What is a pedophile?

[BourBohemian]

So should you become a parent, may I assume that you would be totally cool with a 34 year old man having sex with your 11 year old son or daughter?

 

One would have to question their rectitudes first, especially in regard to a young person's personal freedom - where intervention on an otherwise healthy relationship could definately leave a sour taste at best, traumatization at worst. If parents want to be hysterical, that is there bidding. That's why there's people like Bill Maher to deflate such a subject with not so politically correct satire.

[Dak]

how about: if you were a parent, how would you feel if your 11 year old son told you that hed been having sex with a 34 year old man, and that hed desided that he didnt want to any more and was upset that hed done it atall, and he only did it in the first plase because he the man said it was a good thing to do etc - would you not be annoyed that the man had taken advantage of your son?

[Coral Rhedd]

One would have to question their rectitudes first, especially in regard to a young person's personal freedom - where intervention on an otherwise healthy relationship could definately leave a sour taste at best, traumatization at worst. If parents want to be hysterical, that is there bidding. That's why there's people like Bill Maher to deflate such a subject with not so politically correct satire.

 

So, did the 32 year old man who "seduced" you seek your parents' permission first so that they, from their position as adults, could judge his "rectitude?"

[BourBohemian]

how about: if you were a parent, how would you feel if your 11 year old son told you that hed been having sex with a 34 year old man, and that hed desided that he didnt want to any more and was upset that hed done it atall, and he only did it in the first plase because he the man said it was a good thing to do etc - would you not be annoyed that the man had taken advantage of your son?

 

What you are describing is coercion and any sane person would be concerned

[BourBohemian]

So, did the 32 year old man who "seduced" you seek your parents' permission first so that they, from their position as adults, could judge his "rectitude?"

 

My parents in general are another story - they are homophobic Christians for one thing.

[Dak]

What you are describing is coercion and any sane person would be concerned

yes, and my consern is that, whilst adults can be quite resillient to coersion, childeren oftern cannot, and also are not always in the best position to make informed desisions about what is good for them - hence, a child who is not ready to have sex could quite easaly make the mistake of having sex, and so should be protected.

 

My parents in general are another story - they are homophobic Christians for one thing.

harsh.

[BourBohemian]

yes' date=' and my consern is that, whilst adults can be quite resillient to coersion, childeren oftern cannot, and also are not always in the best position to make informed desisions about what is good for them - hence, a child who is not ready to have sex could quite easaly make the mistake of having sex, and so should be protected.

 

 

harsh.[/quote']

 

Of course; coercion and molestation will always remain criminal in any civilized society - but why should consensual relations be persecuted if the relationship is clearly not pervasive and pathological? And I am talking about budding homosexual boys, here.

[Coral Rhedd]

My parents in general are another story - they are homophobic Christians for one thing.

 

That is unfortunate and you have my sympathy. Still, someone of true rectitude -- knowing that your parents would be the ones to have to put you back together if his affections messed you up -- would have consulted your parents.

 

We allow parents to have this sort of say over their children, not because we are imagining a bunch of ideal, kind, encouraging, and understanding parents, but because it is a system that supports individual freedom while acknowledging that the costs of parenting such as medical care, clothing, food, shelter, and higher education, are the parents' costs.

 

Governments also set all sorts of rules about when people may do certain things at certain ages. This is because they acknowledge that children need special care and protection.

[Dak]

Of course; coercion and molestation will always remain criminal in any civilized society - but why should consensual relations be persecuted if the relationship is clearly not pervasive and pathological? And I am talking about budding homosexual boys, here.

for the good of all childeren, the few cases where concential, non-damaging sex is possible are sacraficed. as i said before, most childeren cannot make the choice correctly, and most adults who engage with sex-with-childeren are disinclined to forgo sex merely because it is damaging to the child - hence, in most cases, it is bad.

 

anyway, its arguable that this 'budding' is a prosess that should come in its own natural time, and not be rushed by an adult.

[BourBohemian]

That is unfortunate and you have my sympathy. Still' date=' someone of true rectitude -- knowing that your parents would be the ones to have to put you back together if his affections messed you up -- would have consulted your parents.

 

We allow parents to have this sort of say over their children, not because we are imagining a bunch of ideal, kind, encouraging, and understanding parents, but because it is a system that supports individual freedom while acknowledging that the costs of parenting such as medical care, clothing, food, shelter, and higher education, are the parents' costs.

 

Governments also set all sorts of rules about when people may do certain things at certain ages. This is because they acknowledge that children need special care and protection.[/quote']

 

My parents would not have approved of the relationship out of a whole handful of very obvious rectitudes that I have opposed personally then, and oppose still now. At that, I am fairly libertarian and oppose Ageism. As such, I believe young people should be held responsible for the crimes they committ, able to decide which parent they wish to live with in a divorce proceeding, and who they wish to have as sexual partners. I do not believe that in the instance where the sexual contact is mutually desired that such relationships should be persecuted - given that the young person clearly confirms that he was willing. The current hysterical absolutism does not acknowledge this, hence the comparison to the Roman Inquisition.

[Dak]

compare: some people can drop acid on a regular basis and suffer no ill effects, but for most people taking acid runs a seriouse risk of causing psycological damage. also, people have demonstrated, time and time again, an inability to correctly assess the risks and accurately determine wether it would be safe for them to take acid or not. thus, acid is illegal; the rite of the few to enjoy a drug which would do them no harm is sacraficed for the good of the majority, for whom 1/acid would be damaging, and 2/would not be in a position whereby they could correctly* make the desision as to wether or not to take acid.

 

there are many such analogies - whilst a few childeren could have sex without it being a bad thing, many could not, and also could not notice this. the responsibility for correctly making the decision would fall upon the adult, which is much akin to letting the drug dealer decide wether someone is psycologically 'ready' to take acid, ie some will do whats rite, and forgo profit/sex if its in the best interests of the customer/child, but most will not.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

* ie, with a high probability of correctly determining wether or not the acid would psycologically harm them

[Dak]

The current hysterical absolutism does not acknowledge this, hence the comparison to the Roman Inquisition.

reguardless of anything else, i agree that we should be less hysterical. hysteria achieves nothing.

[Coral Rhedd]

I do not believe that in the instance where the sexual contact is mutually desired that such relationships should be persecuted - given that the young person clearly confirms that he was willing. [/color']

 

How would one go about determining the circumstances that I have highlighted in red?

[BourBohemian]

for the good of all childeren' date=' the few cases where concential, non-damaging sex is possible are sacraficed. as i said before, most childeren cannot make the choice correctly, and most adults who engage with sex-with-childeren are disinclined to forgo sex merely because it is damaging to the child - hence, in most cases, it is bad.

 

anyway, its arguable that this 'budding' is a prosess that should come in its own natural time, and not be rushed by an adult.[/quote']

 

What about in the many instances where an otherwise healthy relationship that is persecuted traumatizes the youth involved? Honestly, the worst thing that could have happened to me as a kid was if my older friend was caught. I would have been traumatized by the 'social service''s instilled rhetoric that I was a "victim"; and further shocked by the utter hysteria that my friend would have been subjected to. Frankly, thank God the sex police never found out.

[BourBohemian]

How would one go about determining the circumstances that I have highlighted in red?

 

Whether coercion was present or not.

[Dak]

how would you sujjest the issue be handled?

[Coral Rhedd]

Whether coercion was present or not.

 

A lollipop to bribe a three year old? Is that coercion?

[BourBohemian]

compare: some people can drop acid on a regular basis and suffer no ill effects' date=' but for most people taking acid runs a seriouse risk of causing psycological damage. also, people have demonstrated, time and time again, an inability to correctly assess the risks and accurately determine wether it would be safe for them to take acid or not. thus, acid is illegal; the rite of the few to enjoy a drug which would do them no harm is sacraficed for the good of the majority, for whom 1/acid would be damaging, and 2/would not be in a position whereby they could correctly* make the desision as to wether or not to take acid.

 

there are many such analogies - whilst a few childeren could have sex without it being a bad thing, many could not, and also could not notice this. the responsibility for correctly making the decision would fall upon the adult, which is much akin to letting the drug dealer decide wether someone is psycologically 'ready' to take acid, ie some will do whats rite, and forgo profit/sex if its in the best interests of the customer/child, but most will not.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

* ie, with a high probability of correctly determining wether or not the acid would psycologically harm them[/quote']

 

The point at hand - the Man/Boylove movement itself is subcultured to the gay movement - that is, homosexual men and boys who engage in mutually desired relationships. Boys who have clearly defined their sexuality and the apparent fabric of the relationship is that of a homo-erotic nature.

 

As I have said, people who are coercive and manipulative will always be guilty of criminal activity. However, it is an injustice to drag consensual relationships into the legal system to the dismay of both parties involved.

[Dak]

A lollipop to bribe a three year old? Is that coercion?

yes, concidering how receptive childeren are to 'act --> reward' behavioral enforsment, i would imagin that this would be quite common. so would this mean that they would be coersed, or are the kids just being hookers? or would they have seperate laws about not swaping sex for rewards for childeren as they do for adults.

 

remember what i said about japan recently having to bring in rules to cut down on the number of buisnissmen giving schoolgirls 'gifts' in return for sex.

[BourBohemian]

A lollipop to bribe a three year old? Is that coercion?

 

3 year-olds?

 

I'm talking about pubescent homosexual boys.

[Coral Rhedd]

3 year-olds?

 

I'm talking about pubescent homosexual boys.

 

Then you are practicing Ageism.

[Dak]

. However, it is an injustice to drag consensual relationships into the legal system to the dismay of both parties involved.

same as some people concider it an injustice to drag non-damaging drug use into the legal system, to the dismay of the drug-user. there are still valid reasons for doing so, however, and less people suffer this way than would the alternative way

[BourBohemian]

how would you sujjest the issue be handled?

 

Lets say my older friend was discovered and subjected to inquiry. How should it be handled? Instead of having him sent to prison and a therapist brainwashing me into a "victim"; it should be up to me to decide whether he was acting criminally or not.

[Dak]

which would work in your case, but imajine another, where the child is sufering from the relationship but, in his youthful inexperience, is failing to see this/has been convinced otherwize by the adult.

 

in that situation would your system not fail?

[BourBohemian]

Then you are practicing Ageism.

 

You might as well be imply that what's bad for toddlers must be bad for teenagers. It's a poor straw man's tactic.