What is a pedophile?

[merico]

things are changing. look at the signs. people are discussing it more' date='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.[/quote']

 

very well said, i couldnt have put it better myself.

 

Merico

[Callipygous]

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?

 

the reason if feels good is so that people will want to do it so people will make babies.

 

the majority of people are attracted to adults of the opposite sex FOR A REASON. its because thats the kind of interaction that produces children, which is the only purpose nature has. sex between two members of the same sex, or between an adult and a child, does not produce children. thus, it has no natural purpose.

[pariah]

"its because thats the kind of interaction that produces children, which is the only purpose nature has. sex between two members of the same sex, or between an adult and a child, does not produce children. thus, it has no natural purpose."

 

wrong. it also has the purpose of causing bonding,grouping,and protection. a 30 year old man may not be able to get a 10 year old pregnant,but if he loves her and is attracted to her,he will nurture her and protect her. that is the other purpose of love and lust. furthermore,why would you want a 10 year old to get pregnant just to prove a purpose? i assume you would then also force the kid into marriage to be proper? maybe the PURPOSE of the pedophile gene is so they will be attracted to young females and love them and protect them WITHOUT making more babies,ever think of that? maybe the gay and pedophiles genes along with disease and aging are natures way of keeping the balance and preventing overpopulation by a race that insists on destroying the balance of the ecosystem. you could theorize all day,but it wont stop people from doing what they want to do. maybe when we have more prisons than Quik Trips and 40 million are on the sex offender registry people will wake up. its not about protecting kids from sex,its supposed to be about protecting them from rape and murder. you seem to forget that. if the kid aggrees to it and is not brutally raped or murdered,then noone should have a problem with it. but as i said before,this is not really a child protection issue as much as it is a political one. follow the money trail. protecting kids has become big business...

[Dak]

how would you propose that childeren be propotected from rape and abuse, then? if theres a better alternative, then tell us.

[Callipygous]

"its because thats the kind of interaction that produces children' date=' which is the only purpose nature has. sex between two members of the same sex, or between an adult and a child, does not produce children. thus, it has no natural purpose."

 

wrong. it also has the purpose of causing bonding,grouping,and protection. a 30 year old man may not be able to get a 10 year old pregnant,but if he loves her and is attracted to her,he will nurture her and protect her. that is the other purpose of love and lust. furthermore,why would you want a 10 year old to get pregnant just to prove a purpose?[/quote']

 

i wouldnt... im the one who doesnt think they should be having sex at all, remember? so you find the idea of a pregnant ten year old to be a bad thing? but its perfectly resonable for them to be having sex?

 

 

i assume you would then also force the kid into marriage to be proper?

 

and you say WERE stereotyping YOU. i am not some christian crusader who thinks everything should be only one way. im just not stupid or deranged enough to think children are mature enough for sex.

 

maybe the PURPOSE of the pedophile gene is so they will be attracted to young females and love them and protect them WITHOUT making more babies,ever think of that? maybe the gay and pedophiles genes along with disease and aging are natures way of keeping the balance and preventing overpopulation by a race that insists on destroying the balance of the ecosystem.

 

"nature" is not a conscious being. it doesnt make choices to put things back in balance. it can only be put back in balance if being where it is has some detrimental effect which causes it to return to normal. nature doesnt support genes that discourage reproduction. the developement of individual species doesnt depend on how that species' proliferation is affecting the rest of the environment. the only way the "pedophile gene" can have a purpose is if the individual who has it has some advantage over those who dont. what advantage comes from being sexually attracted to children?

 

you could theorize all day,but it wont stop people from doing what they want to do. maybe when we have more prisons than Quik Trips and 40 million are on the sex offender registry people will wake up. its not about protecting kids from sex,its supposed to be about protecting them from rape and murder. you seem to forget that. if the kid aggrees to it and is not brutally raped or murdered,then noone should have a problem with it. but as i said before,this is not really a child protection issue as much as it is a political one. follow the money trail. protecting kids has become big business...

 

protecting children COSTS money. building prisons for those who sexually assault them COSTS money. keeping you locked up because you cant figure out what is inappropriate and what isnt COSTS money. do you have any idea how much of the taxpayers' money it takes to keep one person in prison for a year?

[GreenDestiny]

Well' date=' 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.

[/quote']

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.

 

Interesting point, Dak!

I had to think about it a bit. I'm still not quite sure about the alcohol issue, so I will first talk about the rest.

 

So your argument is that it's the decision itself which shouldn't be allowed to make, because the risk of making a mistake is too high. Well, as I already said in my last post, I'm not so sure about that. I think there are definitely cases where one can be sure that the child really wants it. To name an example I once read a story about a guy who knew a boy who almost begged the guy to perform fellatio on him... I think he was sleeping over at his apartment and even got out of his clothes and tried to persuade him, but the guy declined (that was the purpose of his posting, he wanted to know if it was legal. But ok, the boy was already 14, not 12 or 13 and also it was just a posting on an internet forum a couple of years ago, so I can't tell for sure if it is completely true). Then there once was a news story about a 13yo girl who had a 21yo (or somthing like that) boyfriend. She got pregnant and it came out because of that and so the guy was punished, but only mildly because it was clear to the judge that they loved each other and no real harm had been done. I think they even planned marrying later. Well, I'm not sure if she should really have gotten pregnant, because this might cause problems with her education, but apart from that it should really have been clear in this case that they loved each other.

 

Whatever, I think if you know someone for quite some time and really care for him, you should be able to tell if he really wants it. And if the relationship is consenting, I don't think that the chances for heavy psychological traumata are that big. I mean, many girls have their first time very young today... a lot of them even as young as 13 I think (of course usually not with adults). I wouldn't be surprised if the experience was not always 100% positive for all of them, but even if some might regret if afterwards, that doesn't mean that they have been seriously psychologically damaged. But I'm not completely sure about this myself. We'd need some good information about this, not only studies about people from clinics who have been damaged, but also about people with positive experiences. But especially positive adult-minor relationships will probably remain secret most times, so it's hard to tell how big the risk really is.

 

At least there are also opinions from scholars like the one Merle Noir posted:

Thomas D. Oellerich, Department of Social Work, Ohio University:

 

"The notion that child sexual abuse is a "destroyer" of mental health has been based largely on studies involving clinical samples. But even these, if objectively considered, indicated that child sexual abuse is neither necessarily nor usually psychologically harmful. That is, for the vast majority child sexual abuse is not a "destroyer" of mental health at any age...the widespread belief that child sexual abuse necessarily and usually causes psychological damage is a myth."

 

Then there's the Rind study, which on the other hand is dismissed by some other people. But again on the other hand I wouldn't count people like Coral Rhedd as objective. So there are probably two rather biased sides... maybe there's even a difference between different kinds of sexual contact (penetration, oral sex, mastubatory sex, kissing).

 

But I agree that if the chance of seriously damaging the child is really rather high, it shouldn't be allowed to make that decision.

 

Still I also think that it should be possible to decide if the kid really wants to have sex - if it would really be a consensual act, in contrast to situations like the child letting it happen out of shyness, the child letting it happen as a favor, coercion of the child by the adult, rape, etc.

 

which person making the judgement?

 

I was talking about the adult. Regarding the flaws you pointed out, I already wrote above that I'm not completely sure that the risks are indeed that high, so that making the decision should not be allowed.

 

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.

 

Well, as I said, I imagine that one could be sure that the 15yo girl was consenting and I don't think the risk of damage would be very high then, so from a moral point of view I don't think you'd have to refrain from it then. Not breaking the law and the risks for both persons involved would still be good reasons not to do it.

 

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.

 

Well, you might be right about this. As I said, I think that it is indeed possible for the adult to make a responsible decision regarding this issue. Still, not everyone will do that. Many will maybe tend do make rationalizations in order to justify it or maybe simply think only about themselves and their hormones. The question would then be if allowing people to make the decision would result in more cases of child abuse with serious psychological damage. But again, I'm not sure about this. Maybe the people who would do this are mainly the same people who don't care about the laws even now. Also,

people like this would still be punished under new laws, so perhaps it would pretty quickly be clear to everyone that this decision has to be made very carefully. But I'm not sure - maybe you are right and this would really increase the amount of serious child abuse cases - that would be a pretty strong argument against new laws. Of course it would suck if the people who were unbiased and intelligent enough to make a good, responsible decision would also have to be banned from doing that because of others.

 

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.

 

Of course it matters, because it affects a lot of persons. Many kids could be prohibited from having sex and it also makes a difference about who is allowed to have sex with whom.

 

As for the age, that's the onset of puberty for many kids, so from thereon there should also be real interest about having sexual contacts on the kids part.

 

I'm still worried about some points apart from the pedophile issues. With the current laws in Germany it's illegal to have sex for anyone under 14. Two kids under that age wouldn't have to fear any consequences of course, but if one kid is above there might be some. And this just sounds very unreasonable to me, apart from all adult-minor issues.

 

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.

 

Yes, I think this is a good way for many pedophiles as well. Of course according to some people like Bettina even this would be wrong - but if you can control yourself and nobody doubts that, why should it be different for pedos? And the argument, it wouldn't really matter if you failed to control yourself because you are both adults, doesn't really count IMO. Men can also force adult women to have sex with them. Maybe it's easier to do that to children and maybe it'd be easier to deal with such situations afterwards for adult women, but still they could also have psychological damage. How many women are there who suffer from abusive relationships? Well, whatever, at least I believe in self-control - and the implications of completely staying away from contact with kids would just be too severe for pedophiles. It's like demanding from men to stay away from women in any aspect for their whole life. I can understand the demand of refraining from sex, but this - I don't think this is a reasonable demand.

 

 

Ok, finally, regarding the alcohol: I'm not completely sure about this and about how high the risk of making a wrong decision is. Well, I'm maybe not the best person to judge this since I don't drink that much alcohol myself and have never been completely drunk, but at least I have been in a position where I would not have gotten behind the wheel, because I had the feeling that it would have been to dangerous then. So I don't think it is impossible to make that decision, but maybe it is difficult. Especially when you are just a bit above the limit you might not really notice how it affects your skills. I'm no expert on this, so I can't make a final decision here. Maybe it is really not possible to decide if you are sober enough to drive or not. Then it would make sense to forbid making the decision, because that would rather be a question of luck then.

[Coral Rhedd]

Dear person who calls himself a pariah,

 

Could you please answer my question in post #644 about feminazis. Are these some sort of European feminists?

[Baldur]

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:

 

Well, after Congress takes the very unusual act of condemning scientific research, it is easy to see which way the winds are blowing. The APA backed off for political reasons.

 

Galileo backed down too, when given the choice: recant or die.

 

In both cases, the science was sound.

 

 

 

Baldur

[Baldur]

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.

 

This jumped out at me. You have no doubt heard of the stereotypes of self-hating Jews, self-hating gays, self-hating this-or-that. We know how many persecutors have had links to those they persecuted (I'm thinking J. Edgar Hoover, but I've also heard that many of the most virulent racists were of mixed heritage).

 

Well, there's a theory out now that many CAs (child advocates/child abusers - we use the terms interchangeably) are self-hating pedophiles. Indeed, the GLrs I know who espouse this theory base it on their own past, before they got in contact with the child lover community, and came to realize that in fact there are very few psychopaths in the world, and most of us who are attracted to children love them very much and care about their welfare.

 

Apparently, such CAs have bought into religious or pseudo-religious ideas about sexuality and children, and frequently have upped the ante, and turned it all into a terrible crusade against themselves.

 

I believe they do great harm - to other child lovers, to themselves, AND to the children they think they are saving.

 

I've met quite a few adults who despised the "child protective services" or the like, that took them away from homes where they were loved, and put them through hell in the name of saving them. Sometimes they came from homes where there were problems, but they were nothing like the problems that were foisted upon them. Sometimes they came from good homes, and the social workers were just idiots or uncaring.

 

I watch as, over and over again, such social workers ignore the opinions of the children they are abusing, and push their own misguided ideas upon them. I can think of the Braga cases down in Florida, or a special I saw on MSNBC

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4038249

 

where a CA went to Cambodia, and "rescued" child prostitutes who seemed perfectly happy, to condemn to the life that the CA saw fit.

 

Watching as those girls were screaming and crying as they were being carted off was heartbreaking - yet CAs cannot see this. It is a case of cognitive dissociation - the plain facts just don't make it into the brain.

 

 

Baldur

[pariah]

it doesnt take a stupid and deranged person to realize that we already had laws on the books to prevent assault and rape(anyones rape) before they came up with that stupid statutory bullshit. those laws didnt stop kids from getting raped and neither will future laws. it just makes it much harder for the good childlovers to be near kids. laws dont stop criminals. thats why they are criminals. laws make life harder for everyone else. trying to protect kids from rape,abduction,and murder is a noble effort,but trying to prevent their inevitable sexuality is pointless and often counter productive.

 

as far as prisons go...yes,they do cost taxpayers money. we have to pay for everything,which is why i would think you would want less government. BUT....there are all kinds of grants and government programs that pay STAFF and PERSONNELL big bucks for building prisons and capturing prisoners. this is also why they will never cure the drug problem. people get paid to capture criminals and safely store the drugs. they get paid to patrol the borders and streets. they get paid to provide therapy for recovering addicts. they get paid to represent a defendent. they get paid to help them re-enter society. they get paid to heal future problems caused by the drug use. they get paid to educate the kids about how bad drugs are. just to name a few. we have the means to stop incoming drugs for good,but if we did that,how many public and private jobs would be lost? we as a nation are dependent on drug income in some form or another,and the same is becoming true of the sex abuse industry. even though taxpayers suffer,SOMEONE is making money on this. do the math,then try doing some research. follow the money trail. every new government program that goes into affect costs you and me money,but it is making the puppet masters richer.

the sex abuse industry is big business,and that is why they try to find victims everywhere. it still doesnt change the fact that some kids can consent and know what they are doing...

[pariah]

"Dear person who calls himself a pariah,

 

Could you please answer my question in post #644 about feminazis. Are these some sort of European feminists?"

 

hehehehe,no,but funny!

 

 

not all feminists are bad. some are. the ones that have a grudge against men and claim they want equal rights while simotaneously taking away mens rights and refusing to listen to their more domestic sisters are the bad ones. those are the feminazis. i dont have a problem with you getting equal pay and equal rights.

i do have a problem with you being able to take my kids after a divorce,force me to pay alimony and child support whether you deserve to have the kids or not just because you are their mother and have a uterus. most states in the US favor the mother automatically,and it is up to him to prove she is unfit.

yeah,i have a problem with that. then,if you do get the kids,you get regular visits from a (usually female) social worker to make sure the kids are well and you,the stupid male are not abusing them or neglecting them.

if feminazis true intentions were known,you would know that they think women should rule the world and men should be at their feet. thats just as bad as men treating women badly,yet they claim they want equality. fine,when a woman and a man get divorced,flip a coin. if the man wins,then he gets to sit on welfare with the kids while you work 3 jobs to pay the childsupport. sounds fair to me...

[Callipygous]

it doesnt take a stupid and deranged person to realize that we already had laws on the books to prevent assault and rape(anyones rape) before they came up with that stupid statutory bullshit. those laws didnt stop kids from getting raped and neither will future laws. it just makes it much harder for the good childlovers to be near kids. laws dont stop criminals. thats why they are criminals. laws make life harder for everyone else. trying to protect kids from rape,abduction,and murder is a noble effort,but trying to prevent their inevitable sexuality is pointless and often counter productive.

 

no, it takes a stupid or deranged person to think that a 7 to 12 year old is mature enough for sex. very rarely an 11 or 12 year old may be reaching sexuality, but they are the extremes, and even if they feel ready it doesnt mean they are. laws discourage potential criminals and provide the legal means for removing them from society so they cant do further harm. sexuality is inevitable. preventing extremely young children from being taken advantage of isnt.

 

as far as prisons go...yes,they do cost taxpayers money. we have to pay for everything,which is why i would think you would want less government. BUT....there are all kinds of grants and government programs that pay STAFF and PERSONNELL big bucks for building prisons and capturing prisoners. this is also why they will never cure the drug problem. people get paid to capture criminals and safely store the drugs. they get paid to patrol the borders and streets. they get paid to provide therapy for recovering addicts. they get paid to represent a defendent. they get paid to help them re-enter society. they get paid to heal future problems caused by the drug use. they get paid to educate the kids about how bad drugs are. just to name a few. we have the means to stop incoming drugs for good,but if we did that,how many public and private jobs would be lost? we as a nation are dependent on drug income in some form or another,and the same is becoming true of the sex abuse industry. even though taxpayers suffer,SOMEONE is making money on this. do the math,then try doing some research. follow the money trail. every new government program that goes into affect costs you and me money,but it is making the puppet masters richer.

the sex abuse industry is big business,and that is why they try to find victims everywhere. it still doesnt change the fact that some kids can consent and know what they are doing...

 

your absolutely wrong about us being able to stop the drug trade. have you even thought about what we would have to do to accomplish that? you might be able to pull it of with an invinsible, unclimbable wall, that for some reason cant be tunneled under, and then X-ray every single person that enters the country. untill they found a way to fool the x-ray. then we would have to just not let anyone in. ever.

 

you cant stop the drug trade because people wont stop doing drugs just because you tell them to. they can still cause problems in society, just like pedophiles, and we are still going to work to stop them, just like pedophiles.

 

but of course your not going to believe me because the only thing you are capable of seeing is the mean, evil, money grubbing government oppressing you and your desire to screw children because you somehow think they are in it soley for profit. the purpose of the government is to support the people. if we had a dictatorship i might worry about them being as corrupt as you think, but we dont. the US govt. is HUGE. each department is covered with checks and balances to the point where one section being corrupt would require most of the rest of it to also be screwed up like that. you cant get an entire goverment, elected by the people, ALL corrupt.

[Baldur]

If the AoC was dropped or removed then that would be saying it IS ok to have full penetraval sex with a child' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

If they didn't like it, the child would object. Babies can cry. Two year olds can say "No!" (and they do it a lot). If an adult did not honor that objection, it would be rape. We already have laws against rape.

 

Besides which, it would not be difficult to write a law outlawing penetration, but allowing other kinds of sex play. I still think the AoC should be no higher than 12 for all types of sex, but I could accept a combination of that and decriminalizing consentual non-penetrative sexual touching as reasonably just.

 

"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.

 

And some children are significantly troubled by bed-wetting, or their pet dying, or having a bad hair day. We don't make laws based on the exceptions to the rule. (Well, at least, we SHOULDN'T.) I neglected to mention the other part of the results: Some of those who had had sexual experiences as children reported them as positive or very positive. While the research did not look into it, I also know many adults who feel that sexual repression in their childhood was a VERY negative thing.

 

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

 

Actually, this depends on the State. The AoC ranges from 16 to 19. Only a few years ago some states still had an AoC of 14. 20 years ago many had AoCs of 12 or 13. 100 years ago some had an AoC of 10. 150 years ago, there wasn't much in the way of Age of Consent laws, either in the US or England.

 

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?

 

My, this is funny. You can't really believe this? I know that many children wait until their late teens to have "full intercourse", but if you include the sex play that would send an adult to jail? You will find VERY VERY few children who haven't engaged in such sex play. Naturally they won't tell you if you're an adult - they are very aware that it is taboo - but I can remember it from when I was a kid. It was rampant. I knew it and I was a geek. You must have been very socially isolated as a child.

 

 

 

Baldur

[pariah]

i knew it was only a matter of time before the name calling started. last resort of a feeble mind. but thanks for informing me that i am just a deranged pedophile

who wants to screw 7-12 year olds. im glad you know me so well.

 

 

"but of course your not going to believe me because the only thing you are capable of seeing is the mean, evil, money grubbing government oppressing you and your desire to screw children because you somehow think they are in it soley for profit. the purpose of the government is to support the people. if we had a dictatorship i might worry about them being as corrupt as you think, but we dont. the US govt. is HUGE. each department is covered with checks and balances to the point where one section being corrupt would require most of the rest of it to also be screwed up like that. you cant get an entire goverment, elected by the people, ALL corrupt."

 

they sure have you fooled dont they? good to see that the spin is still working on the masses.

 

 

well baldur,im not making any progress here it seems,so i think i will leave it in your hands. i dont care for emotional and irrational arguements based on assumptions and misinformation. im going back to less hostile territory. nothing but luv for you all. now if you will excuse me,i have a todler to find. seems he figured out how to get out of his cage again. damn that latch anyway!

toodles...

[Baldur]

how would you propose that childeren be propotected from rape and abuse, then? if theres a better alternative, then tell us.

 

1. Prosecute RAPE and ABUSE. DON'T prosecute a loving relationship. LISTEN to children.

 

2. Change the culture so it is acceptable for men to love children again. Children who are seeking love won't have to seek it from dangerous men. With men in children's lives again, there will be that many more eyes watching out for the welfare of children.

 

3. Use child lovers the way Nature intended - as nurturers and protectors.

 

 

 

Baldur

[reverse]

 

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

 

Moreover' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Well Coral?

did you find out the answer to your original question.

 

I bet you found out all that and a bit more than you ever wanted to know.

 

I liked the attempts at seduction,

that cracked me up (when I realised why the term predatory has been applied to this disorder)

 

Maybe a bit of Jesus juice will dull down our minds even more.

 

ps apologies for the juice reference, it is a direct reference to the Michael Jackson trial, not my own wording.

[Coral Rhedd]

"Dear person who calls himself a pariah' date='

 

Could you please answer my question in post #644 about feminazis. Are these some sort of European feminists?"

 

hehehehe,no,but funny!

 

 

not all feminists are bad. some are. the ones that have a grudge against men and claim they want equal rights while simotaneously taking away mens rights and refusing to listen to their more domestic sisters are the bad ones. those are the feminazis. i dont have a problem with you getting equal pay and equal rights.

i do have a problem with you being able to take my kids after a divorce,force me to pay alimony and child support whether you deserve to have the kids or not just because you are their mother and have a uterus. most states in the US favor the mother automatically,and it is up to him to prove she is unfit.

yeah,i have a problem with that. then,if you do get the kids,you get regular visits from a (usually female) social worker to make sure the kids are well and you,the stupid male are not abusing them or neglecting them.

if feminazis true intentions were known,you would know that they think women should rule the world and men should be at their feet. thats just as bad as men treating women badly,yet they claim they want equality. fine,when a woman and a man get divorced,flip a coin. if the man wins,then he gets to sit on welfare with the kids while you work 3 jobs to pay the childsupport. sounds fair to me...[/quote']

 

Okay. I am glad you explained that. I was picturing women in jackboots goosestepping in tandem across Europe.

 

I can see that these feminazis are bad people, but what do they have to do with laws concerning pedophiles? Or am I misunderstanding you again?

[Coral Rhedd]

Well Coral?

did you find out the answer to your original question.

 

I bet you found out all that and a bit more than you ever wanted to know.

 

I liked the attempts at seduction' date='

that cracked me up (when I realised why the term predatory has been applied to this disorder)

 

Maybe a bit of Jesus juice will dull down our minds even more.

 

ps apologies for the juice reference, it is a direct reference to the Michael Jackson trial, not my own wording.[/quote']

 

Well Reverse, this has certainly been an experience, but I am still confused about some things -- like the feminazis.

 

I have not been keeping up properly with the trial. I will have to update myself.

[Callipygous]

i knew it was only a matter of time before the name calling started. last resort of a feeble mind. but thanks for informing me that i am just a deranged pedophile

who wants to screw 7-12 year olds. im glad you know me so well.

 

no one is JUST anything. i didnt specifically say anything about you, because i DONT know you. however, if you think 7-12 year olds are ready for sex then yes, i think you need help.

 

being a pedophile doesnt make you deranged. its not the desire thats the problem. its not being able to realize that the target of your affection is not mature enough.

[Baldur]

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?

 

Not all feminists (especially not the ordinary women who made up the movement in the 60's), but many feminists (especially the women who have continued the movement since it achieved near-equality for women), have put great stock in two ideas: one of course is that men are scum, but the other is more to the point: the idea that any time there is an imbalance of power, abuse must follow.

 

Now in this latter case some prominent feminists have gone so far to declare that ALL sex between men and women MUST be rape, because the man ALWAYS has more power than the woman in the relationship. This is of course absurd on many levels, but they have said it. The American public of course recognized that this was absurd, EXCEPT when the issue of adult-child sex came along. THEN the public decided, "Hey, WE aren't affected, so let's go along with it and make the old buzzards happy." And so the idea that adults always have power over children, and that therefore any adult-child sex must always be rape, was born.

 

Of course, when applying this to ordinary child-lovers (as opposed to abusive people, whether pedo or teleio), this idea is just as absurd as the idea that heterosexual sex is always rape. For one thing, those kids have got us wrapped around their fingers. By THAT account, WE would be the victims.

 

Of course, female child-lovers (a.k.a. "women") don't have as much of a stigma, because it's us MEN who are scum and can't be trusted. Consider the media treatment of Mary Kay LeTourneau. (You go, girl!)

 

The extremist feminists of this ilk (who oddly seem to be mostly "masculine" in their behavior) are sometimes known as uber-feminists or feminazis.

 

 

 

Baldur

[Baldur]

being a pedophile doesnt make you deranged. its not the desire thats the problem. its not being able to realize that the target of your affection is not mature enough.

 

How mature does one have to be in order to eat/drink?

 

How mature does one have to be in order to sleep?

 

How mature does one have to be in order to get sexual satisfaction?

 

Humans can go without some of these longer than others, but they are all needs, and it doesn't matter how old you are.

 

 

 

Baldur

[Lance]

How mature does one have to be in order to eat/drink?

 

How mature does one have to be in order to sleep?

 

How mature does one have to be in order to get sexual satisfaction?

 

Humans can go without some of these longer than others' date=' but they are all needs, and it doesn't matter how old you are.[/quote']

 

Both sleep and eating are required to live. Sex is not a requirement for an individual but for society itself; which pedophiles don't contribute to.

[Callipygous]

How mature does one have to be in order to eat/drink?

 

How mature does one have to be in order to sleep?

 

How mature does one have to be in order to get sexual satisfaction?

 

Humans can go without some of these longer than others' date=' but they are all needs, and it doesn't matter how old you are.

 

 

 

Baldur[/quote']

 

im sorry, but thats the dumbassinest thing i have ever heard. even including the word "dumbassinest".

 

 

my sisters 9. whether you would like to think so or not, she does not have any sexual needs. unless you count talking about cooties and running from boys.

 

thats the whole point here. sex isnt something on a childs mind until they are introduced to it. they SHOULD be introduced to it by the wierd feelings that hit at puberty. not the friendly stranger with candy. or "the nice pedophile who befriended them," if that version will help keep you guys from getting butthurt.

 

 

(obviously children are going to be asking where babies come from before puberty, when they do it should be explained to them. they should be given as much detail as they ask for, which wont be much)

[RedAlert]

I am wondering how people view pedophiles and child sexual abusers.

 

Do you think they are insane?

Do you think they are repeating a cycle of abuse?

Could pedophilia simply be another sexual preference?

 

Here is a link I found that is quite educational:

 

http://www.darkness2light.org/faq/faqs_2.asp

 

However' date=' please understand that many of these people don't actually think they are doing something wrong. Some believe they are liberating children to express their sexual feelings.

 

I think they are exploiting children. Because we do not know how to truly treat them, I think they should be identified early and isolated from the general population. This would mean a form of incarceration for offenders that are relatively young.

 

What are your thoughts on who these people are and how we can identify and help them while protecting children?[/quote']

 

A SERIOUSLY screwed up person. Need I say more?

[john5746]

What are your thoughts on who these people are and how we can identify and help them while protecting children?

 

I hope someday they can identify them at an early age and 'repair' them. Otherwise, castration seems in order. This would free them and the children from their torture.

 

I was avoiding this thread because of the sick comments, but can't stand to let that crap stand.

 

It is OK to be judgemental when someone thinks it is OK to hurt someone. Not acceptable.