What is a pedophile?

[pariah]

there isnt one definition of the word because it means different things to different people. it used to mean child lover,now it basically means sick bastard.

i dont see why any childlover would refer to themselves as a pedophile when the true meaning of the word has been lost in the hysteria. pedophile by the original definition(before it became listed recently as a mental disorder) simply means one who has a romantic attraction to children. romantic attraction originally did not imply either sexual contact,abuse,or deviancy. as i said before,pedophiles used to be accepted or tolerated,depending on the region. then the feminists and the religious leaders got together to make it a crime as well as a sin. the whole thing was political,as are most excuses used to control people. children are far healthier and better educated today than they were when they were marrying men at 10 and 12. its funny that as kids minds and bodies develope sooner and sooner,the age of consent keeps going up. tell me that isnt political!

with the increasingly early onset of puberty and the advancement of medical care,the AOC should be going down,not up. but of course if they start having kids too young,they wont have time to be properly plugged into the consumer-slave system will they? have to make sure they become a good little carrot chaser...

[Bettina]

I'm having network problems, so I haven't been able to reply much, but I will make my feelings known soon.

 

Meanwhile, I want to say that some of the pedophiles here are losing credability fast by showing their true colors and intent....and its made me puke several times. I tend to do that when there is a character clash.

 

Bettina

[pariah]

dont start a contraversial thread if you cant handle opposing views. im just playing devils advocate. i dont want kids to be hurt either. if the thread really bothers you so much,why not just ignore it then? people really are way too hysterical about child sexuality these days. i long for an earlier time...

[Vladimir]

A time when it was ignored? A time when the child was to blame? Hysterical? If you can think of a better way for a society to eradicate a problem i'd very much like to hear it

[Baldur]

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.

 

I recall seeing a BBC article about this about 10 years ago. I can't find it now. I do recall that they were able to make the observations by leaving the children in a "waiting room" without adults for a while, while they observed through one-way mirrors.

 

Of course, plenty of adults can testify that they did the same thing as children. In truth, though I know there was such a study, the idea of questioning children's interest in sex and sex play seems about on par with questioning the existence of the sun.

 

However, I should refine my comment on latency. Some researchers still abide by Freud's theory of latency, but contend that it was misinterpeted when it was taken to suggest that children lose interest in sex between the ages of about 6 and 11. Rather, the theory suggests that no NEW sexual development occurs in these years.

 

As one source, see:

 

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/usa.html

 

and search the document for the term "latency". It occurs several times.

 

 

 

Baldur

[Baldur]

A time when it was ignored? A time when the child was to blame? Hysterical? If you can think of a better way for a society to eradicate a problem i'd very much like to hear it

 

There were certainly better things about the past, and worse things as well.

 

Cultural attitudes towards sexuality have gone back and forth for a long time. In less democratic times, they only applied to the upper classes anyhow. No one in power cared what happened to the lower classes - and frequently the lower classes were better off for it. (The upper classes had some strange ideas of their own.)

 

The idea of marrying off a 12 year old girl to some man she never met - because it's economically beneficial to her parents - appalls me. At the same time, putting a 12 year old's lover in jail because - well, just because - also appalls me. Neither one shows any respect for the 12 year old.

 

I long for a future where children and those of us who love children are respected. I long for a time when Love is not considered the greatest evil.

 

 

Baldur

[pariah]

"If you can think of a better way for a society to eradicate a problem i'd very much like to hear it"

 

how about facing it and trying to understand it instead of acting like a cave man who throws rocks at the moon. besides,i dont see human sexuality as a problem.

i see ignorance and irrational fear as a real problem.

 

 

goodnight for now...back later

[Vladimir]

To do something solely for economic purposes, is clearly wrong. This was in response to Periahs thread.

Do you believe that becasue there is an absence of democracy class systems will widen?

[Callipygous]

"If you can think of a better way for a society to eradicate a problem i'd very much like to hear it"

 

how about facing it and trying to understand it instead of acting like a cave man who throws rocks at the moon. besides' date='i dont see human sexuality as a problem.

i see ignorance and irrational fear as a real problem.

 

 

goodnight for now...back later[/quote']

 

who said human sexuality was the problem? the problem is a small fraction of society who have something flipped around in their DNA so that they are attracted to children instead of mature, responsible adults that are actually capable of fully understanding what they are doing and the consequences of their actions.

 

i think its similar to homosexuality, in that neither of them serve a natural purpose. however, homosexuality doesnt involve one person who is far too young to be ready and one person who completely understands what they are doing and does it anyway despite the fact that it could cause serious psychological harm to the person they "love", as so many of the pedophiles here seem to be saying.

[Baldur]

Just to throw a few quick thoughts out there:

 

I consider that there are two main forces opposed to child lovers in the West: Christian anti-sexuality and Feminism.

 

Do I even need to go into the absurdities of Christianity and all religions? I'm an atheist myself, because having studied the Christian religion, even if there is such a god I want nothing to do with such a sadistic bastard. Suffice it to say that Christianity, especially in America, is violently opposed to sexuality.

 

As for Feminism - I can't help but notice that it has never empowered persons - neither women nor men - to pursue the more "feminine" pursuits. That is to say, "Feminism" was about allowing women who possessed traits traditionally associated with men, to pursue careers and goals that only men had previously pursued. At the same time, Feminists long ridiculed women - and men - who were nurturing and loving. Some claimed that all sex is rape, because even if a woman wanted sex, as long as she was (by some strange definition) "unequal" to the man, he had some sort of power advantage over her. They paid no attention to ordinary women who didn't WANT a new role. Meanwhile, a new culture of machismo emerged in the U.S. for men. I have heard that boys growing up in the 40's had no stigma attached to being loving, to kissing their sister - or even a brother - in public, or anything like that. Not so any longer. At least when I was growing up, and I think nothing has changed, any show of affection by a boy will be ridiculed.

 

In short, men and women who are career-minded and who care nothing for families, children, and their community are applauded as embodying our highest ideals; whereas women who love and care for children are derided as weak-minded and old-fashioned, and men who care for children are at risk of physical violence. (I actually know a fellow who was assaulted by a group of men, because his wife worked and he looked after the children. He was assaulted in front of his children. When he took the case to court, the Judge took pains to dismiss it on technical grounds.)

 

In other words, Feminism as it stands is Anti-Feminism. It is the triumph of ruffians (male or female) over gentle folk (male or female). It is the triumph of hate over love.

 

I say all this because in speaking to other girl lovers (I don't know as much about the boy lovers), I can't help but notice that we tend towards gentleness. I never liked boys much, even when I was a boy, because they were too rough.

 

Our persecutors claim we target shy children because they are easy victims, but I know I am drawn to shy girls because they are gentle and because I want to be there for them.

 

Human Nature is a complex thing, and we still don't know how our bodies and minds work - but I believe that in child lovers we find a cross-over of nurturing love and sexuality. Despite common belief, Love and Lust are not separate entities - they are two sides of one coin - different yet inherently connected.

 

 

 

Baldur

[reverse]

hey, is this still going.

 

unbelievable.

 

oh well I guess sex sells.

 

You realize that you are all being drawn in to the web of familiarisation and normalisation traditionally known as the thin end of the wedge.

 

wake up.

 

haven’t you got anything better to do?

[Baldur]

i think its similar to homosexuality' date=' in that neither of them serve a natural purpose. however, homosexuality doesnt involve one person who is far too young to be ready and one person who completely understands what they are doing and does it anyway despite the fact that it could cause serious psychological harm to the person they "love", as so many of the pedophiles here seem to be saying.[/quote']

 

Recent theories suggest that homosexuals often carry genes that are associated (in females) with an increased ability to care for children, possibly due to greater attentiveness to children. It is quite possible that some of the same genes or similar one contribute to pedophilia. A number of pedophiles in an extended family would likewise enhance the chances of survival for the children in the family - again primarily through increased attentiveness to the needs of children.

 

The idea that consentual sex causes psychological harm to children is in contention. It doesn't seem to cause any trouble in societies where it is not taboo. In fact, most of those societies have lower crime rates than the U.S., and where they are comparable (i.e. wealthy, educated nations), have lower rates of STDs and teen pregnancy than either the U.S. or the U.K.

 

The Rind Study pretty much demonstrated that consentual sex is not significantly harmful EVEN IN A SOCIETY THAT REPRESSES SEXUALITY AS MUCH AS THE USA. The study passed scientific review. Just because Congress voted to condemn it doesn't mean a thing (except that congress critters are stupid bigots). Heck, the Catholic Church condemned Galileo for saying that the earth revolved around the sun, but that didn't stop the earth from doing so.

 

 

Baldur

[Coral Rhedd]

The Rind Study pretty much demonstrated that consentual sex is not significantly harmful EVEN IN A SOCIETY THAT REPRESSES SEXUALITY AS MUCH AS THE USA. The study passed scientific review. Just because Congress voted to condemn it doesn't mean a thing (except that congress critters are stupid bigots). Heck' date=' the Catholic Church condemned Galileo for saying that the earth revolved around the sun, but that didn't stop the earth from doing so.

[/quote']

 

What you fail to mention is how many psychiatric and psychological organizations have dismissed the Rind Report. Even the APA has backed away from it:

 

http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/rebuttal.htm#APA

[Coral Rhedd]

hey Coral' date=' i just read ur post and for some unknown reason u seem to have gone back to many sterotypes that have already been disproved.

[/quote']

 

Disproven by whom. Just because you deem something disproven, doesn't mean I agree that it is. I use the word pedophile as it is used by the criminal justice system in the United States. You may use the word as you please. I will continue to apply the word pedophile to certain types of people who have sexual contact with children.

 

Throughout this thread I have never wavered in my belief that adults should have no sexual contact with children.

 

the arguemnet about gays was mentioned because untill recently gays were prosicuated because of their beliefs and actions, and also untill recently homosexuality was also classed as a mental disorder and it is only now recently been accepted that it isnt.

 

And my thought is that pedophiles are doing gays no favors by aligning themselves with the gay movement. I know many gay men and women I respect who are in committed relationships with other adults. They pay taxes and work productively in American culture and as far as I am concerned they should be afforded all the rights of any other adult -- including that of marriage.

 

if u do not want it i will stop posting, i thought u as u started this thread would value our opinion weather or not u agree with it is another mattor, but it is another perepective to ponder. As i have enjoyed reading ur posts and although i havnt been involved directly i believe u have a wider understand of our belifs, as i have understood ur arguements.

 

I do not desire that anyone stop posting, nor was I one of those who desired to see this thread closed. I think it has been interesting and educational for all involved in it.

 

Also, as a writer, I am always fascinated to hear the opinions of those whose thinking is outside the mainstream.

 

Also u seem manily to be posting in reply to ezekiel23 posts, i personally do not agree with them as he seem to be promoting sex between minors and adults as right whatever age.

 

Ezekiel troubles me.

 

Also once again u are sterotyping cartain beliefs u have about us and then generlising them to the rest of the pedophile population.

 

Nope. Pedophile is a term often used interchangeably -- but sometimes carelessly -- by people who work as counselors, prosecutors, CASAs and others -- with sex offender. It is used very broadly. I am not too concerned about its etymology. Current usage suits me fine. People trying to change the connotations of the word are free to do so. But it is a political game. To my thinking the term encompasses many meanings.

 

Again u have used the media's defination of pedophile, as it has been established here only a very small part of the pedophile population would ever act on their beliefs and be sexual with a child, these are the ones that are prosicuated and so should be locked up.

 

The media is a follower, not a leader. I am using the term as I have used it professionally and in volunteer work. I have no intention is cooperating with a word "makeover." I have said previously that those (now calling themselves pedophiles) who do not choose to have sexual contact with children and don't like the word pedophile should simply choose another word.

 

However u do not hear about the bl/gl who have these beliefs and do not act on them and as an estimate is about 95 percent of of pedophiles.

 

What support can you provide for this statistic? I seems to me that it would be impossible to quantify.

 

u dont have to believe that figour as i have nothing to back it up with it is simply an estimate having talked about this with others.

 

You are talking about a particular group of people are you not?

 

I have a question for you. Why are you interested in any relationship or political alliance with those who would like to liberalize AofC laws, when you say you would never have sexual contact with a child? If you would never have sexual contact with a child then you are more like me than you are like them, for it is our actions that define us and not our thoughts.

 

And also u dont know how much attention this debate has raised it is being discussed on numerious bl boards and i assume many gl boards, but not being a gl i cant comment. A lot of people are really interested that u are willing to discuss something where people would normally simply jump to preconcieved ideas and ignore any points raised. I just thought i would mention this as someone had preciously mentioned the high view count.

 

That is very interesting to hear.

 

I think the people on this board have unusual curiosity about how things work -- including people's minds.

 

Moreover, people reveal a great deal about themselves when they write. To be sure, those posting here in favor lowering the age of consent laws seem far more interested in being understood and accepted than they are in well-being of children.

[pariah]

the APA are yellow cowards that tow the party line. originally they said(yes this can be verified with a google)that sexual encounters were rarely abusive in cases of consenting children. they also said that a child who has had a sexual encounter with an adult should not be made to feel that it was a major event,but rather to play it off as unimportant to prevent any possible trauma.

later however,after proper pressures were applied from other sources,they recanted and said any sexual contact is abusive and the child needs therapy.

i wonder if it was the threats that changed their tune or the bribes? furthermore,you can ignore and discredit anything you want if it is unpopular,but that does not mean it isnt true. many psychologists KNOW that sex usually doesnt hurt kids if the adult is loving and gentle and the child consents,but they are too afraid to come out and say it for fear of losing job and reputation. what it boils down to is all these brilliant men and women dont have the balls or tits to tell the truth and do the right thing...

[Coral Rhedd]

As for Feminism - I can't help but notice that it has never empowered persons - neither women nor men - to pursue the more "feminine" pursuits. That is to say' date=' "Feminism" was about allowing women who possessed traits traditionally associated with men, to pursue careers and goals that only men had previously pursued. At the same time, Feminists long ridiculed women - and men - who were nurturing and loving. Some claimed that all sex is rape, because even if a woman wanted sex, as long as she was (by some strange definition) "unequal" to the man, he had some sort of power advantage over her. They paid no attention to ordinary women who didn't WANT a new role. Meanwhile, a new culture of machismo emerged in the U.S. for men. I have heard that boys growing up in the 40's had no stigma attached to being loving, to kissing their sister - or even a brother - in public, or anything like that. Not so any longer. At least when I was growing up, and I think nothing has changed, any show of affection by a boy will be ridiculed.

[/quote']

 

This is an interesting little aside, but somehow I don't think you have quite connected the dots of your argument. How has feminism, in particular, opposed pedophiles? I mean, what would be the motives of feminists in this instance?

[pariah]

"who said human sexuality was the problem? the problem is a small fraction of society who have something flipped around in their DNA so that they are attracted to children instead of mature, responsible adults that are actually capable of fully understanding what they are doing and the consequences of their actions.

i think its similar to homosexuality, in that neither of them serve a natural purpose. however, homosexuality doesnt involve one person who is far too young to be ready and one person who completely understands what they are doing and does it anyway despite the fact that it could cause serious psychological harm to the person they "love", as so many of the pedophiles here seem to be saying."

 

well, at least you got the dna part right instead of saying it is a learned behavior. kudos to you! its not contagious. some adults who were never abused still became pedos.

 

as for the natural purpose part....PLEASE!!!!

you know damn well that humans are social creatures and most of the time when people get together to have sex they are not doing it to make babies. they are doing it because it FEELS GOOD.

 

next?

[pariah]

"This is an interesting little aside, but somehow I don't think you have quite connected the dots of your argument. How has feminism, in particular, opposed pedophiles? I mean, what would be the motives of feminists in this instance?"

 

 

1. feminazis worry that men will groom younger females generation after generation until we have them back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.

 

2. older women hate competition....especially,young,cute,sexy competition. they dont handle getting old very gracefully...

[Coral Rhedd]

"This is an interesting little aside' date=' but somehow I don't think you have quite connected the dots of your argument. How has feminism, in particular, opposed pedophiles? I mean, what would be the motives of feminists in this instance?"

 

1. feminazis worry that men will groom younger females generation after generation until we have them back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.

[/quote']

 

What are feminazis?

 

2. older women hate competition....especially,young,cute,sexy competition. they dont handle getting old very gracefully...

 

Hmm. I suppose that depends upon how old. Most of the older women I know would just be glad to go to the grocery store alone. They get tired of their retired husbands tagging along after them.

[klanger]

As regards size - there is more to sexuality than penetration. There is mutual masturbation' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

If the AoC was dropped or removed then that would be saying it IS ok to have full penetraval sex with a child, you cant be so stupid as to think that just cos you wouldnt do it, that ALL people that relish in the pleasures of children wouldnt also.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

"that children are seldom significantly troubled" Bad choice of words there because by your own admision some are troubled and some are significantly troubled, which is why the law is there in the first place.... to protect all children.

 

In the UK sex under the age of 16 is illegal, this seems to correspond to the school leaving age.

 

In the USA sex with anyone under the age of 18 is illegal, again corresponding to the school leaving age.

 

However you may notice one stark difference between the two, In the UK sex under the age of 16 is illegal in the USA sex with anyone under 18 is illegal. This implies that children can have sex if they so wished with other children providing neither is above the age of 18, I dont think there is rampant sex going on with those children even though their law permits it, why? Could it be that children arnt so adult about sex as you would like us to think, that for children their natural curiosity leads them to notice the differences between their sexes but not really to wish to take it any further.

[ezekiel23]

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.

Vlady!

As a teenager, living in the british isles, I can confirm that that stereotypical victorian-british attitude to sex is virtually nonexistant now

[ezekiel23]

who said human sexuality was the problem? the problem is a small fraction of society who have something flipped around in their DNA so that they are attracted to children

 

i think its similar to homosexuality' date=' in that neither of them serve a natural purpose.[/quote']

 

Hmm here is something I also brought up before. Is paedophilia really such a freak occurence? I mean, surely changing a sexuality ain't something that comes about just through a random mutation or two. It's gotta be a fair few genes that need swapping around before you change an entire sexuality.

[ezekiel23]

Ezekiel troubles me.

We all trouble you, dear Coral. I have added the disclaimer time after time, I am not out for sex with children. I do not agree that it is the right thing to do in 100% of cases. I would never initiate or coerce. As long as the law is how it is, I never WILL have sex with children. I just don't believe it is always wrong.

 

You can tell me I'm just saying that until it gives us both a headache if you want, it won't change the fact that that's what I think.

[merico]

Disproven by whom. Just because you deem something disproven, doesn't mean I agree that it is.

 

Sorry i simply believed after reading the threads in my mind it had been disproved, im sorry to generlise it to othere posts if they havnt.

 

I use the word pedophile as it is used by the criminal justice system in the United States. You may use the word as you please. I will continue to apply the word pedophile to certain types of people who have sexual contact with children.

 

So uv just said a pedophile has to havsexual activeity with a child so by ur defiunation tho's of us who do not have sexual contact with children are not pedophiles, 'thanks' since i hate the image that, that word brings up.

 

Throughout this thread I have never wavered in my belief that adults should have no sexual contact with children.

 

well said however i believe that some 12/13 yr olds are ready for it, i just dont like the risk it carries if they are not ready and the idea it is also illigal

 

And my thought is that pedophiles are doing gays no favors by aligning themselves with the gay movement. I know many gay men and women I respect who are in committed relationships with other adults. They pay taxes and work productively in American culture and as far as I am concerned they should be afforded all the rights of any other adult -- including that of marriage.

 

fair arguement it was simply and implied compariesion of the route it took, i dont believe that arguement was comparing pedophiles to gaus but simply th path that was taken to reach that decision.

 

I do not desire that anyone stop posting, nor was I one of those who desired to see this thread closed. I think it has been interesting and educational for all involved in it. Also, as a writer, I am always fascinated to hear the opinions of those whose thinking is outside the mainstream.

 

u are welcome to pm me if u are interested in me answering specific questions when i cn since at the moment i am really busy and probably wont have to much time to post long threads here for a while however i will try.

 

Ezekiel troubles me

 

if he believe every thing he posts the he does me to, however i may simply be reading to deap into his posts.

 

Nope. Pedophile is a term often used interchangeably -- but sometimes carelessly -- by people who work as counselors, prosecutors, CASAs and others -- with sex offender. It is used very broadly. I am not too concerned about its etymology. Current usage suits me fine. People trying to change the connotations of the word are free to do so. But it is a political game. To my thinking the term encompasses many meanings.

 

the term pedophile does incompus many meanings and as such depending on who u talk to the word means different things, from a molestering monster to a child lover who means to harm.

 

 

The media is a follower, not a leader. I am using the term as I have used it professionally and in volunteer work. I have no intention is cooperating with a word "makeover." I have said previously that those (now calling themselves pedophiles) who do not choose to have sexual contact with children and don't like the word pedophile should simply choose another word.

 

We do have another word Boylover [bl] and girllover [gl] these words tend to bring up less bad images. Also u may be using the term as u understand it professionally however others here are not and as such arguements are being confused and we seem to be argueing the defination of pedophile rather then answering questions.

 

 

What support can you provide for this statistic? I seems to me that it would be impossible to quantify.

 

I cannot provide any as due to my work load i am unable to find it, and this was my opinion as i stated after talking to many other bl and gl. I do hope to provide some when my work load slows down if this thread is still active.

 

You are talking about a particular group of people are you not?

 

Yes i mainly refer to bl as that is what i am and the majority of ppl ihave spoken to are, as i dont know any gl personally.

 

I have a question for you. Why are you interested in any relationship or political alliance with those who would like to liberalize AofC laws, when you say you would never have sexual contact with a child?

 

I would never have sexual activity because of the laws and because of the risks it carries if the child is not ready. it does not mean in some case i disagree with it, and i never mention that i hung around with ppl who wish to lower it, i said i know bl, but that does not mean they wish to lower the AoC, u are making assumptions. i believe in a lot of place's AoC is to high in my opinion its should be around 12/13, as i believe then a child has all the fact and is free to make their own decisions.

 

If you would never have sexual contact with a child then you are more like me than you are like them, for it is our actions that define us and not our thoughts.

 

I belive i am not like just because i wouldnt act on my thoughts doesnt mean i dont think about it. i have fantasies but i just refuse to act on them, along with a lot of bl and gl. I dont belive u would accept me as like u, if i was to discuss be thoughts with u as im pritty sure u dont have them lol.

 

I think the people on this board have unusual curiosity about how things work -- including people's minds.

 

Yes i agree with u, this is the first non BL board where a discuaaion like this hasd taken place that i know of where we have not been threatened, banned harassed or reidiculed for our beliefs.

 

Moreover, people reveal a great deal about themselves when they write. To be sure, those posting here in favor lowering the age of consent laws seem far more interested in being understood and accepted than they are in well-being of children.

 

Not to sure i agree with u there, as lowing the AoC in some places will alow the child to express and understand their feelings, especially where it is above 16 as thats just rediculas, children are more mature now then ever and as such are active younger. Im not top sure if it should be lowered below this as although some children are ready younger around 12/13 not all children are so it could be argued either way and has.

 

Merico

[pariah]

things are changing. look at the signs. people are discussing it more,which is the first step to understanding. the issue keeps coming up in movies and tv. psychologists are beginning to recognize the difference between dangerous pedos and non-violent pedos. its happening as we speak. its only a matter of time. it might not happen in my lifetime,but it will happen. the opposition tried to stop women liberation and failed. they tried to stop liberation of blacks and it failed. they tried to stop the gay movement and it failed. they are trying to stop youth liberation....and it will fail.

 

this isnt just about a bunch of crusty old men drooling over timid angels(thats the image you love to picture in your minds)its about giving kids choice. all these people who claim to work to protect kids,yet they never listen to the kids or give them choice. it will be the pedophiles and their allies that help kids realize they are controlled and repressed by the very people who claim to protect them.

yes,a young girl has the right to say no. she should also have the right to say yes without worrying about her friend/lover that she chooses going to jail. yes,children will make mistakes. thats a condition of being human. are you telling me that the atomic bomb wasnt a mistake? what about the stock market crash that kicked off the great depression? what about the spanish inquisition? kids cant do any worse than what adults have already done. i think they will do better,because they are motivated by love,pleasure,and forgiveness instead of greed,power,and hate.

 

 

kick and scream all you want. its just a matter of time. hide your head in the sand like everyone else and say it will never happen. i dont care. i know better....

 

 

im out.