Pedophile Nationalism

[ku]

One of the arguments for nationalism is that if you allow different groups to live together then conflict will erupt. For example, Jews and Muslims living in the Middle East just don't seem to get along. The answer, according to nationalists is to divide people up so they can live among their "own people." Jews live among Jews and Muslims live among Muslims.

 

Every day I hear about homophobia. Most people in the world are religious and most people tend to follow an Abrahamic religion, i.e. Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. The Abrahamic religions all seem to denounce homosexuality. Throughout history this has been the case. Sometimes I wonder why so many Christians hate homosexuals because it seems to go against the teachings of Christ of the New Testament who taught about love and tolerance, etc. But anyway, because of the influence of the Abrahamic religion, it is not surprising that many people are homophobic.

 

If Jews and Muslims can't get along and the answer is to separate them into their own nations, then why don't we apply the same concept to the conflict between homosexuals and heterosexuals? If homosexuals and heterosexuals cannot get along then why not just create a separate nation for homosexuals? Maybe slowly change an existing nation (e.g. America) into one that is fully tolerance of homosexuals or establish a country where homosexuality is actively practiced and is declared as the state sexual orientation.

 

There are many pedophile activists around and many pro-pedophile organizations like NAMBLA. Pedophile activism has created a lot of controversy, as you can imagine. There are websites like Perverted Justice that tries to bait pedophiles and shame them using public humiliation. Another site that I think is strong on child protection is Warriors for Innocence. These people claim that they are the "only thing that stands between evil and the innocent."

 

Given that there seems to be so much conflict between pro-pedophiles and anti-pedophiles, why not just allow pedophiles to have their own country where they can do whatever they want? This may not work because, for most people, even just the thought that a child in another country is abused causes discomfort. However, even an extremist Muslim who believes that some child in Israel is reading the Torah instead of the Koran might cause discomfort as well, so if nationalism applies to religion then why shouldn't it apply to sexual orientation?

[lucaspa]

If Jews and Muslims can't get along and the answer is to separate them into their own nations, then why don't we apply the same concept to the conflict between homosexuals and heterosexuals?

 

1. The premise is wrong. Jews and Muslims got along for centuries prior to 1948. The problem was forcing the Arabs to accept a Jewish nation! No one asked the Arabs living there if they wanted a Jewish state. Also, at least 25% of the Palestinians are Christians. Christians and Jews live together in peace in many nations of the world.

 

2. There isn't a political conflict there. There is intolerance of homosexuals by some heterosexuals. Particularly heterosexuals who belong to the religion of Fundamentalism -- which is separate from Christianity (despite the claims to the contrary by Fundamentalists). The USA is founded on tolerance and that is the ideal. Therefore tolerating homosexuality between consenting adults is necessary if we are to live up to the foundational ideals of America.

 

If homosexuals and heterosexuals cannot get along then why not just create a separate nation for homosexuals? Maybe slowly change an existing nation (e.g. America) into one that is fully tolerance of homosexuals or establish a country where homosexuality is actively practiced and is declared as the state sexual orientation.

 

If you do the second you have just as much intolerance and denial of liberty as you do if you make heterosexuality the state sexual orientation. It's a matter of liberty, now.

 

There are many pedophile activists around and many pro-pedophile organizations like NAMBLA. Pedophile activism has created a lot of controversy, as you can imagine.

 

This is different. It's a matter of ethics and personal freedom. Pedophilia involves sexual activity with MINORS. Children too young to make informed decisions about sex. In fact, pedophilia is most often about sex with children even before they reach puberty and can engage in sex.

 

So, pedophilia is about exploitation of one group -- children -- by another group -- pedophiles. And without the consent of the children. Pedophilia is not about shared sexual pleasure, but about pleasure ONLY for the pedophile. It is rape.

 

As such, there is no justification for it or for tolerating it. No more than there is tolerance for sadists who want to capture and whip people who do not consent.

 

Given that there seems to be so much conflict between pro-pedophiles and anti-pedophiles, why not just allow pedophiles to have their own country where they can do whatever they want?

 

That is like saying "let's give slaveowners their own country where they can do whatever they like." It's about personal freedom and liberty.

 

This may not work because, for most people, even just the thought that a child in another country is abused causes discomfort. However, even an extremist Muslim who believes that some child in Israel is reading the Torah instead of the Koran might cause discomfort as well, so if nationalism applies to religion then why shouldn't it apply to sexual orientation?

 

Because you have apples and oranges. Pedophilia is physical assault. Reading the Torah is not. This isn't about "physical discomfort", but about the rights of the individual. Part of the rights is freedom of religion. Another part is freedom from assault, including sexual assault. That some people have "discomfort" about physical assault simply shows that they have a good ethical sense. That some have "discomfort" about people believing differently about deity than they do shows that they have intolerance.

[John Cuthber]

Why do people mix up homosexuallity with pedophillia?

 

I understand that some peopel feel they are both "forbidden by my religion" and therefore equally wrong (though even that seems a strange opinion to me) but even then "equally wrong" doesn't mean "the same thing as".

Most religious groups who condemn both of these groups also condemn infidelity in the same way. Yet the followers of those faiths don't generally mix up people who sleep with someone else's wife with pedopiles.

Even the most devout (or deranged depending on your point of view) can tell that homosexuallity is not actually the same as eating shellfish even if they are both an abomination.

So what is it? Why the blind spot?

 

(BTW, just in case anyone's wondering- no I'm not a member of any of those groups but I'm hopelessly prejudiced against irrationallity)

[theCPE]

A source of confusion for me is the hypocracy of some political parties in their views of homosexuality and pedophilia.

 

This specific political party believes that homosexuality is genetic, you are born that way and can't be "trained" to be heterosexual.

 

The same political party believes that pedophiles can be rehabilitated or trained to not be pedophiles and thus are given lenient sentences involving probation and consuling.

 

Hrmmmm.

[Realitycheck]

I've always had a thing against incest. Do they have any incest support organizations, as well? Do kissing cousins count as incest?

[Pangloss]

A source of confusion for me is the hypocracy of some political parties in their views of homosexuality and pedophilia.

 

Well gays can certainly be pedophiles. Just look at the Catholic priest scandals, which have lead to the revelation (what a pun!) that homosexuality is common in the priesthood. I think the problem you may be aiming at is that people often don't make a distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia, and I agree that this is a problem. Just because one is gay does not mean they're a pedophile.

 

 

This specific political party believes that homosexuality is genetic, you are born that way and can't be "trained" to be heterosexual.

 

The same political party believes that pedophiles can be rehabilitated or trained to not be pedophiles and thus are given lenient sentences involving probation and consuling.

 

Hrmmmm.

 

Presumably you're talking about the Democrats. It's an interesting correlation, though I know a lot of Democrats who disagree with the second paragraph. More accurate to say that those are common left-side ideological positions, rather than positions of the Democratic Party. But maybe you're reflecting off some official platform positions that I'm not aware of. Either way it's an interesting point.

[ParanoiA]

A source of confusion for me is the mixed message concerning pedophilia.

 

Everytime I see a school fundraiser car wash at some convenience store I'm always floored to see teenage girls wearing skimpy two-pieces infesting the intersection. And this is being promoted by the freaking school!

 

Oh, but lusting over teenage girls is wrong...

 

I go to the movies, the supermarket, anywhere - pre-teen and teenie boppers dressed like whores by mom and dad - itty bitty skirts, skin tight hip huggers - with various slut slogans stiched across their ass.

 

Oh, but lusting over teenage girls is wrong...

 

I'm sorry, but I'm a man - a 36 year old man. Youth is beautiful. That's a natural thing too as it's arguably part of the design in breeding and perpetuating the species.

 

And while your daughter might have nice assets, I really don't need the mind f#ck of feeling like a pedophile everytime I have to see her dressed up in her latest incarnation of a ho outfit.

 

Paraphrasing Dave Chappel...you're right, just because a girl dresses like that, doesn't mean they're a whore...but she's wearing a whore's uniform.

[theCPE]

Presumably you're talking about the Democrats. It's an interesting correlation, though I know a lot of Democrats who disagree with the second paragraph. More accurate to say that those are common left-side ideological positions, rather than positions of the Democratic Party. But maybe you're reflecting off some official platform positions that I'm not aware of. Either way it's an interesting point.

 

True, maybe I was too general. Far left idealogy is a more accurate description than a political party.

 

 

Paranoia:

 

It is sickening that parents allow their pre-teen daughters to dress that way.

 

It is sickening that there is such a market for the clothing that clothing manufacturers have lines of "juicy" or whatever else words written across the shorts or shirts of clothes for pre-teens.

 

The parents allowing their kids to dress that way is inviting the negative attention and thoughts.

 

That doesn't however relieve someone of responsibility for acting upon these "forced thoughts" as you refer to them.

 

Natural behaviours for breeding and perpetuating the species I don't think invovles strictly youth, especially that young. Natural attraction is felt from characteristics that appear strong and child bearing, ie breasts for feeding, hips for passing the child, etc. These are all things that pre-teens do not possesse. Which would be agaisnt nature.....

[Pangloss]

It is sickening that parents allow their pre-teen daughters to dress that way.

 

It is sickening that there is such a market for the clothing that clothing manufacturers have lines of "juicy" or whatever else words written across the shorts or shirts of clothes for pre-teens.

 

The parents allowing their kids to dress that way is inviting the negative attention and thoughts.

 

You know, that's an interesting response, not that I disagree with you, but because it presents an interesting counterpoint to our concurrent thread on curse words.

 

It's funny how society deems individual expression as paramount and noble -- but only up to a point. Surely a contradiction!

[ParanoiA]

That doesn't however relieve someone of responsibility for acting upon these "forced thoughts" as you refer to them.

 

Natural behaviours for breeding and perpetuating the species I don't think invovles strictly youth' date=' especially that young. Natural attraction is felt from characteristics that appear strong and child bearing, ie breasts for feeding, hips for passing the child, etc. These are all things that pre-teens do not possesse. Which would be agaisnt nature.....[/quote']

 

I agree. I don't know how natural it is to prey on a child, basically. But I do understand the appreciation of beauty associated with youth. As I get older, I find I'm less and less picky about what I consider "beautiful" in youth. Girls that I wouldn't have touched with a 10 foot pole in high school, I find quite attractive now. It seems as though, youth, itself, is beautiful.

 

But that's different than sexual attraction. And none of it absolves a pedophile of responsibility. That's what pedophiles do, they find a way to rationalize and justify their behavior. They must objectify their prey, and this mixed message helps that process, in my opinion.

 

I think the public is pretty good about sticking responsibility to the pedophiles for their crimes, but they're not very good, nor seem to be concerned about the baiting potential of their children's clothing...or lack thereof.

[Sisyphus]

This is kind of tangential, but it should be noted that biologically speaking, some "pedophilia" as defined by the courts is completely natural. Puberty is just sexual maturity. Humans are at their most fertile during their mid-teenage years, and so evolution makes them the most lustful and attractive to one another (and the rest of us) during those years. And up until very recently, historically speaking, age 14 or so was pretty much the universally accepted appropriate age for marriage (especially for girls).

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I think it's definitely a positive thing that society's definition of "childhood" has been extended, because physical maturity does not mean one is intellectually or emotionally ready to be an adult. But distinctions should be made between that kind of "pedophilia," which is only a matter of poor self-control and lack of complete societal conditioning, and pedophilia for pre-pubescents, which I think is rightly considered a mental disease (which is also rightly not considered an excuse - attraction is one thing, acting on it is another).

 

ANYWAY.....

[Dr. Dalek]

Given that there seems to be so much conflict between pro-pedophiles and anti-pedophiles, why not just allow pedophiles to have their own country where they can do whatever they want? This may not work because, for most people, even just the thought that a child in another country is abused causes discomfort. However, even an extremist Muslim who believes that some child in Israel is reading the Torah instead of the Koran might cause discomfort as well, so if nationalism applies to religion then why shouldn't it apply to sexual orientation?

 

A; Were are we going to put this Pedofile country?

 

B; Forced relocation of popultions large or small always causes problems.

 

C; This country would be destroyed by the United States not long after an American child was molested when his family changed planes in this country.

 

D; These people are not just a minority that comes into conflict with other minorities they are people with a psycological condition that causes a pre-evolved system to encourage natural reproduction to malfuntion. They are essentialy sick.

 

The only conceivable reason I can see to put all these people into one country is to isolate and EX-TER-MIN-ATE them. Which is what a lot of Conspiracy theorists think the motavation behind the creation of Isreal was.

 

Why do people mix up homosexuallity with pedophillia?

 

I understand that some peopel feel they are both "forbidden by my religion" and therefore equally wrong (though even that seems a strange opinion to me) but even then "equally wrong" doesn't mean "the same thing as".

Most religious groups who condemn both of these groups also condemn infidelity in the same way. Yet the followers of those faiths don't generally mix up people who sleep with someone else's wife with pedopiles.

Even the most devout (or deranged depending on your point of view) can tell that homosexuallity is not actually the same as eating shellfish even if they are both an abomination.

So what is it? Why the blind spot?

 

(BTW, just in case anyone's wondering- no I'm not a member of any of those groups but I'm hopelessly prejudiced against irrationallity)

Uh . . . I'm not Christian myself but I do know that there are verses in the Bible that can be interprited as forbidding homosexuality. It doesn't justify intollerence though as the verses are ment to encourage individuals within the faith to avoid it.

[lucaspa]

This specific political party believes that homosexuality is genetic, you are born that way and can't be "trained" to be heterosexual.

 

The scientific data indicates that sexual orientation is genetic and can't be changed.

 

The same political party believes that pedophiles can be rehabilitated or trained to not be pedophiles and thus are given lenient sentences involving probation and consuling.

 

That's not true. There is mounting evidence that pedophilia is also genetic and can't be changed. In New York, the Democratic legislature and governor are considering confining pedophiles to pyschiatric hospitals after release from prison.

 

The "difference" in attitudes has a common root: personal liberty. As long as a person's sexual activity is between 2 consenting adults, we have no rationale for forcing heterosexuality on them. OTOH, once a person has served his time in prison (for raping a child), then their liberty must be restored. Since pedophilia has been looked at as a crime and therefore choice, rehabilitation is used like it is with all other crimes. The problem is that the data is increasingly showing that pedophilia is inherent and rehab fails. This presents everyone -- Republicans and Democrats -- with a new problem in balancing personal liberty in the absence of a crime vs safety of the public in the near certainty that the pedophile will commit another crime.

[lucaspa]

Everytime I see a school fundraiser car wash at some convenience store I'm always floored to see teenage girls wearing skimpy two-pieces infesting the intersection. And this is being promoted by the freaking school!

 

Oh, but lusting over teenage girls is wrong...

 

No, lusting is fine. And admiring the female form is fine. However, actually having sex with an underage teenage girl is wrong. The difference between thoughts and actions.

 

And yes, if a pedophile limits himself/herself to thoughts alone, then there is no crime. The problem is that evidence is accruing that pedophiles cannot exercise control and refrain from acting.

 

However, I do think you have a point: there is too much exploitation of teenage girls for lusting.

[lucaspa]

Natural behaviours for breeding and perpetuating the species I don't think invovles strictly youth, especially that young. Natural attraction is felt from characteristics that appear strong and child bearing, ie breasts for feeding, hips for passing the child, etc. These are all things that pre-teens do not possesse. Which would be agaisnt nature.....

 

In which case the teenage girls at the charity carwash are not against nature, since they are past the age of menarch and can bear kids.

[lucaspa]

A; Were are we going to put this Pedofile country?

 

There are very low populated islands in Puget Sound and off the coast of Maine ... It would be easy to buy the people out. Of course, you could always refurbish Alcatraz and put several thousand there.

 

B; Forced relocation of popultions large or small always causes problems.

 

Yes, but we already have problems trying to figure out what to do with pedophiles. New York wants to confine them to mental hospitals for life. Is that any different than giving them a geographical location such as an island?

 

The only conceivable reason I can see to put all these people into one country is to isolate and EX-TER-MIN-ATE them.

 

Isolation, yes. Exterminate, no. Of course, notice that I am not talking about a separate country for pedophiles, but an isolated area within a country.

 

Uh . . . I'm not Christian myself but I do know that there are verses in the Bible that can be interprited as forbidding homosexuality.

 

The verses can be interpreted that way, but it is not mandatory to interpret them that way and that interpretation may be inaccurate. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

[theCPE]

In which case the teenage girls at the charity carwash are not against nature, since they are past the age of menarch and can bear kids.

 

 

Really, 9-12 year old girls are ready to bear children?

 

 

My point in a prior post is how ridiculus some sentences are for pedophiles specifically some recent ones in the North East. The sentences usually coming from far LEFT leaning Judges, and include 2 months probation for such horrible crimes....

[ParanoiA]

Really, 9-12 year old girls are ready to bear children?

 

Actually, I think he said teenage girls - the one's I was talking about doing the car washes, whereas your point was on pre-pubescents.

 

My point in a prior post is how ridiculus some sentences are for pedophiles specifically some recent ones in the North East. The sentences usually coming from far LEFT leaning Judges, and include 2 months probation for such horrible crimes....

 

But are you hearing these cases in the same detail and from the same source as those judges?

 

I understand the courts aren't perfect, but aren't the courts fundamentally the fairest platform from which to judge someone? You may be right, but I have to wonder about a sentence of 2 months probation. Perhaps the media got a little carried away?

[theCPE]

The details I remember for this one specific case was a man over the course of two years had been constantly molesting a 5 year old boy and a six year old girl that I think were his nephew and neices...

 

I can't think of any situation in which 2 months probation is sufficient for these actions.

 

A group went after the Judge and after hounding him for some time I believe he increased the sentencing some...but it is still IMO absurd.

[Sisyphus]

See, that doesn't sound plausible to me at all, given the fact that I live and have always lived in the NE and see nothing but harsher and harsher sentences for these people, and even, as lucaspa mentions, unprecedented punishment, wherein there is no longer any such thing as "serving one's debt to society." Sex offenders of all kinds are permanent pariahs, and the ones who are institutionalized as insane are pretty much the lucky ones.

 

Anyway, at best what you're describing is a weird anomaly. What I think is more likely, though, is that you're describing a vague recollection of something which was probably sensationalized and misleading "journalism" to begin with. I've seen similarly incredible stories, myself, which provoked outrage (as they were designed to) until I investigated further and learned to distrust those particular news sources.

[theCPE]

Here is one, it might be the one I was vaguely remembering or could be a different one, but sounds about right.

 

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/09/01/judge-rapped-for-pedophiles-60-day-sentence-quits/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2Fid%2F14622398%2F&frame=true

 

2 months jail time not probation......

 

And was Vermont.

 

Judge was made to resign though, which is good.

 

While I am sure it isn't the norm, you can go to google and search for pedophile probation and you will get a lot of hits (not necessarily NE like this one). It is a shame there are wackos that sit on benches letting pedophiles off so easily.

[Dak]

A source of confusion for me is the hypocracy of some political parties in their views of homosexuality and pedophilia.

 

This specific political party believes that homosexuality is genetic, you are born that way and can't be "trained" to be heterosexual.

 

The same political party believes that pedophiles can be rehabilitated or trained to not be pedophiles and thus are given lenient sentences involving probation and consuling.

 

Hrmmmm.

 

i think the argument is: you feel naturally sexually attracted to a group of people, and can never train yourself to a/ not find that group attractive, and b/ find another group attractive.

 

so, neither gays nor paedophiles can change, per se. but, paedoes (unlike homoes) should resist the temptation, as them acting on their instincts would be bad, whereas homosexuals can safely act on their instincts.

 

and i think 'trained to not be paedoes' essentially comes down to 'persuaded to not do it anymore, out of fear of persecution', just like any other criminals who have been caught.

 

A source of confusion for me is the mixed message concerning pedophilia.

 

Everytime I see a school fundraiser car wash at some convenience store I'm always floored to see teenage girls wearing skimpy two-pieces infesting the intersection. And this is being promoted by the freaking school!

 

Oh, but lusting over teenage girls is wrong...

 

I go to the movies, the supermarket, anywhere - pre-teen and teenie boppers dressed like whores by mom and dad - itty bitty skirts, skin tight hip huggers - with various slut slogans stiched across their ass.

 

Oh, but lusting over teenage girls is wrong...

 

I'm sorry, but I'm a man - a 36 year old man. Youth is beautiful. That's a natural thing too as it's arguably part of the design in breeding and perpetuating the species.

 

And while your daughter might have nice assets, I really don't need the mind f#ck of feeling like a pedophile everytime I have to see her dressed up in her latest incarnation of a ho outfit.

 

Paraphrasing Dave Chappel...you're right, just because a girl dresses like that, doesn't mean they're a whore...but she's wearing a whore's uniform.

 

lol. it does seem that society, as a whole, is treating kids as sexy/sexual beings (school uniforms are hot, and sex is actually used to sell stuff, mainly music, to kids), whilst simultaniously considering them off-limits. kiddy 'beuty' pageants* i find espescially odd.

 

paedoes must be so confused

 

This is kind of tangential, but it should be noted that biologically speaking, some "pedophilia" as defined by the courts is completely natural.

 

as a minor point, all sexual preferences are naturall, from heterosexuality thru homosexuality to paedo and bestiality. natural as in, no-one goes 'hey, i've got a great idea, i'll be a paedo - the most convienient of sexualities', and it doesn't take special training or anything.

 

look at monkeys, and you'll see them having sex with their kids.

 

i look at it like rape: perfectly natural for some people, but still wrong.

 

The scientific data indicates that sexual orientation is genetic and can't be changed.

 

do you have a source? i was under the impression that it wasn't that clear cut, and could be genetic and/or developmental and/or due to a number of psychological reasons.

 

====

 

*pah-jants. those things with cat-walks and models, like mrs. america. just in case my spelling is as off as i think it is.

[Dr. Dalek]

Yes, but we already have problems trying to figure out what to do with pedophiles. New York wants to confine them to mental hospitals for life. Is that any different than giving them a geographical location such as an island?

 

There is none, but both situations are to reminisent of Typhoid Mary, they would never be allowed by pollitically correct politicans. Also I don't want a huge population of pedophiles living off the coast of my state.

 

Besides if you are going to go as forcing them to relocate you might as well go the whole nine yards and develope surgery's or drugs to removed their sex drives.

[Pangloss]

The scientific data indicates that sexual orientation is genetic and can't be changed.

 

Actually as I understand it it suggests that that may be the case for some homosexuals. Not all.

 

And therein lies the rub in terms of politics. You can't, for example, use that information to condemn efforts to "convert" people, because for all you know the ones being converted were gay by choice.

 

 

 

That's not true. There is mounting evidence that pedophilia is also genetic and can't be changed.

 

That's a new one on me. Do you have any sources on this?

[Phi for All]

I don't buy the part where having sex is natural for pre-pubescent kids. Girls used to marry at extremely young ages partly because they were lucky to live to reach 40. I just think anyone who is interested in involving kids in their sex life wants a malleable partner they can control and train, not not love and nurture.

 

Establishing a nation where it's OK for pedophiles to raise kids to have sex with isn't about what's good for the kids and I think we as a society have lost touch with what is best for kids amongst the clamor about what's safe for kids. We all know sex complicates a relationship; why does a 9-year-old need the added complication that some kids twice their age find almost impossible? You'd have a better chance of establishing a nation of people who want to take drugs and be cruel to animals.

As I get older, I find I'm less and less picky about what I consider "beautiful" in youth. Girls that I wouldn't have touched with a 10 foot pole in high school, I find quite attractive now. It seems as though, youth, itself, is beautiful.

You're older so you're including more attributes into your consideration of beauty. They are more attractive to you now because you didn't appreciate how a certain smile crinkles up a cute nose, or how attractive bare shoulders can be, or how an intelligent conversation makes you notice the gold flecks in green eyes. In our youth we are looking for fewer and more obvious attributes.