What is a pedophile?

[Sayonara]

So, if your saying your gay, then its different than what I am against. You are lucky. Consider this.....suppose the man was worried that when he had to leave that you may say something to your dad who would have called the police. He could have killed you to prevent that.

What, because leaving the scene of a child murder is less troublesome than leaving with the vague threat of a barely believable tale being told some time later?

 

You have some funny ideas Bettina.

[Sayonara]

I want to say I admire all who are posting in this controversial thread for their tact' date=' insightful comments and good judgement. This could have so easily degenerated into a flame war long ago. Kudos to all.

 

...

 

If it gets opened again, I would remind those posting from both sides that this is a science forum, hence we need citation and studies referenced. There are plenty of places on the web to discuss personal sexual opinions.[/quote']

Seconded.

 

I am reopening this thread simply because I don't see any reason for it to be closed at this time.

 

This thread does not need "It's just wrong" comments. Please refer to the questions posed in the original post if you forget what the discussion is:

Do you think they are insane?

Do you think they are repeating a cycle of abuse?

Could pedophilia simply be another sexual preference?

I realise Corel asked for people's views on pedophilia, but this is a science site and we pride ourselves on being a forum for rational discourse rather than a house of clucking hens.

 

Personally I see having several pedophiles posting in a thread about the nature of pedophilia to be a distinct advantage, rather than an opportunity to express distaste. I'd suggest that those who do not like the content of the thread simply stop reading it.

[Merle Noir]

Seconded.

 

I am reopening this thread simply because I don't see any reason for it to be closed at this time.

 

This thread does not need "It's just wrong" comments. Please refer to the questions posed in the original post if you forget what the discussion is:

 

I realise Corel asked for people's views on pedophilia' date=' but this [i']is[/i] a science site and we pride ourselves on being a forum for rational discourse rather than a house of clucking hens.

 

Personally I see having several pedophiles posting in a thread about the nature of pedophilia to be a distinct advantage, rather than an opportunity to express distaste. I'd suggest that those who do not like the content of the thread simply stop reading it.

 

 

Thank you Sayonara³, I was a bit surprised to read the reasoning for closing the thread when I went to post last night. I was not surprised as I am used to being banned, or other wise forced to keep quiet so people don't have their point of view challenged and with other Pedophiles joining in I can understand the reactions and concerns that have likely been raised. However in reading the reason for closing the thread I could not help but thing if discussion of Pedophilia which is listed as a paraphilia on APA's DSM then where possibly could be a better location to discuss the topic then a Psychiatry/Psychology section of a science forum.

 

I saved the post I wrote last night while this was being posted and it does have references to studies. Being new here I'm not sure what extent things need to be referenced I have the studies and papers sited and can add links if need be but currently do not have them linked to any internet sources.

 

I know I said I would keep quiet in this thread, and I know what I am going to say can get me suspended, but after reading all the posts, I just about can keep from throwing up.

 

Well I would hope that anything you've said in this reply doesn't get you suspended. I don't see anything here that would be deserving of such action.

 

You pedophiles can try to gloss this over with links and smooth talking and you can try to make it sound acceptable. You can also try to make it sound like your helping the child find his way in life, but....the fact is, you pedohiles are nothing more than grown adults trying to talk a little kid into having sex with you.

 

Well such pedophiles do exist, there is no way I can deny their existence, and it pains me deeply to have to be associated with such creeps, but what do you actually know about pedophiles. More then likely my guess would be its based on what you've read about sex offenders. Things based on Myths junk sceince and lazy reporting or just plain bad reporting in the media. To base your opinion of heterosexuals solely on abusive spouses and rapists and you'd have not much better opinion of heterosexuals. However everyone knows heterosexuals so news reports of abuse and rape get adjusted for our life experiences and put into a more accurate truth. Same can be said of Homosexuals who abuse their partners at much the same rate as heterosexuals and are certainly not immune from rape either. While homosexuals are not as well known to everyone I think it safe to say in todays society most everyone knows at least a few people we can identify as homosexuals. Again we can counter negative reports we here about homosexuals with our knowledge of what most homosexuals are really like.

 

In the case of homosexuals it was not many decades ago that in most countries that this was not the case. Homosexuals where accused of rape told they are sick and need to get help. Society demanded that therapists change and cure homosexuals police would root them out arrest them for commiting a crime. if your not familiar with how things where prior to Stonewall in the US read this for a brief discription. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/06/23/DD33GAY.DTL

 

I especially like this bit:

 

"1964: CONTAGION IN THE HAIGHT

 

A resident fresh from battling a crosstown freeway turned his attention to a gay movie house in Haight-Ashbury: ``Any form of deviation, sexual or freeway, is not good for this neighborhood.'' Another resident was ``afraid for our children. Homosexuality is disease, a contagious one.'' "

 

Now certainly pedophilia is different then Homosexuality. They are not identical as is plainly obvious. I would not try to say that because a homosexual can have sex with an adult partner that a pedophile should be allowed to have sex with a child. However pedophiles, like it used to be for homosexuals, are subject to outrageous misinformtion. I read comments about pedophilia even in this forum, a Science forum, that are about as scientifically based as the comment above about homosexuality being contagious. I can laugh about the homosexual comments because it is no longer accepted by people as the truth. Pedophiles are shunned and hated, but we are not really known, which is pretty understandable the biggest fear is the fear of the unknown. You probably know a great many pedophiles that you love respect and care for but are unaware of their pedophilia. Studies have indicated that over 25% of men have some degree of pedophilia.(Hall et al., 1995.) Thats not to say that all +25% are preferentially attracted but rather that they have some measureable level of arousal to children. In terms of preferential attraction prison based studies indicate about .5% however these are very unreliable as they are ONLY convicted sex offenders. (Feierman, 1990a) by comparison a University of New Mexico theory predicts 7 to 10% of men are preferentially attracted. (feierman, 1990a) However you look at it, its a large portion of society and as I say likely you know some Pedophiles that you respect but don't know it. Interestingly enough a number of studies indicate that most sex offenders are not preferentially attracted to children.(Freund, 1981; Okami & Goldberg, 1992) Many engage in Sexual behavior with children for situational problems like marital problems, alcoholism or unavailability of Adult partners(Howells, 1981; Sandfort, 1987.)

 

I'm certain that you like most people don't want kids to come to any harm especially any kind of long term type harm. Unfortunately the hatred of pedophiles effectively may fuel exactly that. Thats not to say society is to blame people have to take responsibility for their actions and when they do something wrong take the consequences. However when society is creating conditions where that wrong is easier justify to ones self that also needs to be stopped.

 

Thats my concern here, its why I value honesty so much and why I come to forums like this and talk about myself the pedophiles I know and the problems. Ramin talked earlier about isolation, and while I'm not completely sure he and I are talking about the same thing isolation is a problem and even a theory on pedophilia. The actual theory is Isolated minority syndrome (Fog, 1992.) Not physical isolation but a self imposed mental isolation resulting from stigmatism associated with being hated and villainized by society. Pedophiles at a very early age become aware of the hatred that society has for them. The response to this hatred is to close off contact with others put up emotional barriers to keep the hatred out. Unfortunately these are the worst things that can be done. Behind these self imposed walls people can rationalize all kinds of things. When I was 13 I used to say hey sex is fun I like sex all boys naturally like sex so whats the big deal. (I won't get into the rest of my rationalization as it is not very clean) Unfortunately the only one that heard these ideas where the famous trio me, myself, and I. Considering the potential that this rationalizing in a box can result in, and the prevalence of pedophilia its a wonder that we don't see more sex offenders. Especially if the studies indicating most sex offenders are not preferentially attracted to minors is true.

 

However as I see it the isolation problem does not end with pedophiles. Pedophiles isolate ourselves from society to protect ourselves from the hatred directed towards us. This in turn means society does not know what or whom a pedophile really is and does not know what makes a person a child molester. When science can not study something we tragically see all to often myths and misconceptions are bound to arise. This just fuels more hatred and more isolation and more fear.

 

There are many theories on Pedophilia, and I think in terms of preferentially attracted pedophiles that offend the isolation theory is pretty good. However I do believe the studies showing most sex offenders to be non-preferentially attracted is also true. At first I found it hard to believe but when I considered that when your on the edge and your dominant attraction is to someone socially acceptable you won't dwell on this other aspect as much. The result is that when an opportunity arises a non-preferentially attracted person will likely not have spent the time to consider the proper response. The result is that emotions and desires that have been repressed, denied, and or ignored take over. People can do just about anything and if we know of a problem we can take steps to fix them we can minimize risks all kinds of things. But sadly when it comes to pedophilia people prefer to stick their head in the sand allow fear to drive witch hunt type behavior.

[5614]

When the thread was closed I suppose it was only natural for a few people to continue it using other methods... PMs, emails etc

 

Anyway, this was a reply to something ezekiel23 said, I don't want to quote the whole thing in case they do not want to, but there are two short quotes (in grey):

 

I think that you sound like the kind of person who'd possibly work with children, just because you like the reward of the childrens trust and you like children around you. From your PM you seem to sound like (are you male or female?) the big brother/sister who's just trying to be nice to a younger sibling. If that is the case then I don't think there's anything wrong with you (not meant in a horrible way!).

 

You say:

"kids don't feel love and sex naturally, it's still something they can enjoy if they're introduced to it"

I think that that is a bit controversial. Kids of that age shouldn't really be introduced to that kind of thing, I mean, it's in their nature to occassioanlly snuggle up to older people, but theres no love or sexual feelings or intentions there.

 

You also said:

"I have had a couple of 'relationships' (yeah, I know I can barely call them that but it's the closest i get) where the kid has really become very very affectionate to me - ALMOST sexually, but never actually getting there."

Now I don't know how far the "almost" has gone, but recognising that you can barely call them relations and that it never should really "get there" is quite important.

 

I don't really mind a bit of an age gap in lovers, my parents are 8 years apart in age... what I do mind is adults trying to love children in a relationship kind of way. The age of puberty is when love first comes into a human life and that is the problem in that it is too late for you.

 

The difference between affection and caring and true love is quite different... being affectionate and caring for younger people is fine -- but love as in a relationship or sexual relationship is just wrong in that it is not natural or normal for someone that age and it is wrong to force it onto them or introduce them to it (however you want to phrase it).

[Dak]

Pedophiles at a very early age become aware of the hatred that society has for them

im confused by this. how can a paedophile know he/she is a paedophile at a very early age? when i was 11, i was attrackted to adults but also to other 11 year olds, did that make me a young paedophile when i was young, despite the fact that im not a paedophile as an adult? how would a young paedophile know that he was a young paedophile and not, say, a normal pubescent boy who's attraction would shift exclusively to women as he got older?

[YT2095]

I have 3 basic questions for Merle, borne of pure curiosity.

 

I assume you`re male, and so do you have Any feelings of a sexual nature towards women at all? and if it`s only little boys (Male) would you consider yourself Gay as well?

 

and 3`rdly (as the previous was basicly 2 questions), do you ever consider what damage mentaly/physicaly that the child suffers, or is it a purely selfish motive?

[Merle Noir]

im confused by this. how can a paedophile know he/she is a paedophile at a very early age? when i was 11, i was attrackted to adults but also to other 11 year olds, did that make me a young paedophile when i was young, despite the fact that im not a paedophile as an adult? how would a young paedophile know that he was a young paedophile and not, say, a normal pubescent boy who's attraction would shift exclusively to women as he got older?

 

Good question and I suppose I did over simplify that statement a bit. In my own case at 12 I was worried I was gay. I even told my best friend I was scared I was gay. He told me that I should not worry it may be something I'll grow out of. What I did not say was something I could not fully admit to myself till about a year later. I was the oldest child in my class yet there was only a couple boys in my class I might say I was attracted to and they where toward the younger end of the age range in my class. However I noticed that I was much more attracted to the younger brothers of many of my class mates. I did hold on to hope that I would grow out of it but as I grew older it became more and more obvious that I was not growing out of it and more difficult to deny that my attraction was not to my own age group.

 

Other pedophiles also relate that they realized that they where not simply gay but also attracted to boys younger then their own age group. In fact a youthful sex offender is defined by the AACAP (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry) as someone having sex including consensual sex with someone 2 to 5 years younger. My attraction at 12 was not to other 12yo's but to kids more then 2 years younger then my own age group. BTW 1/3 to 1/2 of sex offenses against children are carried out by juveniles. -http://www.csom.org/pubs/juvbrf10.html-

 

So to look back at your question again I did not fully know that I was a pedophile I was aware that I might be do to a few things I found unusual but I was hopeful that I may outgrow it. Especially as I am and was, attracted to women I held on to hope till I was probably around 17 or 18 that heterosexuality would come to be a more dominant attraction. However at 10 or so I began to withdraw from my friendships. I was not aware of being a pedophile but I know I started associating with kids in my own age group less and less, in preferance for boys about 2 grades below me. By 13 I had only one friend who is still my Best Friend to this day. He is in my own age group in fact 30 days younger then me so a bit of an exception. He remained my friend largely because I can tell him anything but he does not pressure me and try to pry deeper to find out what might be behind a comment. My privacy is something I still closely guard and hate people that don't give me enough space and privacy.

[YT2095]

you CAN expect questions regarless of this "Privacy" however.

 

simply due to the fact that YOU chose to come here and share with us, so it`s only natural that we`ll ask you questions about it

[ezekiel23]

.

[Merle Noir]

I have 3 basic questions for Merle' date=' borne of pure curiosity.

 

I assume you`re male, and so do you have Any feelings of a sexual nature towards women at all? and if it`s only little boys (Male) would you consider yourself Gay as well?[/quote'] Well I probably partially answered this before I saw this post but yes I am attracted to women although most women I don't find very attractive so it is a pretty minor aspect I am clearly preferentially attracted to boys. I don't really consider myself gay as I find grown men repulsive. I do consider myself Homosexual which some people have a hard time understanding. I think of the word Gay as being more specific to a life style and specific age group while I see homosexual as being broader and not limiting in age of attraction. But I think ultimately the best explanation is that I'm a homosexual pedophile. I did experiment with gay sex in trying to hope I could transfer my pedophilic feelings in to more acceptable gay feelings. It did nothing to that effect and if anything has confused me as the sex is enjoyable so long as I don't have to see the man that is an instant turn off.

 

and 3`rdly (as the previous was basicly 2 questions), do you ever consider what damage mentaly/physicaly that the child suffers, or is it a purely selfish motive?

 

Well yes I am completely concerned about what damage the child may suffer. Thats why I won't engage in sex even when the opportunity has presented itself and yes it has presented itself. As an adult I know where things will lead even when the child may or may not, and I simply change the activity or excuse myself from the child's company or even just say no usually with an explanation as to why I can't. Like I've said my relationship with boys is purely that of a mentor, or a good friend. I can not think of any damage mental or physical that could come from the relationships I have. Considering that the relationships last well beyond my attraction and remain the same platonic friendships that they where from the start any damage or harm that may come will have nothing to do with my being a pedophile.

[Merle Noir]

you CAN expect questions regarless of this "Privacy" however.

 

simply due to the fact that YOU chose to come here and share with us' date=' so it`s only natural that we`ll ask you questions about it [/quote']

 

Yes I think that this is bigger then my desire for privacy. However I do have the privacy of anonymity in exchange so its not totally uncomfortable. As well the initial desire for privacy was fear I'd be outed as a pedophile and attacked on that factor alone. I have come to face that fear and since you already know I'm a pedophile I can be pretty open to you. It's people that don't know me as such that I fear they may find out and how they may react.

[Merle Noir]

also' date=' if you quote someone, could you please reference them eg put (j.bloggs) after the quote. (big deals in the scientifical community, for legal reasons and courtacy)

"Originally Posted by unnatributed (naughty naughty!)

"In view of the pedophile's burden, the necessity of denying himself the experience of love and sexuality, he deserves respect, rather than contempt.""

pedantry aside (no pun intended) i actually agree wholehartedly with the above quote. noone can help how they feel, but everyone can help how they act. if you are sexually attracted to kids - fair enough, you cant help that. but i believe that you have a (very difficult) duty to refrain from acting upon you sex drive, and if you do that - fair play.[/quote']

 

Hi Dak, and everyone else. Unfortunately, I don't know who that quote is by. I came across it while surfing the web and I don't think the author was mentioned.

 

Hmmm I suspect I know where you got the quote However giving proper credit needs a bit more research as I can't tell you who said it either. However it appears to be from a book that is the basis of a report by Gunter Schmidt Universitat Hamburg, Germany. However it may very well be that it was Gunter Schmidt that wrote it and someone else possible this web sight is sourcing him in a way that I find confusing. Assuming Gunter Schmidt is referencing a book in this details paper the name of the author of the book does not appear to be given. The only reference is the Author. I'm sure with a bit of digging the name of the Author can be discovered The source that I have it from is -http://www.mhamic.org/sources/schmidt.htm- and the full qoute can be found at the very bottom of the page.

[ezekiel23]

hehe merle - ya just too used to protecting links

[Dak]

Then the people arguing against underage sex get in with the philosophical, psychological and moral arguments - children are 'not ready' for sex, they cannot possibly know what they are doing, they can easily be coerced into doing things they will regret later. Other people play the 'sex: only to be used in conjunction with love' card.

anyone, of any age, could not be ready for sex -- and anyone, of any age, who is not ready for sex may also be not aware of what they are doing/may not be experiensed enough to make a well informed disision.

 

the older someone gets, the more 'ready' for sex they become; the older someone gets, the more experiensed they become and so the better at making desisions they will become; and the older someone gets the more mistakes they will have made and so more care they will put into any descisions that they have to make. (apologies for the gramma)

 

as previously stated, theres no magical event that happens on your (insert contry of residence's age of consent here)th birthday which magically transforms a person from a sexually unready child into a sexually ready adult -- however the older the age group, the more unlikely they are to be ready and/or make an error of judgment as to their readyness; conversly, the younger the age group, the more likely they are to be unready and the more likely they are to make an error of judgement as to their readyness.

 

most people here, reguardless of their sexual orientation, have accepted that having sex before being mentally ready is a detrimental experiense, and i would further sujjest that it is a significantly detrimental experience (id site some studys but im quite buisy at the mo with uni work, can nock off a quick responce but cant hunt around on pubmed my appologies).

 

imagine a very very young child (hensforth, 'a child of a certain age')

 

a child of a certain age is quite likely -- not certain, but quite likely -- to not be ready for sex. the statement also holds true if you replase 'not ready for sex' with 'be inexperiensed enough to make the wrong assesment of their readyness and the risks' or 'be inexperiensed enough to not put enough care into the desision' and, by logical extention, 'that the experience will be detrimental to them'

 

this is why childeren of a certain age are prohibited from having sex, and adults are prohibited from having sex with them - to protect them from making mistakes.

 

now imagine an adult. an adult is more likely -- not certain, but more likely -- to be sexually ready and also able to correctly assess their readyness, and so less likely to make a mistake. whilst it is by no means guaranteed that an adult will not err, there comes an age when you (ie community, govournment etc) have to just say 'ok, your an addult, you cannot be molly-coddled all your life -- we looked after you when you were young, we're still here if you need us, but most of it is up to you'.

 

which means there has to be a transitional age, whereby the govournment/society stops protecting the person and desides that it is time to allow them to make their own desisions/risk assessments.

 

this is the age of consent. whilst it would be better to have a system which desides on a case by case, this would be unfeasable. so there is an age of consent instead. it is not perfect, it prohibits some people from having sex who dont need to be prohibited, it allows some people to have sex when they are unready, but it is better that any alternative and should be adhered to for the saftey of childeren in general, reguardless of their own/the paedophiles assesment of their readyness for sex, for the simple reason of the magnitude of the chance that a mistake is being made.

 

its much like holding a childs hand as they cross the road. they may not like it, and they may consider themselves to be old enough to cross unaided, however reguardless of their protestations their hand is held untill they are deemed to be old enough that the guardian can let go. And this is for their own safety.

 

i'll finish with an analogy. when i was 12, me and my friends started raiding our parents alcohol cabinet, and would get drunk on 'vodsky', which for those of you who didnt drink when you were young/have never been a student, is a mixture of any spirit available, usually primeraly wisky and vodka, hense the name. i knew full well that the AoC for alcohol consumption was 18, but thought 'hey, sod the rules, i can make my own desisions, and yes they bloody well will be informed cos just because im a kid doesnt mean im an idiot so licensing laws' etc. and, in line with my 'making a well informed desision', i was careful not to get drunk too oftern, for fear of doing damage to my body.

 

'arent i smart' i thought, as i proseeded to get completely and utterly wankered out of my face (on vodsky, remember) every fortnight ('which isnt too oftern - how mature and responsible am i being' thought i)

 

now, after four years of this when i was 16, after a particulaly heavy party, my liver got a bit annoyed with me, my eyes started to go yellow, and my stomach started to expel most of what was put in it. it turns out, much to my annoyanse, that irregular binge drinking is much more damaging than regulaly drinking in moderation. luckaly, i got better and could eat properly again after about a month, and as far as i can tell i suffered no permanant damage from my mistake -- although it was over a year untill i could drink again (the smell made me sick -- i didnt even try for over about a year).

 

the moral of the analogy? the younger you are, the more prone to mistakes you are. not guaranteed to make those mistakes, but inclined enough to warrent intervention by those more responsible and experiensed.

[Dak]

Hmmm I suspect I know where you got the quote However giving proper credit needs a bit more research as I can't tell you who said it either. However it appears to be from a book that is the basis of a report by Gunter Schmidt Universitat Hamburg, Germany. However it may very well be that it was Gunter Schmidt that wrote it and someone else possible this web sight is sourcing him in a way that I find confusing. Assuming Gunter Schmidt is referencing a book in this details paper the name of the author of the book does not appear to be given. The only reference is the Author. I'm sure with a bit of digging the name of the Author can be discovered The source that I have it from is -http://www.mhamic.org/sources/schmidt.htm- and the full qoute can be found at the very bottom of the page.

as a scientist, iv been trained to be overly paranoid of the "you didnt referense daemon", which lives in our lab coat pokets and gouges out our eyes if we forget to referense (so that we cant see the evil 'you plagarised my client lawer' when hes coming).

 

a quick link/referense to, say, a book in which it is published will usualy do the job, by convinsing the world you arent trying to claim the work as your own, and allowing any lawers/daemons to find the original sourse, even if they do have to follow your sourse to the book, follow the books referense to another book etc.

 

with reports and studies, the citation should be given so that others can check out the report in full if they want to to check your interpretation of it and also the validity of the study (no personal offense intended - as scientists we are trained to be even more wary of the big, bad 'idiot incompetent scientist' than we are of the daemon)

 

or a less insane response - referense studies, and either referense a quote or make it clear your quoting someone and cannot remember who it is. just for legal reasons more than anything. like i said, scientists get overly paranoid.

 

but its not nessesary for you to go on a quest just to find one attribution -- sory if my 'oi referens stuff' comment made it seem like you had to.

[ezekiel23]

.

[Dak]

If it is not abuse, then I do not understand exactly from where the trauma arises.

mistakes can be traumatic. the AoC is just as much about when people are old enough to have accumulated enough wisdom and experiense to make there own disisions correctly as it is about when a person is old enough to be ready for sex.

[Dak]

From what I've heard many studies in this area are heavily biased towards the majority opinion - 'scientists are humans too' is something being said on another board as we speak...And I am inclined to believe that this would naturally be the case - if you are expecting to confirm a result experimentally, you [shouldn't but probably] will design tests to show up that result. I would imagine that the scope for biased results in a science such as psychology is massive compared to another such as physics, in which results will always be X however strongly another result might originally have been expected - e.g. Rutherford scattering.

of course the majority oppinion could always be based on the results..?

 

i dont know what the protocols in psycology are to prevent bias. i know that they exist, but i cant comment on how good they are. although id like to point out that it was psycologists themselves that desighned the double-blind test which most scientists are required to perform if possible, that explained the plascebo effect and its relevance in scientifical studies involving humans, and spotted alot of other annoying facts that scientist have to take into account in order to get accurate, representitive and unbiased results, so i assume that the anti-bias protocols would be relatively effective in the field of psycology

 

::EDIT::oh and desighning tests to show up a result which then fail to show up that result can be almost as good as desighning a test to show up the opposite result, and i believe (but do not know) that psycologists are alot more inclined than most scientists to publish negative results.

[Merle Noir]

i'll finish with an analogy. when i was 12' date=' me and my friends started raiding our parents alcohol cabinet, and would get drunk on 'vodsky', which for those of you who didnt drink when you were young/have never been a student, is a mixture of any spirit available, usually primeraly wisky and vodka, hense the name. i knew full well that the AoC for alcohol consumption was 18, but thought 'hey, sod the rules, i can make my own desisions, and yes they bloody well will be informed cos just because im a kid doesnt mean im an idiot so licensing laws' etc. and, in line with my 'making a well informed desision', i was careful not to get drunk too oftern, for fear of doing damage to my body.

 

'arent i smart' i thought, as i proseeded to get [b']completely and utterly[/b] wankered out of my face (on vodsky, remember) every fortnight ('which isnt too oftern - how mature and responsible am i being' thought i)

 

now, after four years of this when i was 16, after a particulaly heavy party, my liver got a bit annoyed with me, my eyes started to go yellow, and my stomach started to expel most of what was put in it. it turns out, much to my annoyanse, that irregular binge drinking is much more damaging than regulaly drinking in moderation. luckaly, i got better and could eat properly again after about a month, and as far as i can tell i suffered no permanant damage from my mistake -- although it was over a year untill i could drink again (the smell made me sick -- i didnt even try for over about a year).

 

the moral of the analogy? the younger you are, the more prone to mistakes you are. not guaranteed to make those mistakes, but inclined enough to warrent intervention by those more responsible and experiensed.

 

Dak I got bad news for you. Despite attempt after attempt after attempt from pedophiles that oppose AoC laws, your story there has done more to make me thing AoC laws are wrong then any attempt they have made. I haven't changed my mind yet but you gave me food for thought in a way I'm sure you never intended. I think from my previous posts I've made it clear but I'll repeat that I pretty much agree 100% with you about AoC laws.

 

However I totally disagree with your analogy on drinking and in applying that to AoC laws makes me wonder if we're wrong. Growing up my parents offered me wine with Sunday night dinner. I was often allowed a beer at family get together's or other events. My parents never let me drink more then one glass so I would not get drunk but would let me drink when ever I wanted, which really was never, but I would accept when it was offered. When most my friends and class mates started to drink they did so behind their parents back. After so many years of being denied alcohol when they had a chance they drank very excessively. I have always felt that these age limits in terms of Alcohol especially when aggressively enforced do more to make a Pandora's box effect then to protect those not ready. Reading your story and your post I can't help and think you learned about drinking on your own there was no Adult holding your hand helping you cross the street. In my case my parents drank with me for many years before I ever ventured out to drink on my own I can't remember my first drink I was offered thats how long I have been drinking. At first it was a sip or two but about 11 or 12 I was allowed a glass of my own and a few years later a full glass. When I did drink on my own I mostly drank a small amount. I did eventually drink too much copying my friends lead but I returned to drinking a small reasonable amounts. My best friend has now given up alcohol all together for fear he may become an alcoholic a few other class mates and friends still drink excessively or have given up alcohol all together because it was such a problem in their life. My Nieces and Nephew where also offered alcohol at a lower age then I originally was and now in their late teens they still turn down beer and wine at dinner.

 

Why should it be any different with sex. If age limits for drinking creates a Pandora's box effect by denying the child access to something they think they are ready for then why would it not have the same effect on sex. To use your holding the child's hand analogy no one was there holding your hand. You ended up crossing the street of alcohol alone with out someone holding your hand. Your first experience with Alcohol was entirely on your own. I'd also say that the reason you so wanted to try it out was precisely because it was prohibited. The law had all the right intentions no doubt about it, but the right intentions did not help you avoid the dangers it actually left you abandoned to find out these dangers alone or in the company of other inexperienced people. The result nearly, or if not nearly then could, have cost you your life. Great, good intentions you just have to ignore those unintended consequences.

 

So why should things be all that different for children and sex. My first offer of sex was when I was probably 9 I turned it down. I can't recall my parents ever teaching me to say no it was just not of any interest. I understood it was sex although nothing really beyond that. At 9 I know for myself I was certainly not ready to have sex and since the offer was from a boy almost my same age there would not have been much experience (actually I suspect he was very experienced but don't really know) We deny kids sex, why? so we can hold onto a Myth of purity and innocence. Are we really doing them any favors by making sex into such a taboo and mysterious Pandora's box. As well what are we really protecting them from. The only thing I can come up with is the over reaction likely to occur when adults learn of whats happening. Thats not a problem with sex thats a problem with adults. Disease is a possibility but heck we are trying to teach them to use condoms I suspect they are going to be much more likely to use them if they grow up using them.

 

Now I must say again I am throwing this out just as a thought that occurred to me. I have not fully back down from my position that AoC laws must remain at least till attitudes change. However look at the history a bit. AoC laws started to occur around the late 1800's to early 1900's. They largely came about due to labor laws as children put out of work wanted to make money and sex was a great way to do it. Over the decades since AoC laws have climbed in most countries from 12 in most places to 16, 18 even 21 in one location. But then a new problem, well probably an old problem but a growing problem of teen age mothers. So the result is we have to start teaching them about sex. But who teaches them and what do we teach them. Abstinence or Condom use? do we teach just Heterosexual sex or Homosexual sex? do we tell them masturbation is OK or tell them Masturbation is a terrible thing? Do parents teach them or the Government? How young do we teach them? Of course all the while kids are experimenting with sex. 17yo becomes a registered sex offenders for getting caught with his 16yo girlfriend. 12yo's are sent to sex offender therapy for mutual masturbation with a friend. 9yo's are arrested when caught looking at each other under a classroom desk. A 15yo is sent threw Aversion therapy for playing inappropriately with his little brother. All now justified as protecting our kids from the dirty pedophile in the park, or in a chatroom these days. Are we really protecting them or are we scarring them with lessons of sex is dirty, be ashamed of your body. The intention used to Justify AoC laws is well and good just like the intention behind Drinking age limits but what are the real effects of this.

 

This is rather lacking in references I realize largely because I'm kind of hypothesizing here I believe I can back up most of what I say but I'll need to research this a bit. As that may take a while I'm throwing this out for criticism and thoughts.

[Bettina]

Last time I checked sexual abuse of children and murder were separate crimes. You can't hope to rationally consider one thing if you are tainting it with your emotive responses to something else.

 

What I tried to say, is that if a "person" sexually molests a child, he should be sent to prison and never let out.

 

I went on to say, that if that same "person" killed the child, then he should get the death sentence instead.

 

Bettina

[Bettina]

What' date=' because leaving the scene of a child murder is less troublesome than leaving with the vague threat of a barely believable tale being told some time later?

 

You have some funny ideas Bettina.[/quote']

 

Sadly...your wrong....

 

DNA evidence can now track the pedophile/child molester better than ever before. See the PDF.

http://www.denverda.org/legalResource/Criminal%20Histories%20of%20SO%20ided%20by%20DNA.pdf

 

An excerpt.....

 

Subjects. -Offenders identified through DNA matches (n = 61). Forty of the suspects (65%) identified through DNA matches were linked to a sex-related offense (rape, sodomy, indecent exposure).

 

So, it would be much cleaner to just kill and bury the child deep in the woods like they are doing now. It's rare that they are let go.

Bettina

[Sayonara]

What I tried to say' date=' is that if a "person" sexually molests a child, he should be sent to prison and never let out.

I went on to say, that if that same "person" killed the child, then he should get the death sentence instead.[/quote']

 

Yes, I know you said that. Then I read it and replied.

 

I think perhaps you missed the point. Arbitrary "shoulds" that are based on your personal emotional reaction to sexual molestation of children are not helpful to a discussion into the causes of pedophilia, and neither are arbitrary "shoulds" that are based on your personal emotional reaction to murder.

 

The reason for this is that neither murder nor sexual molestation are the same thing as pedophilia (although the latter almost certainly overlaps, and it's true one can be both a murderer and a pedophile (and not necessarily in concert)), so all your post is doing is poisoning the well - a logical fallacy and generally not a nice thing to do.

[Sayonara]

Sadly...your wrong....

Wrong about what exactly?

 

 

DNA evidence can now track the pedophile/child molester better than ever before. See the PDF.

http://www.denverda.org/legalResource/Criminal%20Histories%20of%20SO%20ided%20by%20DNA.pdf

 

An excerpt.....

 

Subjects. -Offenders identified through DNA matches (n = 61). Forty of the suspects (65%) identified through DNA matches were linked to a sex-related offense (rape, sodomy, indecent exposure).

 

So, it would be much cleaner to just kill and bury the child deep in the woods like they are doing now. It's rare that they are let go.

Bettina

You appear to think that I said something controversial and interesting like "pedophiles never murder people", and that you are now arguing against it.

[Dak]

are your saying that if child sex was out in the open and ok it could be better monitered, guided and regulated? interesting... i guess thats true, but not enough to outweigh the downsides, i feel.

 

and a differense with alcohol v sex: (in the uk) it is legal for a child of 5+ to drink alcohol, the idea being that this means their parents can choose when they drink or not and then at 18 the desision becomes the persons rather than their parents. sex is just <16=no, [math]\geq[/math]16 = yes. i suppose i could maybe see the validity having two ages of consent, one at which you can have sex with your parents permission and one when you can diside yourself, eg in america it could be <16 no sex, 16-18 sex with parents permission, 18+ own desision. that might work? (just throwing some ideas around)

 

and by the way, my parents did let me drink occasionally, and even let me get a bit drunk at christmas's, and tought me all about moderation, but i still went out and did my liver in. if i was actually allowed to buy alcohol myself, id probably be dead . and my parents found out, and made me give my word that i wouldnt take alcohol from there again, and then i started brewing my own -- some people are hell bent on making the mistake, but we shouldnt make it easy for them.

 

as i said before, i would have been extatic had a female paedophile found me when i was 11, and to be honest looking back im 99% sure i wouldnt have regretted it. as it was, i lost my verginity at 17 (over AoC in uk) and boy did i regret that insident in almost every consievable way. and i dont think id have made that mistake had i have been 'educated' at the age of 11. BUT as i also have said, had a male adult have approached me sexually, id have probably said yes and looking back im 99% sure i would have regretted it. so all in all, i think the AoC (and the fact that i was ugly and spotty) served me well. i extend the same logic to the AoC pertaining to all childeren as a whole.

 

17yo becomes a registered sex offenders for getting caught with his 16yo girlfriend. 12yo's are sent to sex offender therapy for mutual masturbation with a friend. 9yo's are arrested when caught looking at each other under a classroom desk. A 15yo is sent threw Aversion therapy for playing inappropriately with his little brother. All now justified as protecting our kids from the dirty pedophile in the park, or in a chatroom these days. Are we really protecting them or are we scarring them with lessons of sex is dirty, be ashamed of your body.

i feel that you may be picking the worst examples available here. i know in england its not standard to register a 16yo for having sex with his 15yo girlfriend (AoC in UK = 16). but yeah, 'sex=dirty' does nothing to promote a healthy, well balanced and glitch free mind. even childeren should be told the truith about sex. but, i still maintain, not have it.

[Sayonara]

Let me put it another way:

 

You coming up with a possible motive this chap might have had for murdering a child doesn't actually make him more of a murderer, nor does it somehow make pedophiles more motivated to murder than anybody else who might happen along.

 

Suggesting it, therefore, in the context of "reasons why pedopilia should go away", is intellectually dishonest.

 

 

This is why we have laws. To stop emotive flapping around from tearing society to shreds.