What is a pedophile?

[BourBohemian]

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

 

in that situation would your system not fail?[/quote']

 

The question you need to ask yourself then: If the boy does not view it as abuse, how can it be considered abuse?

[BourBohemian]

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

 

Arresting people for personal use of drugs does nothing to help society or protect anyone.

[Dak]

if i pick your pocket, but you do not notice and thus do not consider it as theft, how can it be fetht?

 

child abuse = doing something detrimental to the child

 

the childs knowledge of the detriment is irrelivent.

[Coral Rhedd]

The question you need to ask yourself then: If the boy does not view it as abuse, how can it be considered abuse?

 

Children who are being beaten within an inch of their lives often do not view their parents as abusers. Only when they are beyond the situation and beyond their parents control are they able to evaluate the situation differents.

 

In many jurisdictions, law officers are allowed to make an arrest of an abusing spouse -- even if the battered partner doesn't want them to. Not everything is up to the individual.

 

The government has a right to impose reasonable standards for behavior.

[Dak]

Arresting people for personal use of drugs does nothing to help society or protect anyone.

as previously stated, drugs can harm people and people can be incapable of making an informed, sensible disision, and so the disision is made for them

 

arresting people for personal use of drugs acts as a deterrent to others, and so protects those others.

[Coral Rhedd]

Arresting people for personal use of drugs does nothing to help society or protect anyone.

 

That depends upon the impact of the drug -- not only upon the individual -- but upon the others around him.

 

The notion that drug use is a victimless crime is completely naive. Drug abusers operate vehicles, have have high absenteeism at work, and generally make bad parents.

[Dak]

In many jurisdictions, law officers are allowed to make an arrest of an abusing spouse -- even if the battered partner doesn't want them to. Not everything is up to the individual.

in england, the police can charge for assault and rape even against the wishes of the victim, for the reasons you stated -- that many victims refuse to see themselfs as such (oh, he didnt really rape me... i guess i wasnt really in the mood...but...hed never hurt me... no, he didnt rape me, i must just have not said no loud enough...etc)

[Coral Rhedd]

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

 

No. I am trying to establish a definiton of coercion. So far, you have neglected to give one.

 

What's okay for adults (because we draw a line to designate adulthood) is often bad for teenagers however.

[BourBohemian]

if i pick your pocket' date=' but you do not notice and thus do not consider it as theft, how can it be fetht?

 

child abuse = doing something detrimental to the child

 

the childs knowledge of the detriment is irrelivent.[/quote']

 

What if it is not detrimental to the child? The boy laughs, smiles, coos, and enjoys it. The only real danger is if the contact is discovered: that the boy might be subjected to the hypermoralism of society's reaction to such intergenerational contact.

 

Legally and by the current mores - society would consider what happened to me when I was 11 as "abuse" and "molestation"; but I never viewed it as such at any point. And as I further elaborated, the only real danger present to me was if the relationship was discovered.

[Dak]

bourbohemian: it sounds as if your suing for a much less interfering govornment.

 

my appologies if this sounds condensing, but it might be that you are a really responsible, nice person yourself, with responsible nice friends, and that this has made you naive. remember that there are utter assholes and idiots in the world.

 

p.s., what exactly is a 'straw man'?

[BourBohemian]

No. I am trying to establish a definiton of coercion. So far' date=' you have neglected to give one.

 

What's okay for adults (because we draw a line to designate adulthood) is often bad for teenagers however.[/quote']

 

Coercion involes manipulation; coercion would be present if the boy has no desire for the contact but it persists anyway.

[BourBohemian]

bourbohemian: it sounds as if your suing for a much less interfering govornment.

 

my appologies if this sounds condensing' date=' but it might be that you are a really responsible, nice person yourself, with responsible nice friends, and that this has made you naive. remember that there are utter assholes and idiots in the world.

 

p.s., what exactly is a 'straw man'?[/quote']

 

Those comments are in fact condescending

[Dak]

What if it is not detrimental to the child? The boy laughs, smiles, coos, and enjoys it. The only real danger is if the contact is discovered: that the boy might be subjected to the hypermoralism of society's reaction to such intergenerational contact.

 

Legally and by the current mores - society would consider what happened to me when I was 11 as "abuse" and "molestation"; but I never viewed it as such at any point. And as I further elaborated, the only real danger present to me was if the relationship was discovered.

i still feel the question 'what if it is detrimental to the child' is more relevant.

 

the way i see it, we can either ban sex with childeren, and spoil a few relationships, or allow sex with childeren, and spoil a few childeren more-so than the childeren would be spoiled whos perfictly acceptable relationships were split up

 

unless you can propose a method by which we can prevent it in cases where it would be detrimental, and allow it in casees where it would not?

[Coral Rhedd]

What if it is not detrimental to the child? The boy laughs' date=' smiles, coos, and enjoys it. The only real danger is if the contact is discovered: that the boy might be subjected to the hypermoralism of society's reaction to such intergenerational contact.

[/quote']

 

Coos? What age boy are we talking about here? And why do you exclude girls from you scenario? Who's word do we believe about "enjoyment?"

 

Legally and by the current mores - society would consider what happened to me when I was 11 as "abuse" and "molestation"; but I never viewed it as such at any point. And as I further elaborated, the only real danger present to me was if the relationship was discovered.

 

You viewed it in the context of a repressive childhood and parents who would not/could not accept homosexuality.

 

May I ask how old you are now?

[Dak]

Those comments are in fact condescending

well then my appologies, but it does seem as if you are having trouble comprehending the fact that there are people who will take advantage of childeren, and i was merely theoryorising as to a possible cause for this. again, appologies if this causes offence, it is just an observation.

[Coral Rhedd]

Coercion involes manipulation; coercion would be present if the boy has no desire for the contact but it persists anyway.

 

At what point in this seduction might a boy assert he has no desire for contact?

[BourBohemian]

i still feel the question 'what if it is detrimental to the child' is more relevant.

 

the way i see it' date=' we can either ban sex with childeren, and spoil a few relationships, or allow sex with childeren, and spoil a few childeren more-so than the childeren would be spoiled whos perfictly acceptable relationships were split up

 

unless you can propose a method by which we can prevent it in cases where it would be detrimental, and allow it in casees where it would not?[/quote']

 

Just because age of consent laws are abolished does not mean that anyone can do anything with a young person. Abolishing arbitary consent laws simply means that the law would deal with people on a case by case basis to determine the quality of the relationship - political science and legislation can clearly come to a legal conclusion on how to protect children from relationships that are pervasive and pathological, and how to protect the rights of boylovers and their boys.

 

Furthermore, what benevolence does the absolutism of Age of Consent laws have if it turns healthy relationships into trainwrecks by having the legal system force both parties into shame?

 

The relationship I had with a man as a youth will always be memorable to me, however as I have noted, were it to have been discovered I would in effect been molested by the system, not my older friend. The extreme oppression of relationships between homosexual men and boys has only resulted in ruined lives. Gore Vidal famously commented that that very oppression is but a modern day inquisition of boys and boylovers. In this day of age, a boy's playful session of masturbating with his adoring older friend could turn into a disaster if the sex police catch wind of it. A shocking introduction to the moral rectitudes and sexual politics of the society the boy is growing up in - as such the boy becomes a victim to the absolutism that supposedly is protecting him.

[BourBohemian]

well then my appologies, but it does seem as if you are having trouble comprehending the fact that there are people who will take advantage of childeren, and i was merely theoryorising as to a possible cause for this. again, appologies if this causes offence, it is just an observation.

 

People who committ sexual violence against children will always be subjected to legal persecution.

[BourBohemian]

At what point in this seduction might a boy assert he has no desire for contact?

 

Who said anything about seduction?

[BourBohemian]

Coos? What age boy are we talking about here? And why do you exclude girls from you scenario? Who's word do we believe about "enjoyment?"

 

Self realized homosexual boys. In my case, I knew I was gay when I was 9 and my first experience took place at 11. I exclude girls at this current point in time because the feminist revolution is far from over on a social level - which as it would with progression of the gay movement, the gradual liberation of women-girl love would follow.

 

 

 

You viewed it in the context of a repressive childhood and parents who would not/could not accept homosexuality.

 

May I ask how old you are now?

 

I am 29.

[Dak]

(numbered for ease of reference)

Just because age of consent laws are abolished does not mean that anyone can do anything with a young person. Abolishing arbitary consent laws simply means that the law would deal with people on a case by case basis to determine the quality of the relationship - political science and legislation can clearly come to a legal conclusion on how to protect children from relationships that are pervasive and pathological, and how to protect the rights of boylovers and their boys.

1/how would you suggest assesing each individual case, so that:

 

A/ whenever the relationship is detrimental to the child, it is found to be so so it may stoped and the abuser punished

 

B/ whenever the relationship is non-detrimental to the child, it is found to be not detrimental, so the 'boy lover', as you put it, is not unjustly punished

 

also:

 

2/do you not think that this would encorage people to sleep with childeren, and by incoraging 'boy-loving' you would be increasing the level of child abuse, even if only through errors of jujment as to wether the child is ready or not by the 'boy lovers'

 

3/what punishment would you suggest for people who coerse childeren into having sex, or talk them into having sex even if they thought it would be bad for the child?

 

4/how would you propose to establish the adults intent, ie if the relationship was deemed damaging, how would you know if the adult thought it wuold be so or genuinely thought it would be ok

 

5/what would happen if the parents objected? could they stop the relationship?

 

6/what would be a workable policy on 'gift-giving'

 

unless these issues can be resolved, i do not believe that abolishing the age of concent would be in the best interests of childeren as a whole

[BourBohemian]

(numbered for ease of reference)

1/how would you suggest assesing each individual case' date=' so that:

 

A/ whenever the relationship is detrimental to the child, it is found to be so so it may stoped and the abuser punished

 

B/ whenever the relationship is non-detrimental to the child, it is found to be not detrimental, so the 'boy lover', as you put it, is not unjustly punished[/quote']

 

Ask the boy straight fowardly if he enjoyed the contact or not.

 

also:

 

2/do you not think that this would encorage people to sleep with childeren, and by incoraging 'boy-loving' you would be increasing the level of child abuse, even if only through errors of jujment as to wether the child is ready or not by the 'boy lovers'

 

'Junk science' is the word that comes to mind. For starters it's a civil rights spectrum for both the boys and responsible boylovers themselves. Before any progress is made, society needs to first understand the difference between a man who has a sexual/romantic connection boys and a man who is only predatory/regressed in his sexuality. The later are the people you want to lock up.

 

3/what punishment would you suggest for people who coerse childeren into having sex, or talk them into having sex even if they thought it would be bad for the child?

 

That's up to the child.

 

4/how would you propose to establish the adults intent, ie if the relationship was deemed damaging, how would you know if the adult thought it wuold be so or genuinely thought it would be ok

 

To determine the quality of the relationship - whether or not the adult brought himself to the same sexual level of the child.

 

For most boylovers, their romantic feelings for a particular boy has them engaging in sexual contact on the same level of the boy - whether or not the boylover is childlike in his sexual interaction determines the quality of the relationship.

 

5/what would happen if the parents objected? could they stop the relationship?

 

While parents can do what they please within the confines of the law, I don't believe the government should enforce parental hysteria.

 

6/what would be a workable policy on 'gift-giving'

 

What do you mean by 'gift-giving'?

 

unless these issues can be resolved, i do not believe that abolishing the age of concent would be in the best interests of childeren as a whole

 

What part of "case by base basis" do you not apprehend?

[Dak]

ubderlinde numbers refer to the questions put out in post 196. all text enclosed by quote marks are quotes from bourbohemian.

 

with reference to 1/ "Ask the boy straight fowardly if he enjoyed the contact or not."

 

1.1/what if the boy was coersed into saying that he did, even though he dint.

 

1.2/what if the boy enjoyed it, but ultimately it was detrimental to him

 

1.3/what if the child enjoys it, and then lies and says he was coersed. childeren can fail to comprehend the magnitude and severity of these kinds of accusations.

 

1.4/what if the boy wanted to try it out and then did not enjoy it?

 

with reference to 2/ "'Junk science' is the word that comes to mind. For starters it's a civil rights spectrum for both the boys and responsible boylovers themselves. Before any progress is made, society needs to first understand the difference between a man who has a sexual/romantic connection boys and a man who is only predatory/regressed in his sexuality. The later are the people you want to lock up."

 

i acknowledge that there is not a majical event that happens on a persons 16th birthday (or 18th birthday in the us) which converts them from sexually unready --> sexually ready in the blink of an eye. some 16+ people are unready for sex, and some <16 are ready, however i conjecture that there can be difficulty in determining the readyness of someone to have sex. my argument is thus:

 

imajine that 1% of all 'boy lovers' make an error when determining if a child is ready for sex.

 

imajine that the age of concent was abolished

 

imajine that this lead to an increase in the number of 'boy lovers'

 

now, that 1% of mistaken assesment of a childs readyness for sex represents a higher number of childeren slept with before they were ready, even though we are, in this case, only looking at people who are making an effort to only sleep with people who will not find the experience detrimental.

 

therefore, i feel that point 2/ still stands.

 

with reference to 3/"That's up to the child"

 

3.1/i do not believe that most childeren, or arguably most victims, reguardless of age, are mature and/or responsible enough to chose an adequate punishment

3.1.1/what if the child choses death?

3.1.2/ what if the child choses something exessively sadistic, like having the skin peeled off by a potato peeler and then submersed in a bath of vinegar? would we carry out this punishment?

3.1.3/would the child be given free range to deside upon the punishment, or would the child have a range of punishments to chose from - if so, what would be the max/min punishments.

3.1.4/what if the child balks at punishing the perpetrator and opts for no punishment

 

with reguards to 4/"To determine the quality of the relationship - whether or not the adult brought himself to the same sexual level of the child.

 

For most boylovers, their romantic feelings for a particular boy has them engaging in sexual contact on the same level of the boy - whether or not the boylover is childlike in his sexual interaction determines the quality of the relationship."

 

i didnt make myself clear. what i meant was basically this.

 

4.0/ BACKGROUND: this is common to the legal system of every developed contry: for a person to have commited a crime, they must exhibit two 'things':

 

actus reus, or 'guilty act': the person must have done something

wrong

 

mens area, or 'guilty mind': the person must have had an unnaceptable mental prossess or thought.

 

merely having carried out the actus reus is not enough - imajine some one who unknowingly handles stolen goods. they have commited an illegal act, but the abscense of mens area ie intent means no crime has been commited.

 

merely posessing the mens area is not enough - imagine someone who contemplates murder - the 'guilty mind' is definately present, but in the abscense of the actus reus ie the actual criminal act of murder, there is no crime.

 

to be charged with, and punished for, a crime, it must be proven that the person carried out the actus reus and possessed the mens area.

 

with the current age of conset, this is easy: ie, if sexual contact can be proven, then the actus reus (of sleeping with an under age person) is proven, and the mens area is (knowing that sleeping with someone under the age of consent is illegal) is easy to prove - everyone is aware of the age of consent, so everyone who sleeps with a child is doing something which they KNOW to be illegal.

 

4.0/ POINT: imajin the age of consent is abolished:

 

if it can be proven that an adult had a sex with a child and that this is detrimental to the child, then actus reus has been proven. however, to punish someone -- and thus to enforse any legestature reguarding sleeping with childeren -- mens area must also be proven. how would you propose we would go about proving wether someone knew that the relationship would be detrimental to the child or not?

 

if this is not possible, then people who knowingly have detrimental sexual relationships with childeren would be unpunishable, and thus we would have no mechanisms for protecting childeren from coersive paedophiles.

 

please note that the legal prosess must prove both actus reus and mens area before punishing someone, otherwize the punishment is viewed as a breach of human rights by the united nations.

 

i am basically arguing that allowing people to sleep with childeren when it would not harm them, and illegalising it when it would harm them, is unenforsable and childeren would suffer as a result.

 

with reference to 5/ "While parents can do what they please within the confines of the law, I don't believe the government should enforce parental hysteria."

 

5.1/parents can prevent their childeren seeing their friends, if they feel that their friend is a bad influence on the child. so what if a parent objects that the reletionship is bad for the child and attempts to prevent contact.

 

with referense to 6/"What do you mean by 'gift-giving'?"

 

choral rhied summed it up, albeit crudely. 'want a lollypop, kiddy?' (not a direct quote)

 

expansion on point 6/:

childeren are extremely receptive to act-reward behavioral enforsment, ie if they do something, and then they get a reward, they will repeat the act. if presents are given following sexual favours, this could be interpreted as:

 

#the adult essentially 'tricking' the child into having sex with him, by exploiting their receptiveness to reward-enforsment

#the child essentially being a prostetute, ie having sex for material gain

#the adult materialistically expressing his genuine care and affection for the child.

 

this could rase some complications, vis:

 

6.1/is exploiting the childs reward-enforsment reseptiveness acceptable?

6.2/is child prostetution acceptable

6.3/whils genuine gifts are acceptable, if the scenarios layed out in 6.1 and 6.2 are unnaceptable, and thus punished as a deterrent, how would we differetiate between genuine gift-giving and the other two types of 'gift-giving', that we may punish, and thus deterr, exploitation and child prostetution without punishing genuine expressions of affection?

 

What part of "case by base basis" do you not apprehend?

 

how it would be effectively implimented

[Merle Noir]

First of all since I'm a newbie here let me explain I am a Pedophile... in fact a Boylover as I see has been brought up in the later part of this topic... I will add I have not finished reading all the replies as this post is very long.

 

There are a few misconceptions here one of the ones that tends to be a pet peeve is the notion that all pedophiles are sexual abusers. Pedophilia refers to an attraction it does not refer to any act. Pederasty is more associated with those that engage in sex with children although it does not necessarily mean an abusive relationship many people in todays society would see any sexual relation as abusive.

 

Much of the discussion that I have seen here is a common discussion among-st pedophiles. Pedophiles as a community very greatly there are people who would never engage in sexual activities with children all the way up to the serial molests we read about in newspapers. By enlarge most pedophiles are not much different then any one else. Just as there are abusive hetero and homosexual there are sadly Abusive Pedophiles.

 

imajine that 1% of all 'boy lovers' make an error when determining if a child is ready for sex.

 

imajine that the age of concent was abolished

 

imajine that this lead to an increase in the number of 'boy lovers'

 

now' date=' that 1% of mistaken assesment of a childs readyness for sex represents a higher number of childeren slept with before they were ready, even though we are, in this case, only looking at people who are making an effort to only sleep with people who will not find the experience detrimental.

 

[/quote']

 

DAK one thing I find that is helpful in such discussions is further defining children. For example in some countries Age Of Consent (AoC) laws are automatic below a certain age often 12 or 13 but above this age requires that a parent or the child file a complaint. Child in today society can mean anything from a new born infant to an 17 yo about to turn 18. To apply the same standards for a 8yo to pic a number as is applied to a 15yo is ridiculous. Even among Boylovers there are Ephebophiles that are attracted to Adolescent or teen boys and Pedophiles like myself attracted to pre pubescent boys and a great many that cross over the two area.

 

Personally my view on when any relationship is acceptable is best summed up by Dr. Frans Giels potion in abbreviated form:

 

' 1 Who is in Charge? the child should always be in charge of his or her own Sexuality

 

2 Initiative: The initiative for sexuality should always come from the child him- or herself

 

3 Freedom: The child should be able at any given moment to remove himself or herself from the situation.

 

4 Openness: The child may not be burdened with a secret.'

 

Personally while this is in regard to adult child relationships I think they apply to ALL sexual relationships. Point 4 is key as in most societies today and ALL western societies this is not really possible. For older teens it is a bit more possible but the younger the child the more it is impossible. So long as I child can not look to a parent a teacher or a trusted friend that is neutral to the sexual relationship for some guidance or support a healthy sexual relationship is not possible. While locations can be found in the world where such relationships are possible if you go as a sex tourist other aspects of these 4 points are in turn violated.

 

While I think many AoC laws are not very realistic you I think they are needed and they error on the proper side. Personally I'd like to see more AoC lows allow for the complaint to originate from the child if lower then AoC but older then a another age of say 12.

 

Anyway I am out of time at the moment but will certainly come back by to discuss this further.

[Bettina]

Even among Boylovers there are Ephebophiles that are attracted to Adolescent or teen boys and Pedophiles like myself attracted to pre pubescent boys and a great many that cross over the two area.

 

I looked up the definition of prepubescent and found that it relates to kids 10 years old and even younger. So, are you saying you are attracted to 10 year old or younger boys? How young?

 

Bettina