way all pedophiles are (scorpions), but what makes you so sure? I even posted information showing that only 5% of all child sexual abuse is being committed by pedophiles.

How does this work together with a possible multiverse theory? If our universe should just be one out of many - did all the other universes also originate from the same singularity? And where did that singularity come from? Also, wouldn't it be possible that the big bang occured in some kind of meta-universe with a meta-time? Then only the time of our universe would have been created with the big bang. But I'm not sure how the relation between our time and the time of the meta-universe would be then...

Well, of course, how should you read about the scoutmasters who haven't molested the very boys they are teaching? That would not be interesting enough for the news and also, no one will know that those scoutmasters are pedophiles, I guess. So one can't really make a statement about how many pedophile scoutmasters molest their scouts. Yes, there are some, but there are also people with other sexual attractions who commit crimes... what does it tell us?

Well, of course not all people will act this way, but overall I agree with the argument - people who are not accepted and/or feel the hate of society might be less inclined to follow any rules or might even develop an anger towards society, which could result in negative behaviour. Also the inhibition threshold might be higher this way for people who feel that they don't have themselves under control and would need some help. But for me the main reason for showing more acceptance is that it's simply better and fairer from a human perspective. All in all I really don't see many reasons for the opposite position.

Actually I also tend to favor the compatibilist view as it seems to fit quite well with what we really mean when we are talking about free will. As I see it the existence of a soul wouldn't really change that much since the soul would also have to make decisions on some kind of basis. So the free will of a soul would then not be much freer than that of completely materialistic person. Maybe there's still the possibility of some kind of metaphysical free will, but I'm not really sure about that and if it would make much sense. But free will is a heavily discussed topic anyway, so it's probably not that easy to find a definite answer.

On a Christian site I read the following: From: http://www.christianfaq.com/morality.html Is he right about this when he claims that a soul is necessary for free will? What are the current ideas in the field of neuroscience regarding free will?

But would that really be desirable? I think it's a basic human right to have children, that should not be controlled by the state. I think they have birth control in China and it's not very nice.

Well, but the problem with this analogy is that pedophilia is an attraction and that for itself cannot really be immoral. On the other hand thinking all foreign people are inferior and destroying Jewish graveyards or beating people up, destroying property belonging to minorities, etc. IS indeed immoral. At least there are actual actions involved. Actually, thinking of pedophiles as inferior human beings could far better be compared to Nazis thinking Jews or foreigners are inferior to them, but I don't really want to do that (as it is sometimes done), because that's close to comparing pedophiles to the victims of the Nazis - but the acts done in the Third Reich were so terrible that it would be somewhat disrespectful to their victims to compare that with something from today, because what happened back then was far worse.

I just found some references for it on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia The following paragraph sounds interesting as well: So at least sexual attraction to kids in some way seems not to be completely unnatural.

I think I'm going to respond to this posting bottom up. Well, actually that's what I'm doing, although I'm somewhat forced to do it. Well, to be absolutely correct, I've come out to three online friends (two of them I've also met in real life) whose reactions were very positive. But one of them is gay and the other two are rather liberal, so I expected them to react that way. Not to say that it was easy, but otherwise I probably wouldn't have done it. In the end they didn't have a big problem with it, because they know me quite well and know I would never hurt a child. So what exactly would you do? Since pedophilia is not simply a disease you cannot really cure it. If someone has this attraction it's as difficult to turn him into a heterosexual as it would be to turn you into a lesbian. So what then? Castration? Yeah right... that sounds reasonable. You know it's really sad that you seemingly you can't overcome your prejudices. Maybe if a personal friend of you came out as a pedophile it would help... but you are generalizing things all the time and always seem to be on the verge of becoming offensive. If you had followed this thread attentively, you would have noticed that no one claimed such a thing. This has been discussed some pages back.

Hmm, interesting article... but I'm somewhat skeptical if that's really possible. At least 25 years sounds a bit too optimistic IMO. Also, what would the world be like then? We already have overpopulation, but if many people should decide not to die - well, over the years it would become very crowded on Earth, I think. But maybe it would really remain something which only the rich could afford. At least I would be surprised if people in the third world countries had access to it. So all in all, I'm rather skeptical about this... but it's an interesting idea nevertheless.

Personally, I don't want to have children. But maybe that's because I'm still rather young and couldn't imagine being a father myself. Should I later develop the desire of having children, that could be a problem. I'm not really interested in women and getting into a relationship only for having children would be very dishonest towards the woman. And I don't think a woman would want to marry someone of whom she knows that he doesn't love her or at least doesn't desire her. But I couldn't imagine marrying anyway, at least at the moment I surely wouldn't wanna do that. It is at times... mainly because you can't always talk to other people about how you feel... that can be extremly frustrating sometimes. There's also a certain feeling of lonliness. But I guess it can be very rewarding if you are lucky enough to have a friendship with a boy. I'm not talking about a sexual one, just a deep friendship. Well, apart from that, there are of course other things in life like friends or hobbies, etc. which can make it worthwhile.

What I'm asking for is simply acceptance in the way that people don't look at pedophiles as monsters or something similar... you know, it should just be possible to publicly talk about it, tell people about the way you feel without automatically being looked down upon by others. A bit like homosexuality has gained some social acceptance during the last decades. Only the orientation. Imagine if someone would mention that he's a pedophile. Most people would shun him thereafter, think of him as sick, disgusting, evil - some might even get violent. People shouldn't automatically associate every pedophile with a child molester, that's all.

There not.......What's being judged is the mindset of some pedophile ADULTS who have come here to tell us that ADULTS having sex with little kids is ok if the little kid doesn't mind for various reasons.....thats all. An example of mindset is in another post of yours......the bold print bothers me the most. Regarding adults and children' date=' well, I think sexual abuse should be illegal. This includes rape, abuse where the child is passive and just lets the adult do because of fear and also cases where the child has been coerced into it. [b']Still I think that there are some rare cases where such sexual relationships can be positive for both sides and I think a poster even told about such a situation somewhere on this thread. Because of this I think that there should at least be a law which would allow excptions if it is really clear to the judge that the relationship was really consenting and not damaging to the child.[/b] All other sexual relationships should still remain illegal of course. Well, someone asked me what I think about the AoC laws and I just responded. As I said before I think social acceptance and the discussion of AoC laws are two seperate issues. Personally, the whole sex talk isn't that important to me. I never had sex so far and certainly won't have it in the near future. Actually, I think that it's most likely that I will never have sex, since I think that it's rather unlikely that I will someday meet a boy who would want to do that. As I said, in Germany it would be legal if he is 14, so I could have sex, it's just not that I really think it will happen. So it's actually not a very important issue in my life. But these discussions about pedophilia somehow always seem to focus on this topic. It also wonders me a bit that my opinion about AoC laws bothers you that much. It's just an opinion, it doesn't harm you. I've read discussions like this one before and have also met some heterosexual people with similar opinions - would those people bother you that much as well? Only because you are a pedophile people seem to think that you are close to hurting a child. I can tell you I'm not. But I guess you won't believe that anyway.

Yes, I agree with that.

You can parse this all you want and it is all a red herring. The issue is adults exploiting children to satisfy their own sexual needs and then trying to convince people that the child is the seducer. Gimme a break! I didn't write anything like that. In the paragraph you quoted I didn't even talk about adult/child sexual relations. You asked me what I think about the AoC laws and gave you an answer concering the laws of my country and what IMO could be improved. Somehow I get the feeling you don't really read what I write, but have your preconceived opinion which you just post, regardless of what I say. Yes, of course I used the word rare. Like most people here I don't think it is the norm that a child wants to have sex with an older person. Still, such cases seem to exist, where the child wants it and is mature enough and then I wouldn't think that it should be punished. That would be rather unjust. But I didn't suggest big changes. Just a law with the possibility of allowing an exception in cases where it is clear to anyone that the relationship was not abusive and both persons profited from it. You know, sometimes such cases are in the news, where the judge says that no harm has been done, but it is still illegal and must therefore be punished. Such a law wouldn't really make it any easier for child molesters... Plenty. Pedophiles should not accepted because to do so would make pedophile aggressions against children more acceptable. Pedophiles need to be studied, understood, cared about, and treated. I think this is about as good as you are likely to get given the large numbers of adult men and women, some of whom I have talked to, who see adult/child sex, or what they call abuse, as having caused them PTSD, identity problems, depression, and an abiding fear and mistrust of others. Somehow sex is all you can think about. I wasn't even talking about accepting child sex, I was only talking about showing more social acceptance to pedophiles in general. Tolerance leads to moving the line. I think we should -- at the very least -- hold the line. I am sorry for your suffering, but I am sorrier still for what a child may suffer should you cross that line. Sorry, but this argumentation isn't very logical. Then you could also say that society should look down upon men in general, because they could be rapists/sexual abusers of women. Tolerance of men leads to moving the line up to accepting rape. You see, arguing this way just doesn't make much sense. Also, you don't know me. You just assume that I might be in danger of making a child suffer. Do I assume that you are in danger of raping someone, killing someone or doing something else along these lines?

Maybe this could be interesting to some. It's from an article about pedophilia published in a German science magazine. It's from the "Bild der Wissenschaft", issue 4/2004: My translation of the paragraph: There is also graph in that issue which shows the different types of child molesters and only one part of them are pedophiles. Still, for the general public all of these seem to be the same which is just not the case. Here is a scan of the graphic, with my translation beyond: click to see scan (numbers added by me) First block: offenders with many contacts 1 - interpersonal 2 - narcistic Second block: offenders with many contacts 3 - exploitative, non-sadistic 4 - subliminal sadistic 5 - aggressive, non-sadistic 6 - sadistic ---- 1: The offender wants to have a mutual relationship with the child, sex usually only fondling, intercourse by hand and oral intercourse. This type embodys the classic pedophile. 2: The offender is mostly interested in sex, sexual intercourse. No relationship to the child, the victims are often strangers. 3: The offender doesn't harm the victims physically or at most unintentionally and insignificantly. 4: Hints of sadistic fantasies, which are acted out without injuries. Ritualizations, penetration with objects without injury, frightening of the child. 5: The offender does harm, but there are no indications that he experiences the harming or frightening of the child as erotic. This type of offender is rare. 6: Ritualized and bizarre acts with significant injuries e.g. at the genitalia and breasts. This type of offender is very rare. ---- 7 - The text below the profiles: "American scientists have, with the help of a statistical procedure, classified sexual offenders who abuse children into different types of personalities and characteristics of their actions. This differentiated classification withstood an examination of real offenders. The generally accepted result: Pedophiles represent only a part of the child molesters and usually don't belong to those who use violence - up to murder." 8 - Source: Kraus: "Die Klassifikation v. Straftätern" from Knight & Prentzky, "Monatsschrift f. Kriminologie u. Strafrechtsref. 6/2000" ---- So one can see that pedophiles are only a fraction of actual child abusers. And not every pedophile is a child abuser. So, when all of this is merged together, as it is often done, this is just not correct.

Well, I think the law in Germany is quite ok. The laws of some other countries where the AoC is 18 are completely bogus. But many people here think that way, normal heterosexuals. Still, the laws in Germany could also need improvements in some aspects. To name an example, it would be legal for a 12yo to have sex (of whatever kind, not necessarily intercourse) with a 13yo, but one year later, when one turns 14 it would become illegal (Maybe it would even be illegal before, but of no importance because both are children [persons under 14], I'm not sure about that). Or imagine a 16yo boy having sex with a 13yo girl - that would also be illegal and this is not a completely abnormal situation. I think if you can have legally sex when you are 14, why should it be impossible that there are also 13yo's who are mature enough for it? Regarding adults and children, well, I think sexual abuse should be illegal. This includes rape, abuse where the child is passive and just lets the adult do because of fear and also cases where the child has been coerced into it. Still I think that there are some rare cases where such sexual relationships can be positive for both sides and I think a poster even told about such a situation somewhere on this thread. Because of this I think that there should at least be a law which would allow excptions if it is really clear to the judge that the relationship was really consenting and not damaging to the child. All other sexual relationships should still remain illegal of course. But as I said before, what does the opinion about Aoc laws have to do with general social acceptance of pedophiles? You could be more tolerant towards pedophiles, but still be against any changes of the law.