What is a pedophile?

[Dak]

blimey, that was alot to read

Hey, I agree too. I am not trying to promote adult/child sex as such. I am only trying to defend the actions of people who by my standards did nothing wrong but in the eyes of the law are unqustionably criminals. I ask questions and people do not answer them. I still wish to know the ill effects adult/child sex has had on children (obviously not those who were subject to rape but to consensual sex),

the way i see it is this. in the uk, you are not allowed to drive a car if you have imbibed more than 2 units of alcohol in one 24 hour period (thats equivelent to one UK pint, or oooooooh about 27 of your american 'beers' ). now, this isnt to say that everyone who has drunk less than two units is sober enough to drive, or that everyone who has had over two units to drink isnt sober enough to drive. the logic behind the 2-unit limit is as thus:

 

at a certain level of drunkeness, people lose the ability to safely drive. their reaction speed and their ability to make sound judjements decreases to the point where the risk of an accident is unnaceptable. bear in mind that the repercussions of an accident can be severe (death, paralysis, injury -- both to the driver and to innocent bystanders). so people shouldnt be alowed to drive when too drunk.

 

how do we define too drunk? well, its not easy. people get drunk on different amounts. 2-units? well, like i said, some people seem to get too drunk on less that 2 units and some can have 10 and still be sober enough to drive. but 2-units seems an appropriate point to deny people the right to drive at. above two units, and the risks are unnaceptable.

 

so how do we deal with the people who can imbibe more than two units and still drive safely?

 

simple.

 

we treat them as criminals. if someone has imbibed more than two units and they get cought driving, even if they can deminstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are sober enough to drive safely then the fact that they are on the wrong side of this number (ie, 2-units) takes presedence over the fact that they are sober, for the very simple reason that the law is desighned to protect people AS A WHOLE, and based on the actions of people AS A WHOLE. if someone thinks they can drink more than 2 units and still be able to drive, they are still prohibited because the risks of allowing people, as a whole, to use their own discresion as to wether they are sober enough to drive after having more than 2 units are too great. and so, even in the case of someone who genuinely can drive safely after more than 2 units, they are still punished in order to enforse the law. saying "you cannot drive after 2 units unless you are still sober, in which case we will not punish you" basically would be the same as saying "dont drive after more than 2 units unless you think you are still sober" which of course would be going against the entire reasoning behind the law, ie that the risks of allowing people to chose wether they are sober enough to drive after 2 pints are too great.

 

analogising to paedophiles:

 

the way i see it is this. in the uk, you are not allowed have sex if you are under 16. now, this isnt to say that everyone who is over 16 is mature enough to have sex, or that everyone under 16 isnt mature enough to have sex. the logic behind the 16-year-old limit is as thus:

 

under a certain age, people are too inexperienced (both sexually and just in general), and also to vulnerable for a variety of reasons (phisically weak, easy to coerse etc) that they do not have the ability to make sound judgements as to wether they should have sex or not. bear in mind that the repercussions of making an incorrect desision can be severe (see below, in red).

 

How do we define 'under a certain age'? well, its not easy. people mature at different rates. 16? well, like i daid, some people seem to be ready before 16, and some people seem to be unready after 16. but 16 seems an appropriate age to allow people to have sex at. below 16, the risks are unnacceptable

 

so how do we deal with the people who can, genuinely, safely have sex before they are 16, and are mature/experienced enough to make the desision before they are 16?

 

simple.

 

we still deny them the right to have sex. if someone is cought having sex with someone under the age of 16, even if they can deminstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the child is mature enough to have sex then the fact that they are on the wrong side of this number (ie, 16-years) takes presedence over the fact that the child is mature enough, for the very simple reason that the law is desighned to protect people AS A WHOLE, and based on the actions of people AS A WHOLE. if someone thinks that a specific child under the age of 16 can have sex and not suffer as a result, they are still prohibited because the risks of allowing people, as a whole, to use their own discresion as to wether someone under the age of 16 is ready to have sex are too great. and so, even in the case of someone who genuinely has sex with a child of less than 16 who genuinely is mature enough to have sex, they are still punished in order to enforse the law. saying "you cannot have sex with childeren less than 16-years-of-age unless they are mature enough, in which case we will not punish you" basically would be the same as saying "dont have sex with people who are younger than 16 unless you think theyre ready" which of course would be going against the entire reasoning behind the law, ie that the risks of allowing people to chose wether they are ready before the age of 16 are too great.

 

what are the risks? well, prettymuch everything that coral rhedd has been saying. yes, she seems a little over biased against paedophiles due to her work with the child victims, but im not asking you to accept coral's account of the victims of paedophiles as representative of childeren who have sex before the age of 16 as a whole. but they do represent what can happen to some childeren if they have sex before the age of 16. and although the fear of direct abuse/rape is a factor in prohibiting people from having sex before they are 16, im sure in many cases that coral has seen the victim will not have been forsed, but will have given consent, and still suffered the psycological trauma. yes, not everyone below 16 will suffer if they have sex and many people over the age of 16 suffer these repercussions from having sex (both forsed and consentual), but the chance of sex being detrimental increases as the age group to which you are reffering to decreases, and there comes a point where the risk is no longer acceptable. hence the age of concent, and also hense why people are punished even if it can be conclusively proven that the child suffered no ills from the encounter.

 

those of you here who are paedophiles, you have my simpathy (and i hope that doesnt sound to patronising) but please bear in mind the very real possibility that you may be wrong if desiding that a child is ready for sex, and that the chances of that error increase as the age of the child decreases. yes, there is no majical event that happens overnight when the child reaches their xth birthday (where x = the local age of consent) which transforms them from someone who is physically and mentally unready for sex into someone who is phisically and mentally robust enough to get gang-banged (im sorry if that sounds crude, but that is the law - at 15 years 364 days, it is illegal to have sex; one day later at the age of 16 you can get legally gang-banged -- just trying to make a point) but there are very good reasons for the law, and for adhering to them no matter how ready you or the child perseve him/himself to be, and its in the best interests of the child.

 

even if it werent the case that allowing people to chose wether an under 16-yea- old was ready for sex would carry to many risks, the consept of judjing each case of sex with a pre-16-year-old individualy to determin wether any harm was done etc is, as far as i can see, completely unworkable, for these reasons. and these

 

few! that was a long post. sorry if i waffled at any point, and hope that addresses your points, ezekiel.

[pariah]

"Actually, I think we'd like to reserve the word "rape" for what it is. Sex with an unwilling partner."

 

 

bravo! but the CASA member is trying to say that it is rape BECAUSE no child would be willing to have sex in the first place unless forced into it somehow,either by force or manipulation. so,does that mean i was sexually abused by the 7yr old that sat on my lap on the porch (she invited herself,thank you very much) that summer eve and then tried to put my hand between her legs? why would an INNOCENT child do that without force or manipulation? maybe she was a mind reader? if she was,she must have been very confused when i got up and went back inside with the other adults.

 

forget it baldur. they cant wrap their minds around it. they NEED to believe that all kids are helpless victims and they ignore any real life testimony that goes contrary to what they have chosen to believe. thats why you never see the good stories on tv. they only report the rapes and molestations. god forbid they give us the whole story for a change. liars and hypocrits...

[merico]

I still wish to know the ill effects adult/child sex has had on children (obviously not those who were subject to rape but to consensual sex), also on what basis people think adult/child sex is immoral and indeed their definitions of morals to go with it

 

I can only give u my opinion and express my ideas about my psychological assumptions as i am yet to finish my degree and have not reasearched it fully due to lack of time.

 

If we are taking about consensual sex and only consensual sex then if both partners are consenual and the child recieve's all the information and understands them then fine (my opinion its around 12) and that s/he truly persieves themselves as wanting the relationship and u are sure it is what they truly want then its fine. But i think the problem occurs when the child believes they want the sexual relationship, however when that part of the relationship arrives the child truly regreats it and as such because of it they become depressive, succideal and generially traumatised because of what happened.

 

In my opinion it is truly hard to understand if the child is ready for such a realtionship unless u know that child very well. As such my opinion is that abstanence is the best policy unless u are postivie it will cause no harm to the child.

 

Before i am critisied what i have said it is only applicable if the child is truly willing for the relationship, has not been minipulated into it and also has not recieved pressure from the af in order to get the relationship. This idea is only applicable in situations where the boy has accepted himself as gay and wanting an adult relationship.

 

Also before i am critised directly i do not condone sexual relationships with child even if i am attracted to them, as it is illegal and also carry's to many risk's.

Merico

[klanger]

excellent post Dak

[Bettina]

I still wish to know the ill effects adult/child sex has had on children (obviously not those who were subject to rape but to consensual sex), also on what basis people think adult/child sex is immoral and indeed their definitions of morals to go with it.

 

I will answer that question when you tell me what age group you are referring to when you use the word "child". I'll be waiting.....

 

Bettina

[Vladimir]

At two years old the basic regions of pleasure are starting to develop, teh anus, and teh mouth, an orgasm isnt possible at the age of two. Though sexual interest should begin at teh ages of five and six, no serious attempts at sex should be made until puberty has finished.

[ezekiel23]

I will answer that question when you tell me what age group you are referring to when you use the word "child". I'll be waiting.....

 

Bettina

Hmm tough question - let's say 7-13. But even between those two ages a child undergoes big changes so it might have to do to subdivide even further. (bit short for time at the minute...I'll be writing more later...this seemed quick enough to reply to though )

[GreenDestiny]

we treat them as criminals. if someone has imbibed more than two units and they get cought driving' date=' [b']even if they can deminstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are sober enough to drive safely[/b] then the fact that they are on the wrong side of this number (ie, 2-units) takes presedence over the fact that they are sober, for the very simple reason that the law is desighned to protect people AS A WHOLE, and based on the actions of people AS A WHOLE.

 

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.

 

those of you here who are paedophiles, you have my simpathy (and i hope that doesnt sound to patronising) but please bear in mind the very real possibility that you may be wrong if desiding that a child is ready for sex, and that the chances of that error increase as the age of the child decreases.

 

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.

[Dak]

we treat them as criminals. if someone has imbibed more than two units and they get cought driving' date=' even if they can deminstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are sober enough to drive safely then the fact that they are on the wrong side of this number (ie, 2-units) takes presedence over the fact that they are sober, for the very simple reason that the law is desighned to protect people AS A WHOLE, and based on the actions of people AS A WHOLE.[/quote''] 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 disagre, for the reasons put forward in my last post. it is not the validity of the desision that is the issue, it is the act of making the desision; wether the desision is correct or not is irrelevent. it has been desided that allowing people to deside wether people under the age of 16 can have sex entails too great a risk -- so we stop people making this desision. to properly enforse that law, all who make that desision have to be punished, reguardless of wether they made it correctly or not. "you cannot deside that a person under the age of 16 is ready for sex, although if you do and you happen to be correct, you will not be punished" equates to "you can deside wether someone under the age of 16 is ready for sex". which, as stated, it has been desided entails too much risk.

those of you here who are paedophiles' date=' you have my simpathy (and i hope that doesnt sound to patronising) but please bear in mind the very real possibility that you may be wrong if desiding that a child is ready for sex, and that the chances of that error increase as the age of the child decreases.[/quote'']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

which person making the judgement? the child: as said, they are forbiden from having sex because, reguardless of the existence of some childeren who may be ready for sex, AS A WHOLE if allowed to have sex, childeren under 16 would make an unnaceptably high level of errors. so, for the good of childeren as a whole, they are not allowed. an adult having sex with an under age child could be considered as 'aiding and abbeting'. and as said before "childeren should not be allowed to make the desision as to wether they are mature enough to have sex because they have too high a risk of being wrong, unless they feel that they are ready to have sex, in which case they can" is non-sensical.

. 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.

in most cases id agree with you. my oppinion is 'stuff the law, do whats right'; however, there are two flaws with this argument as applyed to the AoC:

 

1/it requires a desision on behalf of the child as to wether they are ready for sex, and an assessment on your behalf as to wether the child is mature enough to soundly make that desision. the flaws being that a) as has already been pointed out, below a certain age allowing childeren to make that desision entails too much risk so they shouldnt be allowed by you to make that desision, and b)you could be incorrect as to your assesment of how ready they are. as i said, i usualy ignore the law and follow my morals instead, but as far as sex goes its both. ie, if theyre over 16 and i feel theyre ready, then ill have sex with them. only one (ie, over 16 and unready or ready and under 16) and i wont. now, the 'must be 16+' part of that is pretty much a formality as i dont actualy find people under about 17 attractive, however those are my rules and id stick to them even if i was a paedophile, for the simple reason that the AoC thingy is the polocy adopted by the country to protect childeren as a whole, and id be more than willing to support that.

 

2/ some people are nice enough and intelligent enough to be trusted to make an unbiased, intelligent judjement of wether something should be done or not, even without posession of all the facts, and taking all points of view into account. other people are bastards. the latter is the reason that laws have to exist. and any laws desighned to basically say "you have to be considerate when desiding wether to have sex with a kid" would not work for a variety of reasons already layed down.

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.

in many ways the exact age isnt inportant: the existance of the AoC laws is wat matters.

 

but what makes you say 12/13 as opposed to 16? i think an AoC of between 14 and 18 would accomplish what the AoC needs to accomplish, with arguments for both the lower end and the higher end, but 12 seems a little young.

 

Not being allowed to have sex can be a more significant restriction for two people who love each other.

i manage to love most my female friends without having sex with them, although -- to complete the analogy -- i really really want to. but cant. cos most of them are going out with my male friends, and so it would be wrong. so i forget about it and just love them in different ways.

[pariah]

many studies have been done outside the USA(cause our government wont allow it here) that confirm that children of all ages can lubricate and get erections,even newborns. one doctor even claimed he witnessed a child rubbing itself for comfort and pleasure while still in the womb via ultrasound video. why would a child of any age rub their genitals unless they gathered comfort and pleasure from it? infants have also been noted getting an erection during breastfeeding,not because they think the breast is "sexy" but because it feels good to touch.

 

do you have any proof a 2 yr old cant orgasm? we are all wired for sex from birth. do the research...

[pariah]

even if the child cant orgasm,that doesnt mean they wouldnt find it pleasureable. i dont get an orgasm when i get my back rubbed,but it still feels nice...think about it...

[Dak]

many studies have been done outside the USA(cause our government wont allow it here) that confirm that children of all ages can lubricate and get erections,even newborns. one doctor even claimed he witnessed a child rubbing itself for comfort and pleasure while still in the womb via ultrasound video.

could you please cite your sourses, preferably with a link.

[Baldur]

blimey, that was alot to read

etc.

 

[long comparison of drunk driving to adult-child sex deleted]

 

I don't agree with your analogy.

 

For one thing, sexuality is a natural part of being human. PEOPLE WANT SEX. That includes adults, AND children.

 

Certainly there are risks - there are also risks from eating and drinking (one can eat bad food, or choke), there are risks in going to school, going to museums, and EVERYTHING in life. We allow those risks - even for children - because we consider the potential benefits to outweigh the potential risks.

 

Sex and sexplay also have benefits. They contribute to happiness and psychological health. Even for children.

 

The real question is: how do we balance benefits with risks?

 

I would be much more comfortable putting children in the hands of competent and caring adults, than only allowing them to legally express their sexuality with other emotionally immature children. How many girls have had a bad first time because they could only choose between boys who were too immature to care about them, and the type of men who have no respect for the law?

 

The current situation serves only to prevent young people from having their first sexual experiences with decent, mature partners. It drives them into the arms of jerks. That's all.

 

 

Baldur

[Baldur]

so,does that mean i was sexually abused by the 7yr old that sat on my lap on the porch (she invited herself,thank you very much) that summer eve and then tried to put my hand between her legs?

 

Don't you know anything, pariah? YOU abused HER by being in a place where she could do that! If you had just used your brains and worn boxing gloves in her presence, she never would have tried that. It's ALWAYS the man's fault, you know.

 

Reminds me, though, of the time a girl about 7 (give or take a year) saw me across a room, ran straight toward me, and put her hand on the bulge in my pants. (Can't help it - I'm bigger than average - there's always a bulge.) I had her turn around, tucked myself in, and then let her sit in my lap - but it was pretty clear where her interest lay.

 

Yeah - kids aren't interested in sex. Right. I *remember* being a kid. All the kids *I* knew were interested enough.

 

 

Baldur

[klanger]

maybe kids do get sexually aroused, maybe they dont. They are kids in all aspects of the word, little bodies, little vagina's, little penises. A child having sex with a child is two of the same sized people having sex together, be them children or adults, but a child with an adult? Put it this way I wouldnt want to get shagged by a aberdeen angus and what you are propsing is the same differential as between a child and a adult, their bodies have not yet developed fully enough to be able to take that without tearing and needing intensive medical help. Not only that but children have a tendancy to want to please adults, so even if you think they are ready, how can you be 100% sure that they arnt doing it just to appease you?

[Baldur]

At two years old the basic regions of pleasure are starting to develop, teh anus, and teh mouth, an orgasm isnt possible at the age of two. Though sexual interest should begin at teh ages of five and six, no serious attempts at sex should be made until puberty has finished.

 

This is just one source that I grabbed first because it was fairly high in Google's listings:

 

http://www.ipce.info/booksreborn/martinson/infant/InfantAndChildSexuality.html#chap1-1

 

I have read a number of books on the subject, and the version in this book is rather tame. It has been pretty well documented that baby girls lubricate, baby boys get erections, and at least some girls can masturbate to orgasm at the age of two.

 

Ghod bless 'em.

 

 

Baldur

[Vladimir]

They cannot achieve orgasm. I have never heard of tehm at that age doing it htough. However, after a few years, teh child stops, and tehn only continues at puperty.

[Dak]

Certainly there are risks - there are also risks from eating and drinking (one can eat bad food, or choke), there are risks in going to school, going to museums, and EVERYTHING in life. We allow those risks - even for children - because we consider the potential benefits to outweigh the potential risks.

nooooo... we allow those risks -- even for childeren -- when we consider the potential benifits to outway the risks. there are, of course, risks in everything. but we deny people certain things when the risk is too high, more so of childeren that adults due to their lesser ability to make informed desisions.

 

ok baldur, lets define a few axioms:

 

1/are there any curcumstanses whereby it would be acceptable for an adult to engage in sexual activity with a 1 year old baby?

 

2/is there any argument against allowing 30-year-olds, suffering from no mental disorders, to have consentual sex with other sane 30-year-olds?

[Baldur]

They cannot achieve orgasm. I have never heard of tehm at that age doing it htough. However, after a few years, teh child stops, and tehn only continues at puperty.

 

Freud's theory of "latency" has been well disproven. The only reason children stop sexual play at all is because they learn that society disapproves of it - and studies have shown that they continue sex play when they don't think adults are watching. In societies that don't disapprove of child sexuality, they never stop.

 

 

 

Baldur

[Vladimir]

The sexual organs are not developed enough, there is a difference between a childs, and an adults

[Dak]

studies have shown that they continue sex play when they don't think adults are watching.

if you dont reference, most scientists will instantly disreguard the conclusions you make based upon these alleged studies. no offence intended, thats just what we're like. if the above statement was referenced, then it could actually be quite relavent to the discussion.

[Baldur]

[stuff about size differences deleted'] Not only that but children have a tendancy to want to please adults, so even if you think they are ready, how can you be 100% sure that they arnt doing it just to appease you?

 

As regards size - there is more to sexuality than penetration. There is mutual masturbation, there is cuddling, there are back rubs, so on and so forth. An adult could give oral sex to a child of either gender without physically harming them. I certainly am opposed to trying to make things fit that don't fit. No one who loves children would ever support that.

 

(As an aside - in the GLr chat rooms, we sometimes joke about whether penile reduction surgery would be worthwhile.)

 

Beyond this, what studies have been done have concluded that pedophiles tend to view sexuality much the same way children do - less interest in penetration, more on exploration, fun, and pleasure.

 

As for how to prevent a child from agreeing to sex out of a desire to please an adult? Well, provided that such things were legal, I would never pressure a girl, I would not be too quick to agree to sex play, and I would make sure the girl knew I loved her and would love her regardless of what she did. I would also keep an eye out for any signs of displeasure and stop if I felt she wasn't enjoying herself.

 

It wouldn't be perfect, but would prevent any major problems. Even as it is now, we know (from the Rind Report among others) that children are seldom significantly troubled even by bad sexual experiences, if they felt it was consentual at the time. The chief exceptions are father-daughter incest, and when they are found out and hounded by Child Protective Services, the Police, and the like.

[pariah]

sorry vlad,you are wrong. science proves it. look it up...like i did...if you have the guts to be proved wrong...

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

"Put it this way I wouldnt want to get shagged by a aberdeen angus and what you are propsing is the same differential as between a child and a adult, their bodies have not yet developed fully enough to be able to take that without tearing and needing intensive medical help."

 

another ignorant misconception. this is why you shouldnt talk about things you assume to be true. first of all,its not guaranteed they will tear. that risk decreases steadily as they get older. sure, a 2yr old will prolly tear,but not a 12 year old,unless the guy is rough and insensitive. but more importantly,sex with a minor usually does not lead to penetration. ask people that deal with "abused" kids. most of the time it involves nothing worse than mutual masterbation and oral stimulation. adult/child sex does not EQUAL adult/child penetration. this is the concept that antis cant seem to grasp. even taking a bath or going skinny dipping with a kid is considered molestation. ever wonder why we have so many angry restless kids in america? they are not getting enough love and affection,and they are being taught to fear sex and hate their bodies...

[Baldur]

1/are there any curcumstanses whereby it would be acceptable for an adult to engage in sexual activity with a 1 year old baby?

 

Yes. In a majority of cultures around the world' date=' masturbation of infants is common. Frequently this involves licking and kissing the genitals. It is used frequently as a means of putting infants to sleep. This was even common in the United States in the past, dying out only in the latter part of the Victorian age.

 

One missionary I know went to an Asian nation, and told me they were surprised to see mothers rubbing their children's genitals - quite openly. What is more, these were the CHRISTIAN women who were doing this.

 

It is a natural part of nurturing children.

 

2/is there any argument against allowing 30-year-olds, suffering from no mental disorders, to have consentual sex with other sane 30-year-olds?

 

Only if one partner is deceiving the other in some significant way. (e.g. about birth control, STD status, or false promises.)

 

 

 

Baldur

[Vladimir]

Vlad? If you have the guts?

This entire thread is about tryign to decide what the definition of a peadophile is. All of tehse young restless teenagers your talking about, ever ben to teh british ilses? There is an island were sex is completely discouraged and is thought of as something that must be done as quickly as possible.

Then again tehre is an island in australasia where sex is openly talked about, taught and completly open, in both extremes there isnt this problem, which is what it is.