Pedophiles: are they "born that way", and do they deserve liberation from oppression? [Archive]

redwog

17th July 2010, 02:56

I don't buy the genetic predisposition to pedophilia stuff.

Statistically, the biggest indicator that one may abuse children is that they themselves were a victim of sexual abuse as a child. Its an abusive cycle that is a product of social alienation.

Furthermore, there are instances of institutional pedophilia, for example in the Catholic church, or in some schooling systems, which is more about power than it is about genetic predisposition.

Finally, when we discuss these question, we need to recognise that all of our sexual traits (and other cultural traits for that matter) are not necessarily rooted in nature but are characterised by our socialisation. I am not making the argument for 'man-boy-love' as some groups in the left have. But what I am suggesting is that pedophilia is not traumatic because it is about a young person and an old person. It is about relative power, capacity to give consent, and usually the impact of coercion.

It actually points more to the way sexuality in general has been fucked up by successive hegemonic orders including capitalism.

My fear is that if we say it is a predisposition, then we have the constant witch-hunts for child-sex offenders and the social shunning which is actually a really medieval approach. This suits the state because it has been largely complicit in not prosecuting offenders over the last 50 years and has also paid little to no mind of ending the cyclical nature of child abuse.

Any victim of child abuse should be monitored and given all of the social support required to help them and us to prevent them becoming an offender themselves.

It is ultimately about power. Children in our society essentially have none, and this is the root of the abuse; tendency or not.

Exasperated_Youth

17th July 2010, 03:00

I don't buy the genetic predisposition to pedophilia stuff.

Statistically, the biggest indicator that one may abuse children is that they themselves were a victim of sexual abuse as a child. Its an abusive cycle that is a product of social alienation.

Yes, but about 30% of sexual abuse of children is by a family member. So when you count that in, maybe there is a genetic factor.

redwog

17th July 2010, 03:06

or again about power; parents and elders DO oppress children. Intra-family sex abuse is still institutional, is it not?

What is actually suggests to me, is that the myth of the predatorial stranger is actually quite small.

Os Cangaceiros

17th July 2010, 03:07

The problem with discussions about pedophilia is that they almost inevitably degenerate into heated bouts of moral grandstanding, which I fully expect this thread to do at some point.

Another thing I find amusing about these sorts of discussions (and American society in general) is how ephebophilia is somehow lumped in with pedophilia, when only 100 years ago in the US, 15 year olds were considered adults, had children, ran farms and managed families. It seems clear to me that the age of consent, far from being a static entity heroicly defended by morally upright anti-pederasts, is very much a reflection of societal values.

Anyway, I'm not going to say anymore on this subject, as I don't want to be banned. :rolleyes:

Adi Shankara

17th July 2010, 03:10

khad

17th July 2010, 03:11

Another thing I find amusing about these sorts of discussions (and American society in general) is how ephebophilia is somehow lumped in with pedophilia, when only 100 years ago in the US, 15 year olds were considered adults, had children, ran farms and managed families. It seems clear to me that the age of consent, far from being a static entity heroicly defended by morally upright anti-pederasts, is very much a reflection of societal values.
What I find amusing about these sorts of discussions is how people use the ephebophilia angle to redeem a period of history in which 14 year old girls were expected to get married and pop out 3 kids by age 18.

Os Cangaceiros

17th July 2010, 03:13

What I find amusing about these sorts of discussions is how people use the ephebophilia angle to redeem a period of history in which 14 year old girls were expected to get married and pop out 3 kids by age 18.

You totally missed the point.

Adi Shankara

17th July 2010, 03:15

You totally missed the point.

I honestly don't see how. come to think of it...weren't age of consent laws put in place to protect women from these scenarios of abuse at the hands of men who'd rather see them become almost house-slaves?

I'm not saying that AoC laws need some reformation...but I think that in many countries, they do more than just reinforce some patriarchal hierarchy. (a favored strawman)

Sam_b

17th July 2010, 03:15

Are we defining 'paedophile' by someone who acts on their urges or not?

Regardless, I'm not touching this one with a bargepole.

Exasperated_Youth

17th July 2010, 03:15

Another thing I find amusing about these sorts of discussions (and American society in general) is how ephebophilia is somehow lumped in with pedophilia, when only 100 years ago in the US, 15 year olds were considered adults, had children, ran farms and managed families. It seems clear to me that the age of consent, far from being a static entity heroicly defended by morally upright anti-pederasts, is very much a reflection of societal values.

I was aiming my comments towards a somewhat younger age group. The age of consent here is 16, at which you can have sex, own your own home, work, be taxed etc. So sex at 15 is somewhat different.

If you want to get into it, almost everything is a reflection of societal values. Rape was once considered acceptable. As are arranged marriages in some cultures etc. We're all shaped by our cultures; it's not necessarily a negative or bourgeoisie thing.

Os Cangaceiros

17th July 2010, 03:17

If you want to get into it, almost everything is a reflection of societal values.

Yes, and that's why I'm very puzzled when many communists exhibit a level of pointless moralism I'd expect from Christians.

Adi Shankara

17th July 2010, 03:19

Yes, and that's why I'm very puzzled when many communists exhibit a level of pointless moralism I'd expect from Christians.

not wanting to see a 7-8 year old turned into a sex toy by a much older predator--"how fucking bourgeoisie!"

Exasperated_Youth

17th July 2010, 03:19

Yes, and that's why I'm very puzzled when many communists exhibit a level of pointless moralism I'd expect from Christians.

Oh, do be careful. You may meet with some criticism for that. I don't think that considering paedophilia wrong is pointless. It really messes up children. Don't have to be a Christian to want to protect children from sexual predation.

Adi Shankara

17th July 2010, 03:20

There should be a new rule: unless YOU YOURSELF would want your own kids to be sexually abused, or if you have been sexually abused as a toddler/preteen/whatever, then you shouldn't advocate eliminating AoC laws. if you actually do want your kids to be subject to that though...well you're a sick bastard and deserved to be exiled.

scarletghoul

17th July 2010, 03:22

Adi Shankara

17th July 2010, 03:27

Pedophilia is not Ephebophilia.

Ephebophilia=attraction to teenagers who actually have hit puberty.

pedophilia=attraction to children/toddlers (yes, toddlers) who have not hit puberty .

I agree with Scarletghoul, Ephebophilia arguments are just brought in as strawmen to distract from the issue.

Pedophilia is not a vague term; it's very clearly defined.

khad

17th July 2010, 03:31

Pedophilia is not Ephebophilia.

Ephebophilia=attraction to teenagers who actually have hit puberty.
TBH, this is a sketchy comparison to make. If I had children and had to imagine my 13 year old son or daughter getting fiddled by a 30 year old family member or friend, well, I could imagine myself going to jail for what I would do. There's no magical divide, here. Kids going through puberty are kids going through puberty--that doesn't make them fully capable of handing the responsibilities which come with being an adult.

I think it's easy for people to say "yeah, fucking 9 year old boys is wrong, man," but they get all flaky when it comes to the much more prevalent form of sexual abuse, in which young teens are often the primary victims.

Adi Shankara

17th July 2010, 03:36

TBH, this is a sketchy comparison to make. If I had children and had to imagine my 13 year old son or daughter getting fiddled by a 30 year old family member or friend, well, I could imagine myself going to jail for what I would do. There's no magical divide, here. Kids going through puberty are kids going through puberty--that doesn't make them fully capable of handing the responsibilities which come with being an adult.

I'd agree completely. but I was just referring to the word definition, of which is what it is.

trust me, I would easily do the same if anyone even decided to do that to my daughter or son at the age of 13 or 14. I wouldn't care if the pedo was a man or woman.

Psy

17th July 2010, 03:53

Sure, some people do have an innate sexual attraction towards children, and the urge to have sex with them. However, that does not mean they should be able to. Too bad for them I guess, but its not a huge suffering when compared to the rape of a child is it.

People fantasise about all sorts of harmful and terrible things, that does not mean they should be able to carry them out.

Simple really.

edit: we are not talking about ephebophilia. Why do all pedo-related threads get full of this Age of Consent strawman ? Something to hide ? :lol:
Well it kinda matters as it is not simply a issue of disparity else we'd bring have to bring cougars into it. So it comes down to age of consent, a age where they are presumably mature enough so they are not taken advantage of. I would say ephebophilia would be included in this as even teenagers are vulnerable.

jake williams

17th July 2010, 04:24

One of the disturbing things about the moral panic stirred up by the right wing about pedophilia is that it has prevented, in all sorts of different ways, psychologists and sociologists from actually finding real solutions to the massive social problem that is child sexual abuse.

We really don't know what the contours of "pedophilia" are. It appears that there are several categories of "pedophile" - people in positions of authority who abuse children stemming from sort of institutional psychosis, eg. priests; people who have deeper psychological problems and violently attack children, often involving sexuality; and people who actually sincerely want to have sexual-romantic relationships with children.

I think we can basically take for granted that no one here wants pedophiles to have sex with children. That's not the question. The question is what we do about child sexual abuse, how we prevent it and, if there are in fact people who really are sexually attracted to children (and obviously it's not something anyone would choose because it would be a horrible condition to have), how we humanely deal with them.

The right clearly doesn't have solutions; they use a menace of pedos hiding in the bushes to pad police budgets and powers, all the while reinforcing modes of patriarchal authority that are most often responsible for the abuse, sexual or otherwise, of children. They also threaten and intimidate academics and social workers who actually want to address the problem, I imagine in part because to do so would be to threaten the social structures which lead to sexual abuse and which the leaders of the right wing depend on. If we want to actually solve the problem, which I do, even having a basic idea how much trauma it can cause, we have to move beyond moral posturing and actually try to solve the problem.

And I think if we do that, we may find (or we may not - child sexual abuse may in fact be almost entirely the result of sociopathic authoritarian institutions) that some people really are sexually attracted to children, against their best wishes and intentions. They deserve our sympathy and support, not least because that would be an integral part of preventing them from sexually abusing children.

redwog

17th July 2010, 05:01

Jammoe, you express what I was trying to much more eloquently.

Adi Shankara

17th July 2010, 07:39

Thanks for all the responses.; I was getting the wrong idea for a minute idea because of threads like these:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/theres-thin-line-t115593/index.html?p=1523943#post1523943

http://www.revleft.com/vb/roman-polanski-t118813/index6.html

where there seemed to be (or at least, used to be) pro-pedo stances.

meow

17th July 2010, 09:11

when i was 13 i would have happily had sex. even with an adult. it would have been fully consenting with full understanding on my part. so to you people who say thats wrong well fuck you.

for people attracted to young children they do deserve liberation just as we all do. however freedom doesnt include the right to rape. that liberation doesnt include the right for them to rape anyone.

and rape is what we should all be against. we should not waffle about age because it is not relevant. if a person can fully understand and consent then you should get out of there bedroom. if they cant then you might have a reason to come in.

of course it is probable that no 6 year old can understand or consent. in which case it is rape. but any 6 year old can understand pain. and most rape is painful. if an adult (or even an older child) wants sex with a 6 year old they should not because it will probably be rape and hurt them.

but if the 6 year old could somehow understand and fully consent then again no ones business.

finally all this moralising about 13 year olds is stupid. did not you want sex when you were 13?

Adi Shankara

17th July 2010, 09:50

x
but if the 6 year old could somehow understand and fully consent then again no ones business.

you're a fucking idiot.

only a complete fucking idiot would think ANYONE that age could consent. no child that age should even have to think about sex, let alone have.

finally all this moralising about 13 year olds is stupid. did not you want sex when you were 13?

well since you asked, I wanted (and had) lots of sex when I was around 14 and 13 (if I recall) with older girls of about 15 and 16--but probably not for the reason you are thinking.
my therapist tells me this is because, since i was sexually abused at such a young age (by a female, no less) that I became very promiscuous and started doing that to subconsciously prove myself it couldn't hurt me, in a frantic effort to prove to myself that "I was still in charge".

the sex never felt good. even to this day, sex barely feels good (not all of the time, just most of the time). it feels "blank". so not everyone has the same experience as me. that's a given. however, there are alot of people I'm sure who have, probably many even on this board who won't speak about it who are also males. for you to think that all males only want lots of sex around such a young age is sexist in itself.

Also: many 13 year olds also want to drink beer til they pass out and own firearms. should we let them do that as well? dumbass.

Adil3tr

17th July 2010, 09:56

Pedophiles can go fuck themselves, then seek help

Sasha

17th July 2010, 10:35

as i wrote in another thread

as people who are around for a while know i have an nuanced point on pedophelia.
i reconigize that an atraction to younger people even kids is just another way people can be wired sexualy, just as there are ppl atracted to thin ppl, fat ppl, tattooed ppl, dead ppl, animals, amputees, cars, perfectly "normal" ppl of the oposite sex, leather guys etc etc etc.
what ever lifts your luggage so to speak, thinking/fantasy should not be policed.

but, and lets make this an BIG FAT BUT.

i'm firmly opposed to any (sexual) relationship without consent or with an big power imbalance, this is in my view unacceptable. so while i have no problem (here and everywhere) with ppl who want to fuck (to be more precise who get turned on by the thought of fucking) animals, dead ppl, prepubecents etc etc i.e. the tought about any sexual relationship thats not between two consenting adults (or for that matter two consenting kids, two consenting animals, two consenting corpses ;-) ).
but ppl who actualy do make their fantasies about sexual relationships without consent (!) come true, not by cossplay or writing filthy stories but by starting an sexual relationship without consent, cross the line into rape imho and need to be dealt with (how to deal with them is an whole other discussion).

So people need to differ between pedophiles (people who have an atraction to children) and childabusers, you can be the former without being the latter, hell, you can even be the latter without being the former (certain sadists for example).

As long as an pedophile keeps their hands of kids they should recieve help and support, because god knows thats an fucked up and hard preference to have, not to mention that most pedophiles are victims of abuse them selfs.
I think society's hysteria when it comes to pedo feelings is counter productive, it stops these ppl from seeking help/comming forward wich makes it dangerous.
i would realy aprieciate it if i have someone in my surounding telling me, hey, i have this fucked up thing, please believe me that i dont want to act uppon these feelings but please dont let me babysit your kids.

And more research should be done about this but I also think that the outlawing of fictional/virtual underage porn (storys, animation, cgi) is an bad idea. Like rape storys etc its sommething repulsive but i think its more of an release preventing actual abuse than an gateway into abuse like most oponents claim.

Sasha

17th July 2010, 10:40

when i was 13 i would have happily had sex. even with an adult. it would have been fully consenting with full understanding on my part. so to you people who say thats wrong well fuck you

sigh, that wasnt wrong of you, it was wrong of any adult who would have sex with you.

because you can think you can consent but no adult should believe that.

there is nothing wrong with fucking an fellow 13 year old or even an 15 year old when your 13. but an 20+ year old fucking an 13 year old, yeah that is fucking wrong.

Andropov

17th July 2010, 10:56

There seems to be a certain Sadistic streak among pedophiles.
After reading the reports about the child abuse in Irish institutions by Priests it was nothing short of sadism.
Even the cases that surface now in the papers that dont inolve the clergy they seem to contain some disproportionate levels of sadism, is it just the media that accentuates this or is there a disproportionate level of sadism among pedophiles?

Sasha

17th July 2010, 11:06

its just an hunch but i have the feeling that most real pedophiles (people atracted to children) arent sadists. if you read court reports you can also always hear them rationale the abuse "its was consentual" "i just want to give love" "i stoped if they started crying" etc etc. pedophiles also most of the time dont switch, they like either boys or girls and dont progress.
sadists on the other hand switch, not only between boys and girls (whatever they can get their hands on) but most times also progress, they start with animals or sadistic extreme BDSM/rape and then progress to children.

Adi Shankara

17th July 2010, 11:19

its just an hunch but i have the feeling that most real pedophiles (people atracted to children) arent sadists. if you read court reports you can also always hear them rationale the abuse "its was consentual" "i just want to give love" "i stoped if they started crying" etc etc.

But these sound like run-of-the-mill excuses to make it look like the pedo was in concern for their victim's feelings, when all they care about is his/her own fucking pleasure.

I mean, what else are they going to say when they face 15-life in prison and branding/ostracism as a sex offender? the truth?

Sasha

17th July 2010, 11:44

offcourse they are, but they are diffrent than an sadist childabusre would give, they would talk about disceplinning etc.

anyway, its not the point, i just wanted to point out that your OP is faulty because you should differ between pedophiles and childabusres. because like i said, not all pedophiles are childabusres (case in point: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=3347526) and not all childabusers are pedophiles.

redwog

17th July 2010, 12:44

I think that it is important that people like Thomas_Sankara need to be heard in terms of their experiences. When I think of many of my good friends whom have had experiences of the same nature and what it has taught me about the long-term impacts it has on human relations. Add to this the many more who stay silent about their experiences, and you begin to realise how significant the problem is; and how much post-revolutionary social/emotional rehabilitation is necessary.

I'm still stuck on the point that there is some 'nature' component to pedo' (or necros, beasti's or whatever)

I am a firm believer that in being alienated from our species-being; we are also alienated from our very own nature - sexuality is part of that.

As far as I can tell, there would be no biological reasoning for anyone to have sexual tendencies beyond interaction with other post-pubescents. Of course love and pleasure are human complexities to a simplified mammalian nature, but they too are also distorted by our alienation from our species-being.

Throw in there the issues around gender/masulinity/femininity and power and you have a huge mess. It is no wonder our whole sexual culture is nightmare. Dominance, power, oppression, an infantile focus on penetration, alienated sexual interactions, massive plastic breasts, huge shaved cocks. hetero-normativity - all total pollutions to the formation of healthy sexual (and loving) beings.

I am not being puritanical here at all. In fact the variety of religions of the world actually laid the ground for this shit. They separated sex from love, making one good and the other bad.

I guess what I am saying here is rapists, pedos (active or not) and all other forms of sexuality that are socially destructive are actually an extreme product of our fucked up sexual-socialisation. Does this excuse their actions upon others? Of course not. Yet the solution lies in a collective response based upon a revolutionary desire to change human relations by building towards communism.

Oh, and btw, the reason that I think sexuality is such a big thing for the ruling class to control, is because its the only means of production we inherently have great control over. Our ability to (re)produce labour. And I think that is pretty important to them...;)

meow

17th July 2010, 16:39

only a complete fucking idiot would think ANYONE that age could consent. no child that age should even have to think about sex, let alone have.
i didnt say anyone of any age could consent. i will highlight some words in what i said:

if the 6 year old could somehow
in other words im not really sure that a 6 year old could consent. i doubt it. see below in this post.

sigh, that wasnt wrong of you, it was wrong of any adult who would have sex with you.

because you can think you can consent but no adult should believe that.

there is nothing wrong with fucking an fellow 13 year old or even an 15 year old when your 13. but an 20+ year old fucking an 13 year old, yeah that is fucking wrong.
well i guess we have to agree to disagree to a certain point.

as for me i will say it again. i am 100% opposed to rape and all sorts of sexual assult. ill bold it for you. i am 100% opposed to all rape and sexual assult.

for sex to not be rape it has to be consensual and all partys have to understand what is going on.

now does anyone disagree?

now i make the logical conclusion that if a child could understand and consent than it would not be rape.

----

now as to whether a prepubesent child could consent or not i did not comment upon. but i will for all you fucking wankers out there who think i did and reacted negatively to it. no. i dont think that it is at all likely that a 6 year old or even a 12 year old to fully understand sex to make a informed decision about sex. i did make the point that when i was 13 i thought i could. i think now many years later that my 13 yera old self could still have consented. but as for others of that age group? i dont konw. i am not a trained pychologist or anything of that sort. it would probably require lots of interview and such to decide.

and no i am not attracted to anyone of that age. i personally seem to be attracted more to people older than me.

anyone want to have a discussion on the points i make?

meow

17th July 2010, 16:44

actually it seems my point is basically the same as psycho (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=14401). but i made mistake of mentioning ages.

consent is key.

i also oppose people who rape adults with mental problems who cant consent. i also oppose people who rape old people who cant defend themselves.

Hiratsuka

17th July 2010, 16:59

This question - what is consent - is not confined to just the topic at hand, but since I can't think of an infallible answer that would fairly distribute justice in all circumstances, I'm left proposing that some arbitrary cut off point may have to be the answer - whether that be an age limit or, on an individual basis, the development of certain sexual organs (but this leads to issues when you have an intersex person).

meow

17th July 2010, 17:03

how about a cut off that if an adult wants sex with a person under a certain cut off age (or with a person who is known to have mental problems) they consult a trained professional to ask them to evaluate the person for understanding and consent. that cut off could be 50 or 25 or 15.

if a person has sex with someone under that cut off without first getting an ok regarding ability to understand and consent then we could discuss what happens.

but just saying an age and saying "no sex with anyone under this age" is stupid.

Coggeh

17th July 2010, 17:30

This topic is extremely hard to discuss without raising tensions or emotionial reactions and thats extremely understanding because many of us may know someone who has experienced something such as abuse ,rape etc or even experienced it themselves.

However this should be no excuse to go around and calling for things like castration of pedophiles or locking them up for their lives or whatever. Pedophilia is something many people are born with, they aren't monsters. Most Pedophiles are extremely ashamed of who they are and want help but are afraid to seek any for fear of being stigmatised by their communities or even their family. Most will never act on their condition . Their should be support structures in place for people who fear they are or fear they may in some point in their lives commit any acts. This is the only way to solve the problem anything else will push pedophiles further into the dark and increase the chances of them commiting such acts.

REVOLUTIONARY32

17th July 2010, 18:29

Simple Solution
Anyone who sexually abuses a child or rapes a adult should be shot in the face.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

17th July 2010, 18:31

Simple Solution
Anyone who sexually abuses a child or rapes a adult should be shot in the face.

no.

REVOLUTIONARY32

17th July 2010, 18:32

no.

No what?

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

17th July 2010, 18:37

No what?

No to state sanctioned murder.

REVOLUTIONARY32

17th July 2010, 18:49

No to state sanctioned murder.

I agree 100%, justice should come from the will of the people and I know plenty of people including myself who would gladly blast a nonce or a rapist in the face extreme punishment of the lumpen degenerates is whats needed.
The moderate left are far to PC when it comes to dealing with extreme criminals
people who commit crimes against their class for greed desire and gluttony should be lined against the wall.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

17th July 2010, 18:55

I agree 100%, justice should come from the will of the people and I know plenty of people including myself who would gladly blast a nonce or a rapist in the face extreme punishment of the lumpen degenerates is whats needed.
The moderate left are far to PC when it comes to dealing with extreme criminals
people who commit crimes against their class for greed desire and gluttony should be lined against the wall.

Alright then, consentually-mandated murder. It's still murder, you can have fantasies of killing 'nonces' and class traitors all you want, leaving debating to adults.

REVOLUTIONARY32

17th July 2010, 19:01

Alright then, consentually-mandated murder. It's still murder, you can have fantasies of killing 'nonces' and class traitors all you want, leaving debating to adults.

Sadly what you PC moderates fail to grasp is that some people just dont deserve life.
Now away with your antsy pansy bullshit.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

17th July 2010, 19:10

Sadly what you PC moderates fail to grasp is that some people just dont deserve life.
Now away with your antsy pansy bullshit.

You sound alot like the daily mail. What if the concesus decides you don't deserve life?

Quail

17th July 2010, 19:11

Sadly what you PC moderates fail to grasp is that some people just dont deserve life.
Now away with your antsy pansy bullshit.

Oh dear.

My opinion is basically the same as psycho's.

Adi Shankara

17th July 2010, 19:11

Pedophilia is something many people are born with, they aren't monsters. Most Pedophiles are extremely ashamed of who they are and want help but are afraid to seek any for fear of being stigmatised by their communities or even their family. Most will never act on their condition .

ALL a crock of unsubstantiated bullshit. oh boohoo, the poor pedophile, he or she didn't mean to rape that 4 year old--it was in their nature!

if it's in their nature, they should be kept as far away from normal people as possible.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

17th July 2010, 19:13

ALL a crock of unsubstantiated bullshit. oh boohoo, the poor pedophile, he or shedidn't mean to rape that 4 year old--it was in their nature!

if it's in their nature, they should be kept as far away from normal people as possible.

This may be somewhat cruel, but your opinion is coloured by personal experiance, and therefore isn't objective.

Adi Shankara

17th July 2010, 19:15

This may be somewhat cruel, but your opinion is coloured by personal experiance, and therefore isn't objective.

Thing is, he doesn't prove any of his claims; he doesn't prove that most Pedophiles don't offend; nor does he prove that pedophiles feel any shame for what they do. anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it on things like this.

And as far as help for their condition goes...most people only seem to want help when they've been caught.

Quail

17th July 2010, 19:16

Also, I don't think that getting vengeance on a sexual abuser is a particularly good way of dealing with it. Sexual abuse/assault is a big problem and does have awful consequences on the victim, but punishing the perpetrator doesn't actually solve anything, and doesn't do anything to prevent future assaults. I think that you should try to deal with the psychological issue (such as pedophilia) behind the action.

Adi Shankara

17th July 2010, 19:18

Revleftists: endless antipathy for religious individuals

endless sympathy/apologism for Pedophiles and child abusers

REVOLUTIONARY32

17th July 2010, 19:30

You sound alot like the daily mail. What if the concesus decides you don't deserve life?

I will never commit a crime against my class.

DISCLAIMER. I should have made it clear from the start that extreme punishment should only be dealt out against degenerate criminals and class criminals in the context of being justice in a democratic workers republic.

Quail

17th July 2010, 19:32

I will never commit a crime against my class.

DISCLAIMER. I should have made it clear from the start that extreme punishment should only be dealt out against degenerate criminals and class criminals in the context of being justice in a democratic workers republic.

What does punishment acheive though?

REVOLUTIONARY32

17th July 2010, 19:33

Oh dear.

My opinion is basically the same as psycho's.

I take offence to being called a psycho.

Adi Shankara

17th July 2010, 19:33

What does punishment acheive though?

You're absolutely right! we should just let child abusers who have raped little kids wander around freely, as the kid spends the rest of his/her life a fucking mess because they don't know what they did to deserve that. :rolleyes:

afterall; the pedo-abuser is the REAL victim here. not that fucking tramp of a 6 or 5 year old (who was probably asking for it).

seriously. disgusting.

REVOLUTIONARY32

17th July 2010, 19:34

What does punishment acheive though?

In the right climate,Social Justice.

Quail

17th July 2010, 19:38

fionntan

17th July 2010, 19:48

Kill them and any
apologist for them...

REVOLUTIONARY32

17th July 2010, 19:52

When I said psycho, I meant the user psycho. I wasn't calling you a psycho.

I don't think that sexual abusers should just wander round free. I think that their problems need to be addressed. Punishing them won't do anything to prevent further attacks, especially in the case of pedophiles. Pedophiles should receive support to prevent them from sttacking children, and people with mental health issues should also get support so they don't end up abusing anyone.

People like you are whats wrong with the PC moderate left you should be ashamed of yourself for putting the rights of the predator over the natural and justified rights of the victim for retribution.

Uppercut

17th July 2010, 19:53

REVOLUTIONARY32

17th July 2010, 20:06

Rehabilitation before capital punishment. It's better to try and correct the sick before knocking them off. Of course, that doesn't work in every case. Some are just so conditioned and entrapped in their sick fantasies that it's within their subconscious to feel and act that way. That being said, I have not problem executing those who refuse correction.

In capitalist society the greedy and those who have uncontrollable desires and gluttony are molly coddled and pampered by the establishment as financially liberal justice systems and the urge to strive for ultimate political correctness creates a system that views the lumpen degenerates as victims of circumstance.
In a Marxist revolutionary republic all crimes of greed gluttony and desire should be dealt with in the extreme.
Capitalism creates excuses for people who are inherently wrong people who should be culled like we would cull a vicious dog.

Quail

17th July 2010, 20:14

People like you are whats wrong with the PC moderate left you should be ashamed of yourself for putting the rights of the predator over the natural and justified rights of the victim for retribution.

I don't think that retribution does anything to solve the problem. If we don't deal with the reasons why people offend in the first place, people are going to reoffend (if you don't murder them, that is) and there will always be the social problem of abuse/assault. A lot of people who abuse others have been abused themselves. There is a lot of guilt, shame and powerlessness associated with being abused, and the fact that victims go on to be abusers shows that their mental health is not being taken care of. Also, punishment does nothing to put people off committing this sort of crime in the first place. It's completely useless.

Rehabilitation before capital punishment. It's better to try and correct the sick before knocking them off. Of course, that doesn't work in every case. Some are just so conditioned and entrapped in their sick fantasies that it's within their subconscious to feel and act that way. That being said, I have not problem executing those who refuse correction.

I do agree that rehabilitation is better than punishment, but I have to disagree with killing those who can't be rehabilitated. You're basically just calling for the execution of people who are severely mentally ill.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

17th July 2010, 22:20

Nice to see the enlightend views of many posters.

Agnapostate

17th July 2010, 23:01

Recycled previous statement of mine:
To first consider the nature of pedophilia's possible status as a neurodevelopmental disorder, an interesting case documented by Burns and Swerdlow in Right Orbitofrontal Tumor With Pedophilia Symptom and Constructional Apraxia Sign (http://archneur.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/60/3/437) may provide appropriate insights. Consider this excerpt:

The patient displayed impulsive sexual behavior with pedophilia, marked constructional apraxia, and agraphia. The behavioral symptoms and constructional deficits, including agraphia, resolved following tumor resection...For patients with acquired sociopathy and paraphilia, an orbitofrontal localization requires consideration. This case further illustrates that constructional apraxia can arise from right prefrontal lobe dysfunction. Agraphia may represent a manifestation of constructional apraxia in the absence of aphasia and ideomotor apraxia.

In layman's terms, the "impulsive sexual behavior with children" was documented after the formation of an orbitofrontal tumor in the patient's brain, and his pedophiliac interests disappeared after the removal of said tumor. Now, a somewhat similar result can be derived from Casanova et al.'s Hippocampal pathology in two mentally ill paraphiliacs (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0925492702000264). Consider the abstract:

Paraphilias or disorders of sexual behavior have markedly increased in prevalence during the last decade. Until now no published neuropathological studies on paraphilia have appeared in the medical literature. A computerized search was done on all available medical and autopsy records of a large urban hospital (St. Elizabeths Hospital, Washington, DC) for any mention of deviant sexual behavior. Cases were then reviewed for presence of a history consistent with DSM-IV diagnoses of paraphilia. Two such cases were identified. Neuropathological examination in both cases revealed simple cell atrophy of pyramidal cells confined to different hippocampal subfields. Reactive astrocytosis was present in the outer strata of the affected regions. The pathological changes in the hippocampus resemble those reported after persistent stress or long-term chronic glucocorticoid administration. The accompanying astrocytosis indicates a reactive, ongoing process. The findings suggest new therapeutic interventions in the treatment of paraphilia.

Tost et al's. Pedophilia: neuropsychological evidence encouraging a brain network perspective (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0306987704001872) also provides similar credence to a broadly neurodevelopmental hypothesis. Consider the abstract:

Although the vast majority of current pathogenetic theories support a neurobiological understanding of psychiatric disorders, the brain functional correlates of pedophilia are largely unknown. Based on prior behavior genetics research on human sexual orientation and phenomenology as well as the phenotypical intersection of pedophilia with other psychiatric spectrum disorders, we hypothesize the involvement of striato–thalamo–cortical processing loops in the formation of pedophilic urges and behaviors. Data from a current neuropsychological pilot study in four pedophiles encourage our brain functional perspective. As deduced from the network model, all four patients exhibited pronounced and circumscribed deficits in cognitive domains mediated by striato-thalamically controlled areas of the frontal cortex. All patients were especially impaired in neuropsychological functions associated with the prefrontal and motor processing loops (e.g., response inhibition, working memory and cognitive flexibility), with a performance level located up to five standard deviations below the normative data.

I'm inclined to believe that pedophilia's origins as a neurodevelopmental disorder can be traced back to the incidence of head injury in early childhood. As with the broad hypothesis about the neurodevelopmental elements of pedophilia and related paraphilias, there are important empirical sources to consult on this matter.

For instance, it's of considerable relevance to consider the implications of Blanchard et al.'s Retrospective Self-Reports of Childhood Accidents Causing Unconsciousness in Phallometrically Diagnosed Pedophiles (http://www.springerlink.com/content/q51l1j12x75832p2/). Consider the abstract:

The present study investigated whether head injuries in childhood might increase the risk of pedophilia in males. The subjects were 1206 patients referred to a clinical sexology service for assessment of their erotic preferences. These were classified, on the basis of phallometric test results, as pedophilic (n = 413) or nonpedophilic (n = 793). Information regarding early head injuries, other signs of possible neurodevelopmental problems, and parental histories of psychiatric treatment were collected with self-administered questionnaires. The results showed that childhood accidents that resulted in unconsciousness were associated with pedophilia and with lower levels of intelligence and education. These associations were statistically significant for accidents that occurred before the age of 6, but not for accidents that occurred between the ages of 6 and 12. These results are compatible with the hypothesis that neurodevelopmental perturbations in early childhood may increase the risk of pedophilia. They are also, however, compatible with the alternative explanation that prior neurodevelopmental problems lead to accident-proneness and head injury, on the one hand, and to pedophilia, on the other, and that head injury has no causal influence on pedophilia.

All in all, I'm inclined to believe that the continued classification of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and related and similar publications as a mental illness is appropriate, since there is significant evidence that indicates that it is a neurodevelopmental disorder with causal origins in head injury or some other condition that creates a greater propensity to sustain head injury.

revolution inaction

17th July 2010, 23:08

Simple Solution
Anyone who sexually abuses a child or rapes a adult should be shot in the face.

I've seen this said many times about rapists and paedophiles, even the ones who never actual molest any children, but no one seems to say the same thing about people who beat others severely so the become traumatised or permanently scarred, do you support the death penalty for those who carry of serous assaults?

I agree 100%, justice should come from the will of the people and I know plenty of people including myself who would gladly blast a nonce or a rapist in the face extreme punishment of the lumpen degenerates is whats needed.
The moderate left are far to PC when it comes to dealing with extreme criminals
people who commit crimes against their class for greed desire and gluttony should be lined against the wall.

does killing them undo what they did?

Revleftists: endless antipathy for religious individuals

endless sympathy/apologism for Pedophiles and child abusers

so anything more sophisticated then "torture them to death as slowly as possible" is sympathy, thats interesting to know. :rolleyes:

You're absolutely right! we should just let child abusers who have raped little kids wander around freely, as the kid spends the rest of his/her life a fucking mess because they don't know what they did to deserve that. :rolleyes:

afterall; the pedo-abuser is the REAL victim here. not that fucking tramp of a 6 or 5 year old (who was probably asking for it).

seriously. disgusting.

Yes your right any one who doesn't support the killing one any one who is atracted to children regardles of whether they act on this or not wants child rapists to be free to rape all the kids the want.

I have to say i am glad every one here has such an intelligent worked out position on pedophiles and doesn't just mindlessly parrot tabloid crap.

Agnapostate

17th July 2010, 23:25

I honestly don't see how. come to think of it...weren't age of consent laws put in place to protect women from these scenarios of abuse at the hands of men who'd rather see them become almost house-slaves?

No. Regardless of their current function, they originated to, well...enforce patriarchal hierarchy. They were intended for fathers to protect their unmarried daughters from becoming spoiled goods, which is why they were not applied to relationships between older females and younger males as recently as a few decades ago.

Pedophilia is not a vague term; it's very clearly defined.

To you, obviously. Most of the people I know use the word "pedophile" to refer to anyone who engages in a sexual relationship with an underage person. Since it seems that people in the U.S. generally mistakenly believe that there is a uniform age of consent of 18, they'll refer to people who have such relationships with 16 and 17 year olds as "pedophiles." Pedophilia, in actuality, is a prolonged and persistent sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

#FF0000

17th July 2010, 23:58

Kill them and any
apologist for them...

That sort of thing tends to be expensive, unless you don't care about even pretending to care about evidence and a correct verdict.

Therapy or separation is enough. Execution, generally, is barbaric and unnecessary.

#FF0000

18th July 2010, 00:02

ALL a crock of unsubstantiated bullshit. oh boohoo, the poor pedophile, he or she didn't mean to rape that 4 year old--it was in their nature!

Literally no one is saying that, you fool. Separate them, release them if and only if they complete some kind of therapy. It's more than enough. Capital punishment is a barbaric, unnecessary, and not to mention, extremely expensive act.

#FF0000

18th July 2010, 00:03

Stupid, shit-stirring posts will be infracted.

Take a breath, think, and articulate a post with arguments.

Sasha

18th July 2010, 01:33

yeesh, how fucking dificult is it to read you bunch of hystiric "get your torches and pitchforks" idiots.
again:

not all pedophiles are child abusers, not all child abusers are pedophiles

no'one here defended any leanancy towards childabuse, rape is rape and we are all strongly against it.

some people just argued that lumping all pedophiles (of wih the defenition is "people who have erotic feelings towards pre-pubescents") with child-rapists is stupid and might even be dangerous, it forces pedophiles in the closet, boiling up their feelings without seeking help until sommething goes very wrong and an kid gets hurt.

what is wrong with aknowleging that pedophilia exists, that its an shit thing to have and helping these people in coping with live without ever actualy hurting kids.

but then again, the people screaming the worst bloody murder here seem to be the exact reactionary crowd dreaming of gullags, thinking the war on drugs should be taken up an notch and are of the opinion that shooting people because they are protestants is revolutionairy.

go back, read what people actualy wrote and keep the hysteria a bit in check.

meow

18th July 2010, 05:14

a note. i sent this to another person in pm.

if they (a 6 yera old) understand everything they would understand that they are physically incapable of having sex and then wouldnt consent. but if they didnt understand that tehy were incapable of physically having sex they couldnt consent because they dont understand the consequences etc.

consent also applies for non penetritive sex like touching and licking

Coggeh

18th July 2010, 13:29

You're absolutely right! we should just let child abusers who have raped little kids wander around freely, as the kid spends the rest of his/her life a fucking mess because they don't know what they did to deserve that. :rolleyes:

afterall; the pedo-abuser is the REAL victim here. not that fucking tramp of a 6 or 5 year old (who was probably asking for it).

seriously. disgusting.
Here man, shut up seriously. Your sarcastic comments show nothing other than that you are incapable of discussing something civilly.

Coggeh

18th July 2010, 13:43

Kill them and any
apologist for them...

Didn't know you wrote for the daily mail ?

Panda Tse Tung

18th July 2010, 15:07

However this should be no excuse to go around and calling for things like castration of pedophiles or locking them up for their lives or whatever.
Up untill this post nobody was suggesting this or anything similar.

Coggeh

18th July 2010, 15:21

Up untill this post nobody was suggesting this or anything similar.
Its a common argument and still done in some countries. Poland actually want to bring it back.

chegitz guevara

18th July 2010, 15:40

Up untill this post nobody was suggesting this or anything similar.

No, just killing them. :rolleyes:

Wanted Man

18th July 2010, 15:42

It seems evident that it would be both impractical and wrong to "punish" anyone who is attracted to children, and the same goes for cruel and unusual punishment like the death penalty, castration, etc. for child abusers.

However, it seems that in this thread, some people are seriously suggesting that actual child abusers should not be punished at all, that they should be treated like victims and "helped". Perhaps I'm misreading something here, but are you people fucking serious?

chegitz guevara

18th July 2010, 15:43

I'm disturbed by all the vengeance oriented "solutions" to this problem. Socialist solutions to crime are not vengeance based, they are based on rehabilitation, on helping people become a useful, productive members of society.

Trotskist

18th July 2010, 16:56

Another thing is that we have to have a scientific evidence-based skeptical mind to judge pedos. What i mean is that in this world there are a lot of lies, coming from every where. Some people accused of pedo are not really pedos, but in capitalist system there is a way to destroy the life of people by accusing them of something that they didn't do.

Don't get me wrong, pedophilia is real, and there are tons of pedo addicts in this world and that's real bad. However from my personal opinion i think that lots of the accusations against pedos are just to destroy the reputation and life of the accused.

Remember that the US justice system is anti-scientific, not evidence-based.

.

I'm not going to state my opinion beyond what you may already know what I think. I frankly think there is nothing worse than pedophilia, as the effects of sexual abuse on a child leaves one feeling totally empty, suicidal, and you feel like you belong to someone else rather than yourself.
leaves you feeling completely fucking worthless except as a toy for some perverted woman or man's enjoyment. makes them also feel like they can't form meaningful relationships that the rest of society would call "normal".

with that said, here is the dilemma: if everyone is born a certain way, and we shouldn't (as communists) discriminate...where does that put pedophiles, since there may be evidence that, like psychopaths, many are born with the tendency to abuse children? (or to be more politically correct: have the desire to abuse children)

I mean, if one's tendency towards pedophilia is no more separable than one's skin-color...what does that mean for us? does that mean we have to tolerate and actually encourage these..."individuals"?

Tl;dr: is being disgusted by pedophilia a reactionary "bourgeoisie family values" position?

Trotskist

18th July 2010, 17:01

Wanted: but a justice system based on scientific reformation of people doesn't mean that if a pedo in a socialist system is accused of pedo and his punishment would be a scientific psychological therapy, it doesn't mean that he will be free to go home and keep doing pedo. What i means is that on a more advanced justice-system criminals would be sent to a sort of Hotel-Hospital mental institution to be scientifically reformed, instead of sent to prisons.

I am in favor of hospitals and mental institutions with scientist psychiatrists therapies for criminals, instead of actual prisons.

And this system of mental hospitals and scientific therapies wouldn't be based on revenge and vengeance at all and on punishment of the accused it would be the total opposite, it would be more rational scientific humanist approach and they would come out of the reformation period a lot better than when people are thrown into ugly capitalist harsh jails.

.

.

It seems evident that it would be both impractical and wrong to "punish" anyone who is attracted to children, and the same goes for cruel and unusual punishment like the death penalty, castration, etc. for child abusers.

However, it seems that in this thread, some people are seriously suggesting that actual child abusers should not be punished at all, that they should be treated like victims and "helped". Perhaps I'm misreading something here, but are you people fucking serious?

Tavarisch_Mike

18th July 2010, 17:06

About castration, during the 20s here in Sweden when eugenics was highly popular among scientists and the upper classes, they actually tried to castrate some rapist.
The resulte was a dissappointment, the offender would commit more abuses after theire release. They say that the moste important sexual organ is the brain, the offenders minds where the actual problem rather then theire balls.

A couple of years ago i heard (once again here in Sweden) that menthal institutions had started a program where annybody could comme to, anonymous, if they had started to feel some messed up desires, for example to commit rape ore attraction towards children. Some mounths later they rapported that the program had made big progresses, just like psycho menthioned moste pedophiles probably are just fantasizing about it and feel really bad about doing it, if they get the chance to get anymouse menthal care they would probably get control over theire desires just by being able to talk about it without that anny judging them (psychologist).

But when it comes to them who takes the step frome fantasizing to an act, then i dont thik its wrong to take a strong and clear position that shows the brutality of the act, simply speaking give them a hell of a punishment. I also think that the left often are to much PC, that confuces people who arent so much into politics, they think its doubble moral that we can in one hand carry on with militant antifascism, supporting riots and revolutionary movements around the world northen Ireland, Basque, Palestine, Chiapas, Nepal, Grece and so on, but we wont be bad against simple criminals that does sadistic and hurtfull things for theire own pleasure (rapist, child abusers).

BTW; Just the thing about Roman Polanski, his case is a good example of how class and social statues plays a role in judgment. He has demnstrablie drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, and still people will defend him just because he have made so many good movies. Some people will even try to denide what he have done, but if it had been a working class person people wouldnt show this kind of stupid support.

Panda Tse Tung

18th July 2010, 17:16

Its a common argument and still done in some countries. Poland actually want to bring it back.
Yes, but at the very least it seemed as if you we're suggesting that people had stated so in this specific thread. Which prior to your post had not occured.

No, just killing them. :rolleyes:
That was after that specific post.

Also on a note, everyone thus far who had suggested someone else was being moralist, just as well upholds a (slightly different) moral system. This discussion has thus far been a moral discussion and cant be anything but a moral discussion with scientific influences.

Trotskist

18th July 2010, 17:38

man, the USA and other country's justice system are so evil, that there are cases of girls accusing guys of rape, just out of hatred for the guy, or cases of men accused of sexual-predator in order to destroy his career and life. Remember that USA jails are full of inocent people like Mumia and Leonard Peltier. While many evil people are free (Bush, Dick Cheney, Obama (who has killed people with drones in the wars, etc)

.

About castration, during the 20s here in Sweden when eugenics was highly popular among scientists and the upper classes, they actually tried to castrate some rapist.
The resulte was a dissappointment, the offender would commit more abuses after theire release. They say that the moste important sexual organ is the brain, the offenders minds where the actual problem rather then theire balls.

A couple of years ago i heard (once again here in Sweden) that menthal institutions had started a program where annybody could comme to, anonymous, if they had started to feel some messed up desires, for example to commit rape ore attraction towards children. Some mounths later they rapported that the program had made big progresses, just like psycho menthioned moste pedophiles probably are just fantasizing about it and feel really bad about doing it, if they get the chance to get anymouse menthal care they would probably get control over theire desires just by being able to talk about it without that anny judging them (psychologist).

But when it comes to them who takes the step frome fantasizing to an act, then i dont thik its wrong to take a strong and clear position that shows the brutality of the act, simply speaking give them a hell of a punishment. I also think that the left often are to much PC, that confuces people who arent so much into politics, they think its doubble moral that we can in one hand carry on with militant antifascism, supporting riots and revolutionary movements around the world northen Ireland, Basque, Palestine, Chiapas, Nepal, Grece and so on, but we wont be bad against simple criminals that does sadistic and hurtfull things for theire own pleasure (rapist, child abusers).

BTW; Just the thing about Roman Polanski, his case is a good example of how class and social statues plays a role in judgment. He has demnstrablie drugged and raped a 13 year old girl, and still people will defend him just because he have made so many good movies. Some people will even try to denide what he have done, but if it had been a working class person people wouldnt show this kind of stupid support.

The Red Next Door

18th July 2010, 17:52

No, the kids deserved Liberation, having sex with a child is wrong because they are too young to handle it, number two is gross, and people had kill themselves over being victims of pedophilla, member of the family kids, all off themselves for the mess up shit, they did in that damn cult.

Soviet dude

18th July 2010, 18:44

Usually the online rhetoric of a pedophile revolves around age of consent. They usually tell stories about children who had early sexual encounters and enjoyed them, most of them probably made up. To the pedophile, it is always the children who somehow force them to have sex with them, and not the other way around. The rhetoric involves saying thing like "everyone has sexual fantasies about children" and often give political excuses for why sex with children is not tolerated in this society (in our group, that would be because the bourgeoisie don't want you to). Personal disgust with pedophilia, to the pedophile, is seen as a secret desire to molest children. Online pedophiles often spend a great deal of time comparing age of consent laws by country, and by time period, to further justify their desires as being "normal" somewhere or at some time period.

In reality, however, pedophiles are often some of the most narcissistic people you will ever meet. They have an inability to interpret the actions of children in a way that is appropriate. Everything becomes sexual, and directed toward them. The pedophile imagines they are somehow 'seduced' by children. The truth is, like rape, the actual act of molesting children isn't so much about sex as it is something else.

If you see a person who strongly advocates things from the first paragraph online, you can bet with 90% certainty that not only are they indeed pedophiles, but that they have already molested children. Even pedophiles before the age of 30 almost always have molested dozens of victims, and this number tends to go up as they get more experience manipulating children.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

18th July 2010, 19:06

Usually the online rhetoric of a pedophile revolves around age of consent. They usually tell stories about children who had early sexual encounters and enjoyed them, most of them probably made up. To the pedophile, it is always the children who somehow force them to have sex with them, and not the other way around. The rhetoric involves saying thing like "everyone has sexual fantasies about children" and often give political excuses for why sex with children is not tolerated in this society (in our group, that would be because the bourgeoisie don't want you to). Personal disgust with pedophilia, to the pedophile, is seen as a secret desire to molest children. Online pedophiles often spend a great deal of time comparing age of consent laws by country, and by time period, to further justify their desires as being "normal" somewhere or at some time period.

In reality, however, pedophiles are often some of the most narcissistic people you will ever meet. They have an inability to interpret the actions of children in a way that is appropriate. Everything becomes sexual, and directed toward them. The pedophile imagines they are somehow 'seduced' by children. The truth is, like rape, the actual act of molesting children isn't so much about sex as it is something else.

If you see a person who strongly advocates things from the first paragraph online, you can bet with 90% that not only are they indeed pedophiles, but that they have already molested children. Even pedophiles before the age of 30 almost always have molested dozens of victims, and this number tends to go up as they get more experience manipulating children.

So much conjecture in such a small space!

La ComÃ©die Noire

18th July 2010, 19:17

Pedophiles are an easy target in this society, it's one of those things that are uncontroversial to hate. Obviously they harm people, but they are also sick and should be treated as such. There's no need to join the media lynch mob which often exaggerates things in order to distract us from real problems. Just ask anyone who grew up in the 60's and 70's, in those days people thought serial killers were everywhere, while the capitalist class was taking away hard won labor reforms almost unnoticed.

If you see a person who strongly advocates things from the first paragraph online, you can bet with 90% that not only are they indeed pedophiles, but that they have already molested children. Even pedophiles before the age of 30 almost always have molested dozens of victims, and this number tends to go up as they get more experience manipulating children.

Hahaha Paranoid much? I think you've been watching too much Fox News.

Soviet dude

18th July 2010, 19:38

Hahaha Paranoid much? I think you've been watching too much Fox News.

No, this is just what pedophiles do. This has been established and documented very well by pscyhologists and police interrogation. This is how the vast majority of pedophiles justify what they do in an intellectual way. The people who engage in this intellectual justification online pretty much always reveal themselves to be pedophiles eventually, and I've seen it countless times.

La ComÃ©die Noire

18th July 2010, 19:41

No, this is just what pedophiles do. This has been established and documented very well by pscyhologists and police interrogation. This is how the vast majority of pedophiles justify what they do in an intellectual way. The people who engage in this intellectual justification online pretty much always reveal themselves to be pedophiles eventually, and I've seen it countless times.

Besides police interrogation, which is not a good source of information, what psychologists and where have you seen this?

Soviet dude

18th July 2010, 19:46

Hahaha Paranoid much? I think you've been watching too much Fox News.No, this is just what pedophiles do. This has been established and documented very well by pscyhologists and police interrogation. This is how the vast majority of pedophiles justify what they do in an intellectual way. The people who engage in this intellectual justification online pretty much always reveal themselves to be pedophiles eventually, and I've seen it countless times.

Soviet dude

18th July 2010, 20:09

Besides police interrogation, which is not a good source of information, what psychologists and where have you seen this?

There is nothing wrong with police interrogation as a source. Pedophiles seem to have a knack for incriminating themselves, and when confessing, always use the same sorts of excuses for their behavior.

La ComÃ©die Noire

18th July 2010, 20:30

There is nothing wrong with police interrogation as a source. Pedophiles seem to have a knack for incriminating themselves, and when confessing, always use the same sorts of excuses for their behavior.

Did it ever occur to you that these psychologists and police have an agenda and will often work in tandem with media hysteria to hunt people down? Take the abduction and murder of Adam Walsh for instance, it is often said he was taken by a "Pedophile" but there is absolutely no proof what so ever this is true, not only is there no physical evidence he was sexually abused, only his head was found, but the prime suspect wasn't a pedophile. Someone just said it was a Pedophile and everyone said "that's cool" without even blinking. His father now has his own tv show and organization that receives thousands of dollars in federal money a year to "protect our children."

But I am seriously interested what Psychologists are you talking about? Because there are varying opinions on the causes and solutions to Pedophilia.

Soviet dude

18th July 2010, 21:01

The cause of and solutions (if they exist) to pedophilia have nothing to do with how pedophiles intellectually justify their actions, which is well known and there is no debate about it. If you want a source for this, you could probably find it literally anywhere that talks about pedophiles, but this is a good article on it:

mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full

Generally, pedophiles do not use force to have children engage in these activities but instead rely on various forms of psychic manipulation and desensitization (eg, progression from innocuous touching to inappropriate touching, showing pornography to children). When confronted about engaging in such activities, pedophiles commonly justify and minimize their actions by stating that the acts “had educational value,” that the child derived pleasure from the acts or attention, or that the child was provocative and encouraged the acts in some way. A US Department of Justice manual for law enforcement officers identifies 5 common psychological defense patterns in pedophiles: (1) denial (eg, “Is it wrong to give a child a hug?”), (2) minimization (“It only happened once”), (3) justification (eg, “I am a boy lover, not a child molester”), (4) fabrication (activities were research for a scholarly project), and (5) attack (character attacks on child, prosecutors, or police, as well as potential for physical violence).

Further references on these points are in the article.

#FF0000

18th July 2010, 21:27

that there are cases of girls accusing guys of rape, just out of hatred for the guy

Uh, just want to throw it out there, this is not at all a common circumstance and is really just sexist "blame the victim" nonsense.

Adi Shankara

18th July 2010, 22:08

Uh, just want to throw it out there, this is not at all a common circumstance and is really just sexist "blame the victim" nonsense.

BS--not everything is about sexism in these instances. Shit like that really does happen from time to time. I'm not saying it happens alot, but to say that it's always "sexist blame the victim nonsense" is equally foolish. Remember the Duke Lacrosse players?
but when a child is being harmed, it's hard to really imagine that one would have such an accurate detailed description of the encounter (as courts almost always ask for), so lying is hard to rule out.

MortyMingledon

18th July 2010, 22:15

Get your head out of your ass, not everything is about sexism or what not--shit like that really does happen. I'm not saying it happens alot, but to say that it's always "sexist blame the victim nonsense" is equally foolish. Remember the Duke Lacrosse players?
but when a child is being harmed, it's hard to really imagine that one would have such an accurate detailed description of the encounter (as courts almost always ask for), so lying is hard to rule out.

Do you really have to referance fecal matter or the human bodypart used to expell it in EVERY post?

I understand you feel strongly about these issues, but your "Fuck you. Fuck this. Fuck that" attitude is not the way to conduct an argument between fellow comrades. TY

La ComÃ©die Noire

18th July 2010, 22:24

Adi Shankara

18th July 2010, 22:24

Do you really have to referance fecal matter or the human bodypart used to expell it in EVERY post?

I understand you feel strongly about these issues, but your "Fuck you. Fuck this. Fuck that" attitude is not the way to conduct an argument between fellow comrades. TY

I swear alot on certain topics I'll admit. and don't conduct myself well at times either. I'm not afraid to admit this is one topic that upsets me, and should upset any normal human being with a consciousness.

Adi Shankara

18th July 2010, 22:26

Here's the problem how many people described as pedophiles and engage in the behaviour you describe are there? Not many. Most sexual offenders against prepubescent children are not repeat offenders and cannot be described as pedophiles.

Complete fabrication on your part:

"According to a study by Abel in 1987, reported in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2(1), 3-25, offenders against female children had an average of 19 victims, while those against male children had an average of 50."

A lot of child sexual abuse cases are carried through on the faulty testimony of children who are pressured into thinking they were sexually abused and not as you say by the knack of pedophiles to incriminate themselves. Only a complete asswipe blames a child for fabricating lies of sexual abuse.

Dammit, why do people on this website so readily jump to the defense of pedophiles?

La ComÃ©die Noire

18th July 2010, 22:29

"According to a study by Abel in 1987, reported in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2(1), 3-25, offenders against female children had an average of 19 victims, while those against male children had an average of 50."

Is this soley prepubescent people we are talking about or are adolsescents included?

Adi Shankara

18th July 2010, 22:30

Is this soley prepubescent people we are talking about or are adolsescents included?

really? your best defense is the terminology used? VICTIMS!!! can't you read?

khad

18th July 2010, 22:31

Is this soley prepubescent people we are talking about or are adolsescents included?
Because it just makes it all that much better that someone fiddled/raped a 12 year old instead of a 10 year old, right?

Come on, this game is getting tiresome.

La ComÃ©die Noire

18th July 2010, 22:31

Only a complete asswipe blames a child for fabricating lies of sexual abuse.

Dammit, why do people on this website so readily jump to the defense of pedophiles?

Please do tell why can't a child be pressured into lying?

really? your best defense is the terminology used? VICTIMS!!! can't you read?

Well here's the thing pedophilia describes sexual abuse against pre pubescent children who cannot enjoy or consent to sex while adolscents are people who are sexually mature and can engage in sex. We can argue up and down all day if they are emotionally ready for sex, whatever that means, but if we are going to have a legal/ medical definition we need to be percise. You'd be surprised how the definition of pedophelia changes across the spectrum

Adi Shankara

18th July 2010, 22:32

Please do tell why can't a child be pressured into lying?

Please do tell me why you'd immediately think a child is lying as opposed to an adult who has a better concept of how to manipulate?

children can be manipulative and can lie, yes. but where would they get such detailed knowledge of sexual activity, and What would be the motive behind it?

khad

18th July 2010, 22:43

Well here's the thing pedophilia describes sexual abuse against pre pubescent children who cannot enjoy or consent to sex while adolscents are people who are sexually mature and can engage in sex. We can argue up and down all day if they are emotionally ready for sex, whatever that means, but if we are going to have a legal/ medical definition we need to be percise. You'd be surprised how the definition of pedophelia changes across the spectrum
Well, someone sounds like an idiot.

And by that I don't mean the definition of a mental vegetable.

Really, this entire fixation on semantics is nothing short of disingenous, especially when words take on context and meaning(s) based upon social and political climate. Can someone actually start backing up their arguments, for once?

Soviet dude

18th July 2010, 22:43

Here's the problem how many people described as pedophiles and engage in the behaviour you describe are there? Not many. Most sexual offenders against prepubescent children are not repeat offenders and cannot be described as pedophiles. A lot of child sexual abuse cases are carried through on the faulty testimony of children who are pressured into thinking they were sexually abused and not as you say by the knack of pedophiles to incriminate themselves

This is factually incorrect. It is simply not the case that most pedophiles who abuse prepubescent children do so only once. We know this from surveys of pedophiles themselves, which we know they under-report the number of their victims.

Pedophiles are usually attracted to a particular age range and/or sex of child. Research categorizes male pedophiles by whether they are attracted to only male children (homosexual pedophilia), female children (heterosexual pedophilia), or children from both sexes (bisexual pedophilia).3,6,10,29 The percentage of homosexual pedophiles ranges from 9% to 40%, which is approximately 4 to 20 times higher than the rate of adult men attracted to other adult men (using a prevalence rate of adult homosexuality of 2%-4%).5,7,10,19,29,30 This finding does not imply that homosexuals are more likely to molest children, just that a larger percentage of pedophiles are homosexual or bisexual in orientation to children.19 Individuals attracted to females usually prefer children between the ages of 8 and 10 years.3,5,31 Individuals attracted to males usually prefer slightly older boys between the ages of 10 and 13 years.3,5 Heterosexual pedophiles, in self-report studies, have on average abused 5.2 children and committed an average of 34 sexual acts vs homosexual pedophiles who have on average abused 10.7 children and committed an average of 52 acts.15 Bisexual offenders have on average abused 27.3 children and committed more than 120 acts.15 A study by Abel et al32 of 377 nonincarcerated, non-incest-related pedophiles, whose legal situations had been resolved and who were surveyed using an anonymous self-report questionnaire, found that heterosexual pedophiles on average reported abusing 19.8 children and committing 23.2 acts, whereas homosexual pedophiles had abused 150.2 children and committed 281.7 acts. These studies confirm law enforcement reports about the serial nature of the crime, the large number of children abused by each pedophile, and the underreporting of assaults.1 Studies that used self-reports and polygraphs show that pedophiles currently in treatment underreport their current interest in children and past behaviors.

In fact, very few cases involving charges of pedophilia go to trial, as typically the evidence against the defendants is so rock-solid, they simply confess to get easier treatment by the courts. Nor is there any evidence of widespread psychological manipulation to get children to confess to being molested. Usually they come forward to their parents or another adult figure, who then gets the authorities involved.

Take the Mcmartin day care scandal that exploded into the longest and most expensive case in American History based on the suspicions of one mother. It was found the child along with various others were pressured into admitting to sexual abuse and bizarre fetishistic rituals that never occured. It ruined many peoples lives while making the careers of various law enforcement officials, journalists, and psychologists.

In this case, there most certainly was manipulation by people who were not trained to talk to children who were molested, using methods rejected by pretty much by all major psychological institutions. There are a few other similar cases to the McMartin scandal, but the vast, vast majority of child sexual abuse cases do not involve anything like what happened there. That you could seriously suggest so is shocking.

Adi Shankara

18th July 2010, 22:51

Please do tell why can't a child be pressured into lying?

are you trying to say that children lie in 99% of pedophilia cases? what makes child rapists so honest?

Glenn Beck

18th July 2010, 23:02

what makes child rapists so honest?

Well obviously if they were child raping pedophiles they'd just tell you, dummy. Otherwise it's absolutely hysterical and uncalled for to surmise that there might be anything but the purest intentions behind whatever they have to say about that diabolical age of consent...

Andropov

19th July 2010, 00:43

a note. i sent this to another person in pm.
Yes im sick of debateing this stomach churning topic privately.
If you want to condone and indeed support having sex with a six year old, even if it doesnt include penetrative (fucking vomit) sex then you really are not fit to live in a society with children.
Six year olds neither have the physical nor mental capacity for sex and to suggest otherwise is just wrong wrong wrong and one must question your motives for doing so.
As for this nonsense of treating Pedophiles who force their sadism on innocent children as the victims, just dont bother.

Ele'ill

19th July 2010, 00:46

I'm not sure that the pedophiles themselves would disagree that they should be punished- and I don't think they'd disagree that what they did can permanently ruin a child's life into adulthood.

It's different than other crimes. Perhaps we need better counseling for those predisposed to pedophilia so they can have people to talk to about what they're fantasizing about. I think there's a lot to learn about the 'illness'.

Maybe we already know enough about it and I simply don't-

I think a lot of the 'pro pedophile' banter that revolves around these types of threads has more to do with some leftist's aversion to the empire's media campaigns that turn into a self righteous witch hunt every time a rich blonde girl goes missing.

I don't want to see people acting superior to someone arrested for pedophilia- I hate their snobbish attitudes almost as much as I hate someone acting on their harmful fantasies. Haven't most pedophiles been the victims of sexual abuse themselves? That says something about the good ones that are sneering and bullying- what a culture to embrace.

My position is that they should be punished- they should be kept away from society if they cannot exist within it without harming people. There is a part of me that would like to sit and talk to him/her before gutting them and then there's a part of me that would skip right to the colorful slip'n'slide.

Adi Shankara

19th July 2010, 00:47

I think a lot of the 'pro pedophile' banter that revolves around these types of threads has more to do with some leftist's aversion to the empire's media campaigns that turn into a self righteous witch hunt every time a rich blonde girl goes missing.

I wish that were true, but that's not the truth; many people on here in past threads have alluded to supporting pedophilia or supporting the decriminalization of it, or while not openly doing that, have criticized any action against pedophiles, or have made constant apologies for them.

Ele'ill

19th July 2010, 00:53

I wish that were true, but that's not the truth; many people on here in past threads have alluded to supporting pedophilia or supporting the decriminalization of it, or while not openly doing that, have criticized any action against pedophiles, or have made constant apologies for them.

I would have to see the scenario they're referring to.

If it isn't pedophilia then it would be rape- I've got blades for both.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

19th July 2010, 00:59

I see we havn't got past knee-jerk hysteria with regards to this issue yet.

Coggeh

19th July 2010, 01:00

Yes, but at the very least it seemed as if you we're suggesting that people had stated so in this specific thread. Which prior to your post had not occured.

Give it a break man, this isn't even relevant I didn't use it as slander its a common argument and if it didn't arise before hand it was going to arise after(which it did).

Psy

19th July 2010, 01:02

are you trying to say that children lie in 99% of pedophilia cases? what makes child rapists so honest?
Nothing but police interrogation procedures are designed to confuse your average adult so witnesses believe the police's version of events and not their own, against a small child police interrogation results in most kids believing whatever police believe due to how police framed the questions (basically leading the kids).

Quail

19th July 2010, 01:03

I wish that were true, but that's not the truth; many people on here in past threads have alluded to supporting pedophilia or supporting the decriminalization of it, or while not openly doing that, have criticized any action against pedophiles, or have made constant apologies for them.

Nobody on here supports rape or sexual abuse/assault.
The disagreement is the way in which offenders or potential offenders should be treated. Here's a question for you: How does violent punishment for offenders and witch-hunting paedophiles combat the problem of sexual abuse/assault in our society?

Adi Shankara

19th July 2010, 01:04

Nothing but police interrogation procedures are designed to confuse your average adult so witnesses believe the police's version of events and not their own, against a small child police interrogation results in most kids believing whatever police believe due to how police framed the questions (basically leading the kids).

But the way these things are done is not through interrogation, but with a child being interviewed by a psychologist...In fact, I believe in most cases these days, a psychologist has to interview the child and release testimony that what the child says is almost certainly true.

Coggeh

19th July 2010, 01:07

Yes im sick of debateing this stomach churning topic privately.
If you want to condone and indeed support having sex with a six year old, even if it doesnt include penetrative (fucking vomit) sex then you really are not fit to live in a society with children.
You'd make a great tabloid journalist.Where the hell was anyone condoning it?

Six year olds neither have the physical nor mental capacity for sex and to suggest otherwise is just wrong wrong wrong and one must question your motives for doing so.
As for this nonsense of treating Pedophiles who force their sadism on innocent children as the victims, just dont bother.
Ya so let paedophiles stay in the dark, lets keep stigmatising people who are afraid they might have a tendency to have an attraction to children. Lets pretend they don't fucking exist? that'll solve everything. Question should it be proven (which its already the accepted explanation) that people are born pedophiles does that mean we should start punishing gays too? how about people with down syndrome?(the hysteria argument can cut both ways ya know)

Or.
We could end this childish BS hysteria surrounding paedophilia and provide counselling for anyone who has had fears that they may be inclined to have an attraction to children help them in order to prevent further abuses. As for convicted paedophiles: I don't see what help it does in punishing them? it doesn't deter crime and its purely for vengeance sake and as a society we should be past that barbarism.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

19th July 2010, 01:07

In fact, I believe in most cases these days, a psychologist has to interview the child and release testimony that what the child says is almost certainly true.

I just love the contradiction there.

#FF0000

19th July 2010, 01:10

Jesus Christ you people are stupid.

Thread re-opened. If I have to trash your worthless post from here on out you'll be infracted. Keep it civil and don't be a goddamn idiot.

Adi Shankara

19th July 2010, 01:21

I just love the contradiction there.

"In fact" is an expression. it isn't always meant to be taken literal.

Andropov

19th July 2010, 01:29

You'd make a great tabloid journalist.Where the hell was anyone condoning it?
And you would make an even better investigative journalist since you seem capable of reading the Private Messages that meow was sending me?
How bizarre.

Ya so let paedophiles stay in the dark, lets keep stigmatising people who are afraid they might have a tendency to have an attraction to children. Lets pretend they don't fucking exist? that'll solve everything. Question should it be proven (which its already the accepted explanation) that people are born pedophiles does that mean we should start punishing gays too? how about people with down syndrome?(the hysteria argument can cut both ways ya know)
Or.
We could end this childish BS hysteria surrounding paedophilia and provide counselling for anyone who has had fears that they may be inclined to have an attraction to children help them in order to prevent further abuses. As for convicted paedophiles: I don't see what help it does in punishing them? it doesn't deter crime and its purely for vengeance sake and as a society we should be past that barbarism.
Look Pedophiles who CHOOSE to force their sadism on children deserve retribution for permanently damaging that childs life, the emotional scars it inflicts last a lifetime.
Those Pedophiles deserve to be punished by society for CHOOSING to inflict their sadism on children.
This whole nonsense of "they cant help it" and "are born that way so its not their fault" doesnt fly.
I have many sexual fantasys but I choose not to act on them.
Those Pedophiles who force their sadism on children are not the victims its the victims of sex abuse and violence that are.

Adi Shankara

19th July 2010, 01:32

Ya so let paedophiles stay in the dark, lets keep stigmatising people who are afraid they might have a tendency to have an attraction to children. Lets pretend they don't fucking exist? that'll solve everything. Question should it be proven (which its already the accepted explanation) that people are born pedophiles does that mean we should start punishing gays too? how about people with down syndrome?(the hysteria argument can cut both ways ya know)

Next, we'll hear how certain people can't help but rape women or force them into sexual slavery, or that they can't help their misogyny and that beating a woman and knocking her senseless means "they need help"...afterall, the wife-beating male is the "real" victim here, isn't he?

Or psychopaths! There is clinical evidence that Psychopathy is a genetic trait...should we say "oh they can't help it" when they are running a a prostitution/slavery ring and they get caught?

The double standard, despite what certain "leftists" think, is appalling.

Enjoy your infraction for this amazing post! - The Best Mod In Revleft History

#FF0000

19th July 2010, 01:35

Look Pedophiles who CHOOSE to force their sadism on children deserve retribution for permanently damaging that childs life, the emotional scars it inflicts last a lifetime.
Those Pedophiles deserve to be punished by society for CHOOSING to inflict their sadism on children.
This whole nonsense of "they cant help it" and "are born that way so its not their fault" doesnt fly.
I have many sexual fantasys but I choose not to act on them.
Those Pedophiles who force their sadism on children are not the victims its the victims of sex abuse and violence that are.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you here. The debate we're actually having here isn't about child abuse at all-- it seems to be about whether or not justice should be focused on punishment and retribution, or rehabilitation and separation.

Absolutely there should be harsh consequences for child abuse like this, but capital punishment, castration...etc are simply out of the question in my mind. With capital punishment, you have two choices. Either you can have a bloated and expensive system and a somewhat low rate of wrongful executions, or you can have a cheap and fast system and risk killing many, many innocent people. Same with castration, except castration simply doesn't work and won't stop anybody from abusing children again.

Frankly, I think pedophilia in the broadest sense of the word is a condition that people need help to live with. You might not be able to keep them from having these thoughts about children, but the important thing is that they don't act on them. If rehabilitation doesn't work, then keep them separated in clean and safe prisons.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

19th July 2010, 01:37

"In fact" is an expression. it isn't always meant to be taken literal.

In general conversation perhaps, but if you are trying to debate stating something is a fact suggests it is a fact. Don't try to worm your way out of your logical fallcies, just admit it.

Next, we'll hear how certain people can't help but rape women or force them into sexual slavery, or that they can't help their misogyny and that beating a woman means "they need help"...

Similar concepts apply here, oft those who commit such acts have been themselves the recipitens similar behaviour. Furthermore, rape is often about control/power rather than sexual plesure (especially with regards to such things as prison rape).

Coggeh

19th July 2010, 01:39

And you would make an even better investigative journalist since you seem capable of reading the Private Messages that meow was sending me?
How bizarre.
What?

Look Pedophiles who CHOOSE to force their sadism on children deserve retribution for permanently damaging that childs life, the emotional scars it inflicts last a lifetime.
Those Pedophiles deserve to be punished by society for CHOOSING to inflict their sadism on children.
And this achieves what? Does this stop the crime from being committed next week by someone else? clearly it doesn't. This is just eye for an eye stuff.

This whole nonsense of "they cant help it" and "are born that way so its not their fault" doesnt fly.
I have many sexual fantasies but I choose not to act on them. And most pedophiles will probably never act on their fantasies but we don't know that because guess what? they don't really come out of the dark unless they've been caught : I wonder why?

Those Pedophiles who force their sadism on children are not the victims its the victims of sex abuse and violence that are.
Obviously? but instead of sending the convicted person into prison for all his life or give him a life sentence which is like 7years(which probably won't get any longer under socialism) only for them to come back out and probably re-offend you can take them out of society to a mental hospital provide psycho analysis and help for them to stop them from ever reoffending.

The difference in the argument is basically emotionality and rationality.

Quail

19th July 2010, 01:39

Next, we'll hear how certain people can't help but rape women or force them into sexual slavery, or that they can't help their misogyny and that beating a woman means "they need help"...

The double standard, despite what certain "leftists" think, is appalling.

Abuse/assault of any form is a bad thing and obviously shouldn't be encouraged, but there are clearly reasons that cause people to do these things in the first place. It's obviously not a coincidence that people who abuse others have been abused themselves in the past - people who abuse others generally have mental health problems. Punishing offenders is barbaric and does nothing to solve abuse as a social problem. When dealing with antisocial cirmes, surely the best course of action is to try and understand what causes them and prevent them from happening in the future?

I would also like you to respond to my post:

Here's a question for you: How does violent punishment for offenders and witch-hunting paedophiles combat the problem of sexual abuse/assault in our society?

#FF0000

19th July 2010, 01:42

Off-topic dumb stuff trashed. Take your crying to the member's forum, please.

Glenn Beck

19th July 2010, 01:43

Question should it be proven (which its already the accepted explanation) that people are born pedophiles does that mean we should start punishing gays too?

Why are you comparing gays to pedophiles? Gays don't have an unusual proclivity towards rape and abuse. You know it took a pretty long time for the gay rights movement to disassociate itself from the public perception of homosexuality being centered around predatory pederasts.

We could end this childish BS hysteria surrounding paedophilia and provide counselling for anyone who has had fears that they may be inclined to have an attraction to children help them in order to prevent further abuses.

I don't really see where anyone said "Hey, I think it would be a fantastic idea to deny access to social services that might help people predisposed to pedophilia and related conditions to not go around hurting kids". Maybe you can point it out to me. I'm not entirely certain where you get your idea that issues of punishment and rehabilitation are the sole locus of controversy and that nobody thinks molesting kids is okay. I think you might have missed the part where somebody said that a 6 year old is in principle able to consent to sex and that would make it okay for a 30 year old to fuck them and then everybody vomited.

As for convicted paedophiles: I don't see what help it does in punishing them?

You fuckin serious bro? First of all pedophilia isn't a crime, it's a condition that inclines an individual to sexually exploit youth, which is a crime. You can't get convicted of pedophilia but you can be a pedophile that gets convicted of raping kids. So I take it that you don't think there's any point in imposing penalties of any sort on rapists? Or is it only child rapists that it is counterproductive to sanction? They should just sort of run free, maybe be 'strongly but non coercively' encouraged to attend rehabilitative therapy sessions?

Adi Shankara

19th July 2010, 01:45

Similar concepts apply here, oft those who commit such acts have been themselves the recipitens similar behaviour. Furthermore, rape is often about control/power rather than sexual plesure (especially with regards to such things as prison rape).

And you don't think Child predation is? if it wasn't about power, they wouldn't be attracted to those weaker than them.

#FF0000

19th July 2010, 01:47

You fuckin serious bro? First of all pedophilia isn't a crime, it's a condition that inclines an individual to sexually exploit youth, which is a crime. You can't get convicted of pedophilia but you can be a pedophile that gets convicted of raping kids. So I take it that you don't think there's any point in imposing penalties of any sort on rapists? Or is it only child rapists that it is counterproductive to sanction? They should just sort of run free, maybe be 'strongly but non coercively' encouraged to attend rehabilitative therapy sessions?

I think people are getting hung up on the word "punishment" and semantics. Child abusers should "punished" in the sense that there ought to be consequences, e.g. prison, therapy. The thing is that all consequences for any crime should be based on rehabilitation and separation, rather than punishment for punishment's sake.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

19th July 2010, 01:49

And you don't think Child predation is? if it wasn't about power, they wouldn't be attracted to those weaker than them.

I think you've misread my post I did start it with the very sutble 'similar concepts apply here'.

I was respoding to the fact you were angry at those 'defending pedophilia', by comparing it to rape, where infact pedophilia is a diffrent kind of rape, one that society finds abhorent.

Psy

19th July 2010, 01:49

In general conversation perhaps, but if you are trying to debate stating something is a fact suggests it is a fact. Don't try to worm your way out of your logical fallcies, just admit it.

Well to be fair in proper English it would be more of a redundancy as he is saying he does believe the following as a fact (when does someone not believe what they believe). I.E "in fact I do believe in the Easter Bunny" is not saying the Easter Bunny is a fact but the belief is a fact. Yet this can get a bit confusing and is unnecessary.

Adi Shankara

19th July 2010, 01:50

I was respoding to the fact you were angry at those 'defending pedophilia', by comparing it to rape, where infact pedophilia is a diffrent kind of rape, one that society finds abhorent.

Now I can only speak for myself, but I can take a guess to say that mainstream society finds rape equally as abhorrent.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

19th July 2010, 01:50

So I take it that you don't think there's any point in imposing penalties of any sort on rapists? Or is it only child rapists that it is counterproductive to sanction? They should just sort of run free, maybe be 'strongly but non coercively' encouraged to attend rehabilitative therapy sessions?

Why think of it as something as one-sided as a "penalty". I think they should obviously be taken into involuntary and secluded rehabilitation, but to consider it just some justice being done via punishment is inappropriate. The focus should be as much as possible to make them stop committing detrimental acts and abuses, while obviously anyone a victim of such abuse should get all the help they need to recover. Hopefully advances in understanding of the various reasons that might compel some to abuse children will help us in the future eliminated the problem.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

19th July 2010, 01:50

Well to be fair in proper English it would be more of a redundancy as he is saying he does believe the following as a fact (when does someone not believe what they believe). I.E "in fact I do believe in the Easter Bunny" is not saying the Easter Bunny is a fact but the belief is a fact. Yet this can get a bit confusing and is unnecessary.

Thats true, dylsexitardism strikes again!

Coggeh

19th July 2010, 01:50

Next, we'll hear how certain people can't help but rape women or force them into sexual slavery, or that they can't help their misogyny and that beating a woman and knocking her senseless means "they need help"...afterall, the wife-beating male is the "real" victim here, isn't he?

Or psychopaths! There is clinical evidence that Psychopathy is a genetic trait...should we say "oh they can't help it" when they are running a a prostitution/slavery ring and they get caught?

The double standard, despite what certain "leftists" think, is appalling.

Enjoy your infraction for this amazing post! - The Best Mod In Revleft History
Jesus fucking christ, I plainly outrightly just asked u to be civil. Look i get it your pissed off with other peoples views fair enough just your points are so off the fucking wall they nobody really takes them seriously. Bit like the daily mail or the news of the world.

What double standard? point out the double standard please. Psychopaths are called psychopaths for a reason genius! because THEIR FUCKING PSYCHOPATHIC!

heres a definition: "Psychopathy (pronounced /saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2]) is a personality disorder characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct, masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal."

Its a mental illness, its uncontrollable they belong in mental dentention facilities to help them with their condition not in prison or on death row. Whether they would ever be allowed back into society should be in the hands of trained professionals not loons. And how many psychopaths control prostitution/slavery rings? wtf? have you ever once heard of a case where that happened? seriously?

Andropov

19th July 2010, 01:52

What?
How would you possibly know what Meow and me were debating in Private Message since you claimed this....

You'd make a great tabloid journalist.Where the hell was anyone condoning it?

And this achieves what? Does this stop the crime from being committed next week by someone else? clearly it doesn't. This is just eye for an eye stuff.
It achieves retribution and unless you can get a more fitting punishment im open to suggestions.

And most pedophiles will probably never act on their fantasies but we don't know that because guess what? they don't really come out of the dark unless they've been caught : I wonder why?
Your point being?

Obviously? but instead of sending the convicted person into prison for all his life or give him a life sentence which is like 7years(which probably won't get any longer under socialism) only for them to come back out and probably re-offend you can take them out of society to a mental hospital provide psycho analysis and help for them to stop them from ever reoffending.
Nahhh.
The victims deserves retribution and during his lenghty incarceration he can receive treatment.

The difference in the argument is basically emotionality and rationality.
Not really though.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

19th July 2010, 01:53

It achieves retribution and unless you can get a more fitting punishment im open to suggestions.

Penal systems shouldn't be about retribution.

Quail

19th July 2010, 01:55

It achieves retribution and unless you can get a more fitting punishment im open to suggestions.

What does retribution acheive? How does it benefit society and prevent the crime from being committed again?

Andropov

19th July 2010, 01:55

Penal systems shouldn't be about retribution.
How would you treat those who CHOOSE to inflict sadism on innocent people?

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

19th July 2010, 01:56

How would you treat those who CHOOSE to inflict sadism on innocent people?

I'll respond when you cut out the hyperbole.

Andropov

19th July 2010, 01:58

What does retribution acheive? How does it benefit society and prevent the crime from being committed again?
It punish's the offender and if indeed he is not rehabilitated during his incarceration and chooses to inflict his sadism on other innocent members of society he should be removed from society permanently.

#FF0000

19th July 2010, 01:58

How would you treat those who CHOOSE to inflict sadism on innocent people?

Rehabilitation and separation. Retribution and vengeance is not a rational basis for a system of justice.

It punish's the offender and if indeed he is not rehabilitated during his incarceration and chooses to inflict his sadism on other innocent members of society he should be removed from society permanently.

Agreed. In prison.

Andropov

19th July 2010, 01:59

I'll respond when you cut out the hyperbole.
No hyperbole there, just answer it.

Coggeh

19th July 2010, 01:59

Why are you comparing gays to pedophiles? Gays don't have an unusual proclivity towards rape and abuse. You know it took a pretty long time for the gay rights movement to disassociate itself from the public perception of homosexuality being centered around predatory pederasts.
Cute of you to leave out the rest of the line you know the part where i pointed out that it was a hysterical argument similar to the arguments being thrown around by Sankara and the likes.

My point was that punishing people for something their born with is the same kettle of fish as punishing gays for being gay and people with down syndrome for having down syndrome.

I don't really see where anyone said "Hey, I think it would be a fantastic idea to deny access to social services that might help people predisposed to pedophilia and related conditions to not go around hurting kids". Maybe you can point it out to me. I'm not entirely certain where you get your idea that issues of punishment and rehabilitation are the sole locus of controversy and that nobody thinks molesting kids is okay. I think you might have missed the part where somebody said that a 6 year old is in principle able to consent to sex and that would make it okay for a 30 year old to fuck them and then everybody vomited.
I didn't see that post. But no I'm not stating that a 6 year old can consent to sex because i know for a fact they can't i studied childcare.

You fuckin serious bro? First of all pedophilia isn't a crime, it's a condition that inclines an individual to sexually exploit youth, which is a crime. You can't get convicted of pedophilia but you can be a pedophile that gets convicted of raping kids. So I take it that you don't think there's any point in imposing penalties of any sort on rapists? Or is it only child rapists that it is counterproductive to sanction? They should just sort of run free, maybe be 'strongly but non coercively' encouraged to attend rehabilitative therapy sessions?
Eh no bro, your missing the point. wait no thats even complementing your comprehension skills your off the charts on this one. Where did i say they should be allowed run free?

Look im not repeating myself just read the above post and seriously just address the actually points im making.please.

Andropov

19th July 2010, 02:01

Rehabilitation and separation. Retribution and vengeance is not a rational basis for a system of justice.
Ya maybe so.

Agreed. In prison.
Yup.

Quail

19th July 2010, 02:02

It punish's the offender and if indeed he is not rehabilitated during his incarceration and chooses to inflict his sadism on other innocent members of society he should be removed from society permanently.

Punishing the offender doesn't really acheive anything though. It doesn't make the offender face up to what they have done in a healthy way - if an offender is rehabilitated, during the rehabilitation s/he will accept that what they've done was wrong and moved on, and I don't see a purpose in detaining him/her when they're of no danger to society - and it doesn't prevent others from committing the same crime. It's an emotional knee-jerk response to a problem that could better be solved rationally.

#FF0000

19th July 2010, 02:03

Ya maybe so.

Yup.

Then all of us agree. Can I close this thread now please

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

19th July 2010, 02:04

No hyperbole there, just answer it.

Really, when why did you not post:

'What do you do when people purposefully and meaningfully attempt to harm others with out reason?'

Instead you chose to word your question in such a way that disagreeing would make it seem as though I was agreeing with 'sadists who choose to harm others'.

I'd take the same approch as the Best mod, rehabilitation and therapy, or if it is impossible, keep them in a secure location where they can do no harm to either themselves or others, allow them to be comfortable and enjoy life as much as they can.

Glenn Beck

19th July 2010, 02:05

Why think of it as something as one-sided as a "penalty". I think they should obviously be taken into involuntary and secluded rehabilitation, but to consider it just some justice being done via punishment is inappropriate. The focus should be as much as possible to make them stop committing detrimental acts and abuses, while obviously anyone a victim of such abuse should get all the help they need to recover. Hopefully advances in understanding of the various reasons that might compel some to abuse children will help us in the future eliminated the problem.

You can give it whatever linguistic slant you'd like, the point is that you can't maintain norms without sanctions. I'm not a big fan of the lex talionis and I'd much rather the measures we impose as a society for undesirable behavior have some kind of useful end. But just insisting that "involuntary and secluded rehabilitation" is in no way a punishment or a penalty is not only pedantically euphemistic, its kinda creepy.

Besides, paraphrasing the dictionary a penalty is a forfeiture imposed as consequence of the non-fulfillment of an obligation. I'd say having ones freedom of movement and general self-determination forfeited because you badly harmed somebody fits the bill quite nicely.

Coggeh

19th July 2010, 02:08

How would you possibly know what Meow and me were debating in Private Message since you claimed this....
You said that people were saying a 6 year old can consent, i didn't think anyone would say that so I said you'd make a great tabloid journalist i.e i didn't know that anyone said that because i didn't think people were actually that stupid. What are you taking about you debating in your private messages? are you saying I should have read them or that I did read them? I'm not a mod I can't look at your pms?

It achieves retribution and unless you can get a more fitting punishment im open to suggestions.
How about solving the problem? Psychological therapy, secure enviorment etc etc. Whats retribution going to achieve? thats actually the most backward position, punishment for punishments sake.

Your point being?Being a pedophile or having fantasies about children if ever found out straight away makes you stigmatised by your community, your workplace and even your family. This is down to the general thrend of hysteria in society which you are perpetuating with your reactionary position. Who the fuck is going to look for help if their afraid their going to be a cast out in society?

Nahhh.
The victims deserves retribution and during his lenghty incarceration he can receive treatment.
"His"?
That's not stereotyping.

Not really though.
Yeah really, your position is about vengeance for the sake of it because the victim deserves it (not like its going to help them in anyway shape or form). Their is a more humane option on the table which actually provides a solution just your too conservative and wound up that you can't stomach it.

Nolan

19th July 2010, 02:11

Why is this thread not closed?

Andropov

19th July 2010, 02:12

Really, when why did you not post:

'What do you do when people purposefully and meaningfully attempt to harm others with out reason?'
Well because I am discussing Sadists here, hence why I used it in the question.
And for the purpose of the hypothetical question the intended victim needed to be seen to have no personal responsibility for being the victim of the crime, hence why I chose the word "Victim".
Now all straight forward explanations to a straight forward question, so answer it.

Instead you chose to word your question in such a way that disagreeing would make it seem as though I was agreeing with 'sadists who choose to harm others'.
No I didnt.
Your answer determines how people will interpret your attitude towards sadists who harm innocent people.

Glenn Beck

19th July 2010, 02:14

Why is this thread not closed?

Because it's constructive, groundbreaking and all of that.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

19th July 2010, 02:16

Well because I am discussing Sadists here, hence why I used it in the question.
And for the purpose of the hypothetical question the intended victim needed to be seen to have no personal responsibility for being the victim of the crime, hence why I chose the word "Victim".
Now all straight forward explanations to a straight forward question, so answer it.

No I didnt.
Your answer determines how people will interpret your attitude towards sadists who harm innocent people.

You keep using the word sadists, its a loaded word, like using 'zealot' or 'fundamentalist' to discribe religous people.

I think you should look up the definition of Hyperbole..

I'll quote my own answer, since you somehow missed it:

I'd take the same approch as the Best mod, rehabilitation and therapy, or if it is impossible, keep them in a secure location where they can do no harm to either themselves or others, allow them to be comfortable and enjoy life as much as they can.

#FF0000

19th July 2010, 02:16

Why is this thread not closed?

Because I like the pain, I guess.

La ComÃ©die Noire

19th July 2010, 02:17

sorry for the late post all, I've been busy.

Really, this entire fixation on semantics is nothing short of disingenous, especially when words take on context and meaning(s) based upon social and political climate. Can someone actually start backing up their arguments, for once?

It's not semantics when they describe two entirely different things, one means a prepubescent child who can't want or understand sex and therefore cannot consent and the other is a sexually mature individual who can. A lot of sexual offenders are simply people who had the bad luck of getting caught with a 16 year old while they were 19.

In fact, very few cases involving charges of pedophilia go to trial, as typically the evidence against the defendants is so rock-solid, they simply confess to get easier treatment by the courts. Nor is there any evidence of widespread psychological manipulation to get children to confess to being molested. Usually they come forward to their parents or another adult figure, who then gets the authorities involved.

Two points worth mentioning here, the mayo clinic article refers to hardcore repeat offenders who make up two to ten percent of the child sex offender population.

Most are situational or oppurtunistic offenders, they do not feel the need to repeat the offense once the situation (whether it be stress, lack of an adult partner, or marital problems) passes. While the recidivism rate of those hardcore repeat offenders who go through treatment drops to a number just hovering around 5 percent.

As for children:

"Approximately 7,600 reports of child abuse occur each day and over 7,200 are eventually classified as false allegations."

You can argue here that some of them are withdrawn to avoid embarassment and psychological harm to the child, but all of them?

Source:

http://pedophileophobia.com/Common%20Beliefs.htm

I'd take the site with a grain of salt, I'm sure you guys will be able to find mountains of it.

I Look foward to the replys.

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

19th July 2010, 02:17

Because I like the pain, I guess.

Close it, and ban everyone who posted in it, including yourself.

Its the only solution

Coggeh

19th July 2010, 02:21

Look how about this:

Convicted pedophiles (because they can't and are mostly not sent to prison) be incarcerated in a mental institution thats secure etc etc and undergo treatment and therapy for their condition until the time they are deemed no longer a threat to society by medical professionals?

Agnapostate

19th July 2010, 02:22

Because it just makes it all that much better that someone fiddled/raped a 12 year old instead of a 10 year old, right?

Come on, this game is getting tiresome.

Where do you get the idea that you're not playing games yourself this way? If a 12 year old will be as emotionally traumatized as a 10 year old, then will a 14 year old? A 16 year old? An 18 year old? A 20 year old? A 22 year old? It can go on.

Really, this entire fixation on semantics is nothing short of disingenous, especially when words take on context and meaning(s) based upon social and political climate. Can someone actually start backing up their arguments, for once?

Well, on the one hand, there's "social and political climate," and on the other hand, there's the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association. Pedophilia is a persistent and prolonged sexual attraction to prepubescent children of either sex.

Andropov

19th July 2010, 02:23

You said that people were saying a 6 year old can consent, i didn't think anyone would say that so I said you'd make a great tabloid journalist i.e i didn't know that anyone said that because i didn't think people were actually that stupid. What are you taking about you debating in your private messages? are you saying I should have read them or that I did read them? I'm not a mod I can't look at your pms?
You made this claim...

You'd make a great tabloid journalist.Where the hell was anyone condoning it?
In relation to this post by me...

Yes im sick of debateing this stomach churning topic privately.
If you want to condone and indeed support having sex with a six year old, even if it doesnt include penetrative (fucking vomit) sex then you really are not fit to live in a society with children.
So as you can see I clearly stated this was debated privately so your statement was groundless since you do not have access to my private messages.
So I dont know what you are getting all pissy about it, you are clearly the one in the wrong.

How about solving the problem? Psychological therapy, secure enviorment etc etc. Whats retribution going to achieve? thats actually the most backward position, punishment for punishments sake.
Ya your probably right in that regaurd.

Being a pedophile or having fantasies about children if ever found out straight away makes you stigmatised by your community, your workplace and even your family. This is down to the general thrend of hysteria in society which you are perpetuating with your reactionary position. Who the fuck is going to look for help if their afraid their going to be a cast out in society?
Having a strong sense of distaste for Pedophiles sadism towards children is reactionary now?

"His"?
That's not stereotyping.
That is fucking pathetic, is that all you have got?
Clearly a figure of speech and to interpret it as any more is pathetic.

Yeah really, your position is about vengeance for the sake of it because the victim deserves it (not like its going to help them in anyway shape or form). Their is a more humane option on the table which actually provides a solution just your too conservative and wound up that you can't stomach it.
Ughh read my posts to the moderator, ive accepted that Vengeance is not productive so just dismount yourself off that horse there before you fall from that height.

khad

19th July 2010, 02:24

I Look foward to the replys.
Spare me your lobbyist garbage. Taking that site's statistics at face value, 400 real cases out of 7600 is 5%.

According to the other links presented in this thread, on average a pedophile molests as about 50 victims. 5% of 50 is 2.5--that's still 2.5 too many.

Andropov

19th July 2010, 02:26

You keep using the word sadists, its a loaded word, like using 'zealot' or 'fundamentalist' to discribe religous people.
I think you should look up the definition of Hyperbole..
You should probably read the Ryan report, if the shoe fits.

I'll quote my own answer, since you somehow missed it:
Cheers.

Coggeh

19th July 2010, 02:29

You made this claim...

In relation to this post by me...

So as you can see I clearly stated this was debated privately so your statement was groundless since you do not have access to my private messages.
So I dont know what you are getting all pissy about it, you are clearly the one in the wrong.
I must have fast read it, i was unaware of the private discussion you were having and thought you claimed it was in a post elsewhere in the thread. Simple misunderstaning. Sorry.

Having a strong sense of distaste for Pedophiles sadism towards children is reactionary now?
Give it a break seriously. It has nothing to do with distaste of sadism towards children or whatever. I work with children. This has to do with the correct marxist position on mental illness how to deal with crimes that are due to mental illness be it that of a paedophile, a psychopath or a sociopath.

That is fucking pathetic, is that all you have got?
Clearly a figure of speech and to interpret it as any more is pathetic.
No it isn't your stereotyping shows just how little concept you have of the real issue. That you associate child abuse with males and probably still believe the whole old man in the car with the candy crap too.

Ele'ill

19th July 2010, 02:41

Since I received an angry message from someone after my part in this thread (I guess they were expecting more from me) I'll say that I didn't really want to become involved in this thread as I think I was involved in the last one and didn't care for it.

My position is that we need to know why crimes occur and the people committing the crimes need to understand why it happened as well. Locking them up in horrible living conditions for however many years doesn't do either. It likely produces more of a problem.

Rehabilitation and Healing

(How's that?) :thumbup1:

REVOLUTIONARY32

19th July 2010, 02:52

Coggeh

19th July 2010, 02:59

Ele'ill

19th July 2010, 03:00

I am glad that this tread exists as we can identify the moderate PC trendy wankers from actual activists.
As a actual activist and a normal Joe working class pleb I call for all sexual deviants gluttons and lazy greedy bastards to be blasted in the face.

So you call for pedophiles to be blasted in the face?

Is this a form of justice you agree with because I'm sure there are a half million cops that would pat you on the back for this comment.

REVOLUTIONARY32

19th July 2010, 03:08

So you call for pedophiles to be blasted in the face?

Is this a form of justice you agree with because I'm sure there are a half million cops that would pat you on the back for this comment.
Dont be one of the peado apologists dont try and portray yourself as one of the wanna be artificial supper intellectuals that know better than us.
We the people reserve the right for swift extreme retribution.

#FF0000

19th July 2010, 03:08

I am glad that this tread exists as we can identify the moderate PC trendy wankers from actual activists.
As a actual activist and a normal Joe working class pleb I call for all sexual deviants gluttons and lazy greedy bastards to be blasted in the face.

You know I explained why capital punishment is a stupid idea a million times now.

EDIT: I remember calling people I didn't like "trendies" once. Then I turned 12.

#FF0000

19th July 2010, 03:09

REVOLUTIONARY32

19th July 2010, 03:27

Being against capital punishment is being a pedophile apologist? Really?

The politics forum of this site is open to all content I physically cringe with shame and embarrassment at the thought of some young leftists reading some posts from self righteous PC liberal moderates pretending to be "communist"..
The revolutionary left dose not suffer fools nor PC wankers if you commit a financial want or sex crime against your class you should be shot in the face.

Trotskist

19th July 2010, 03:35

Cool quote, i agree with you, that the first christians were socialists. And Jesus and the Apostles were the founders of socialism:

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need." --Acts 4:32-35

.

BS--not everything is about sexism in these instances. Shit like that really does happen from time to time. I'm not saying it happens alot, but to say that it's always "sexist blame the victim nonsense" is equally foolish. Remember the Duke Lacrosse players?
but when a child is being harmed, it's hard to really imagine that one would have such an accurate detailed description of the encounter (as courts almost always ask for), so lying is hard to rule out.

Ele'ill

19th July 2010, 03:38

Dont be one of the peado apologists dont try and portray yourself as one of the wanna be artificial supper intellectuals that know better than us.
We the people reserve the right for swift extreme retribution.

"We the people" as in the people that want justice without trial- generally those that don't care about the root of a problem and put dehumanizing over understanding.

I'm not an apologist by any means as I'm still advocating justice.

REVOLUTIONARY32

19th July 2010, 03:40

"We the people" as in the people that want justice without trial- generally those that don't care about the root of a problem and put dehumanizing over understanding.

I'm not an apologist by any means as I'm still advocating justice.

Whos Justice? Thatcher's?

Ele'ill

19th July 2010, 03:41

if you commit a financial want or sex crime against your class you should be shot in the face.

So sex crimes against the other class is ok? :lol:

Of course I'm smart enough to pick through your lack of punctuation and am only kidding.

If someone commits a financial want I don't advocate 'shooting them in the face' either.

The idea isn't to replace authoritarianism with authoritarianism.

Ele'ill

19th July 2010, 03:43

Whos Justice?

I literally meant some type of justice-

Your accusation of me being an apologist implies that I want to cuddle and be nice to the people committing crimes. This isn't true. On the other hand I'm not about to round up and execute everyone that commits a particular crime.

REVOLUTIONARY32

19th July 2010, 03:46

So sex crimes against the other class is ok? :lol:

Of course I'm smart enough to pick through your lack of punctuation and am only kidding.

If someone commits a financial want I don't advocate 'shooting them in the face' either.

The idea isn't to replace authoritarianism with authoritarianism.

Of course I'm smart enough to pick through your lack of punctuation and am only kidding.
Me no like.

Soviet dude

19th July 2010, 03:48

Two points worth mentioning here, the mayo clinic article refers to hardcore repeat offenders who make up two to ten percent of the child sex offender population. This actually is not the case at all, and the source of the information is clearly stated in the article. It most certainly does not refer to “hardcore repeat offenders.”

Most are situational or oppurtunistic offenders, they do not feel the need to repeat the offense once the situation (whether it be stress, lack of an adult partner, or marital problems) passes.Again, the evidence says otherwise. You appear to be literally making claims up out of thin air.

You can argue here that some of them are withdrawn to avoid embarassment and psychological harm to the child, but all of them? What I would argue is that website, which is maintained by a convicted child molester and cites the extreme pro-pedophile work of Dr. Richard Gardner approvingly, cites no source for that specific claim.

Ele'ill

19th July 2010, 03:49

I believe there are underlying causes for their actions- currently I don't believe they have any type of support to deal with these issues.

You want to play teeter on the justice scale with this issue compare a meth addict that shanks your daughter seven times and takes her lunch money with someone that sexually assaults her.

Deal with both these situations in a Sargent Slaughter kind of way and you'll never run out of a body count.

Deal with it in a manner that involves understanding root issues and genuine rehabilitation well before the incidents take place as well as after the ones that do and you'll find progress.

I haven't read any of your other posts but thus far you sound like a knee-jerk elderly bitter wrapped in a glass of bourbon. Fuck that shit.

REVOLUTIONARY32

19th July 2010, 03:51

I literally meant some type of justice-

Your accusation of me being an apologist implies that I want to cuddle and be nice to the people committing crimes. This isn't true. On the other hand I'm not about to round up and execute everyone that commits a particular crime.

Your a reformist wanna be rev that hasn't a clue.
Im showed up for you.

Ele'ill

19th July 2010, 03:52

Your a reformist wanna be rev that hasn't a clue.
Im showed up for you.

If by reformist you mean change through revolutionary thought. Which is a world apart from your stance along side our pop culture news icon's nightly witch hunts.

Oh you're back there. I'll let you catch up.

#FF0000

19th July 2010, 04:27

Whos Justice? Thatcher's?

Because we all know how friendly conservatives are towards pedophiles.

Listen, here are the problems with capital punishment:

a) It's really really really fucking expensive

b) You could execute the wrong person.

There is literally no reason to use capital punishment.

Trotskist

19th July 2010, 04:30

Conservatives are luciferians, evil people, how can they support the death penalty. Killing people is real bad, its a big crime.

And you know capitalism is a legalized "Capitalist Punishment"

.

Because we all know how friendly conservatives are towards pedophiles.

Listen, here are the problems with capital punishment:

a) It's really really really fucking expensive

b) You could execute the wrong person.

There is literally no reason to use capital punishment.

NGNM85

19th July 2010, 04:47

One of the disturbing things about the moral panic stirred up by the right wing about pedophilia is that it has prevented, in all sorts of different ways, psychologists and sociologists from actually finding real solutions to the massive social problem that is child sexual abuse.

We really don't know what the contours of "pedophilia" are. It appears that there are several categories of "pedophile" - people in positions of authority who abuse children stemming from sort of institutional psychosis, eg. priests; people who have deeper psychological problems and violently attack children, often involving sexuality; and people who actually sincerely want to have sexual-romantic relationships with children.

I think there's two, or maybe three categories. Pedophiles, who are strictly sexually attracted to prepubescent children, and often have fantasies of a romantic relationship with their victims. Child rapists, who are equally sexually attracted to children but have no illusions or even any inclination of love. They are unrepentant sadists who enjoy inflicting pain. Lastly, the equal-opportunity offender, who is more just a sociopath or extreme narcissist commiting a crime of opportunity.

... if there are in fact people who really are sexually attracted to children (and obviously it's not something anyone would choose because it would be a horrible condition to have), how we humanely deal with them.

I've never heard any conclusive evidence that this is a natural inclination. Virtually everyone who exhibits this tendency is a victim of sexual abuse, or some other kind of abuse. It's also very likely that many of those who claim not have been abused are lying, as felons are generally dishonest by nature, and victims tend to identify with their abusers. For example, John Wayne Gacy consistently insisted his father was a great man even though he beat and degraded him, regularly. I believe Ted Bundy always spoke in glowing terms about his violent, abusive, and racist grandfather who, as a young child, introduced him to animal torture as a pastime.

If we want to actually solve the problem, which I do, even having a basic idea how much trauma it can cause, we have to move beyond moral posturing and actually try to solve the problem.

And I think if we do that, we may find (or we may not - child sexual abuse may in fact be almost entirely the result of sociopathic authoritarian institutions)

I don't find this in any way convincing. The data seems overhwhelmingly to suggest the opposite.

that some people really are sexually attracted to children, against their best wishes and intentions. They deserve our sympathy and support, not least because that would be an integral part of preventing them from sexually abusing children.

I absolutely agree with the goal, that we should be seriously focusing on real solutions, not just cleaning up the wreckage.

Sasha

19th July 2010, 11:14

Sasha

19th July 2010, 12:00

as to the topic of "punishment" of sexual childabusers.

if the abuser is indeed driven to the abuse sexualy (not out of sadism) chemical castration (dont mind the term, its just testosterone lowering injections like prostate cancer patients get) does seem to work.

so i would see it that people found guilty of sexual abuse get an choice between voluntairy chemical"castration" with therapy/help or forced seperation to protect society.

and like i argued before; having a less hysteric and more sensible aproach towards pedophelia will go an long way in preventing a lot of abuse.
If these people can get help (therapy, voluntarly chemical castration) and are not cast out ("shit man thats an fucked up thing to have, thanks for telling me, i wont let you babysit my kids but i will treat you for the rest as an normal human being") less abuse will take place.

and since almost al abusers are victems of abuse them selfs, less and less abuse will happen.
Banning out abuse completly might well be utopian but we can lower the amount of kids getting hurt by huge numbers.

but no, lets keep screaming kill them all, cause that is working like a charm

Andropov

19th July 2010, 13:22

Give it a break seriously. It has nothing to do with distaste of sadism towards children or whatever. I work with children. This has to do with the correct marxist position on mental illness how to deal with crimes that are due to mental illness be it that of a paedophile, a psychopath or a sociopath.
I dont dispute that.

No it isn't your stereotyping shows just how little concept you have of the real issue.
It was clearly a figure of speach instead of having to type him/her so people like you wouldnt jump on the clearly irrelevant bandwagon.

That you associate child abuse with males and probably still believe the whole old man in the car with the candy crap too.
Nice strawman you have for yourself there.
As I stated it was clearly a figure of speech and it is telling that you are the only one making an issue out of a figure of speech.
If I ment men, or was intending to stereotype pedophiles then I would say it.

punisa

19th July 2010, 14:22

Human nature must never be a justification of some criminal act.

case A) In case a person feels he/she might rape a child (or an adult), we must provide the best possible help for the person. Consulting, therapy ..whatever, general help so that we prevent these crimes from happening.
This must be well known fact, every single person that feels capable of doing such an act MUST be aware that these conditions are treatable and that there are specialists who will help them avoid such acts.
There should be a lot more public talk on this, so that everyone can anonymously seek help and know EXACTLY where to seek help.

case B) despite knowing that we shall not tolerate rape and harm towards other people and despite knowing that there are institutions that can help them - the person still "gives in" to its "nature" and commits such foul act.
For such a case - immediate death punishment must be implemented.

aftermath | Following these simply guidelines there is really no need to cry "state sponsored murder", it is outrages and infantile - a product of current media propaganda and overall lack of knowledge.

Do everything and I mean EVERYTHING you can to prevent these things from happening, but if that fails...
If you have a hard evidence (video tape, sperm sample, whatever...) of an adult raping a child - execute him without remorse.

punisa

19th July 2010, 14:34

but no, lets keep screaming kill them all, cause that is working like a charm

You're missing the point - nobody here suggested a mass slaughter of pedophiles.
A pedophile is a human just like everyone else.
A criminal deserves death, not a pedophile.
Pedophile deserves state sponsored treatment.

if the abuser is indeed driven to the abuse sexualy (not out of sadism) chemical castration (dont mind the term, its just testosterone lowering injections like prostate cancer patients get) does seem to work.

Chemically lowering someone's testosterone sounds very harsh to me.
I think a professional talk is more efficient, a person should understand why he/she has these urges, how it came about and how it would effect his/her victim.
Also the person must understand that this behavior will not be tolerated and will be punished for it.

punisa

19th July 2010, 14:42

Because we all know how friendly conservatives are towards pedophiles.

Listen, here are the problems with capital punishment:

a) It's really really really fucking expensive

How so?
Quick search on Google shows:
http://www.ammobank.com

Apperently CENTURIAN 5MM RIMFIRE MAGNUM (x50) costs $28.99.
0,56 $ for one capital punishment (a close proximity head shot)

b) You could execute the wrong person.
There is literally no reason to use capital punishment.

Now that is a problem, I agree.
Capital punishment should be used only when we have an abundance of evidences and only then.
Say if a person walks to a crowded bar and cuts someone's throat and runs off.
He gets caught at the next block and is taken to custody.
You have cca 30 witnesses who saw him kill, we are 100% CERTAIN we have the right guy.
What then? Claim he was insane? Well, that's true - apparently he was. But he should be executed nevertheless.

Sasha

19th July 2010, 15:18

You're missing the point - nobody here suggested a mass slaughter of pedophiles.
A pedophile is a human just like everyone else.
A criminal deserves death, not a pedophile.
Pedophile deserves state sponsored treatment.

your the first of the "shoot them" crowd (sorry to lump you in with them idiots for the sake of argument) that seems to be able to difrentiate between an pedophile (someone with an atraction/urges towards pre-pubescents) and an abuser/rapist (someone who acts uppon that atraction/urges)
so i would say yeah, a lot of people where talking (out of sheer stupidity i must admit) about mass slaughter.

your position i can respect, i'm no pacifist and i can see how you could argue that you need to protect your society from certain people, out of morality i would offer them a choice between life humane imprisoment or human euthansaia, but your position is i admit defendable.

although here
How so?
Quick search on Google shows:
http://www.ammobank.com (http://www.ammobank.com/)

Apperently CENTURIAN 5MM RIMFIRE MAGNUM (x50) costs $28.99.
0,56 $ for one capital punishment (a close proximity head shot)
you go in the same kneejerk idiocy has the idiot capitalpunishment crowd.
You know damn well that capital-punishment isnt expensive because of the price of bullits/electrcity/lethalinjections/etc but because if you as an society are killing a person you have to be (like you yourself argued) absolutly, without any doubt, 100% sure that they are guilty. Wich means a lot of long, dificult appeal procedures. Even in the most obvious cases (DNA/witnesses) it has been proven that (sometimes intentional) mistakes are made and people turn out innocent years later.

and thats the ***** with capital punishment, someone convicted to live you can always release, someone you shot you cant bring back to live.

NGNM85

19th July 2010, 21:33

although here you go in the same kneejerk idiocy has the idiot capitalpunishment crowd.
You know damn well that capital-punishment isnt expensive because of the price of bullits/electrcity/lethalinjections/etc but because if you as an society are killing a person you have to be (like you yourself argued) absolutly, without any doubt, 100% sure that they are guilty. Wich means a lot of long, dificult appeal procedures. Even in the most obvious cases (DNA/witnesses) it has been proven that (sometimes intentional) mistakes are made and people turn out innocent years later.

and thats the ***** with capital punishment, someone convicted to live you can always release, someone you shot you cant bring back to live.

Also, according to the ultra-reactionaries (These people are NOT 'conservatives.') on the supreme court, Scalia, in particular, have argued even innocence is not necessarily sufficient grounds for overturning a conviction.

#FF0000

19th July 2010, 21:42

How so?
Quick search on Google shows:
http://www.ammobank.com

Apperently CENTURIAN 5MM RIMFIRE MAGNUM (x50) costs $28.99.
0,56 $ for one capital punishment (a close proximity head shot)

Wwwwrrrroonngggggggg.

To have capital punishment you need a legal system. That means you need people, time, and resources to pore over every appeal, every conviction, you need lawyers and public defenders, the governor gets involved, you need to pay for the materials to execute en masse, disposal of bodies...etc.

The whole "LOL PRICE OF GUN AND BULLET" thing wasn't even clever or funny the first time some asshole manning a Turner Diaries stand spouted it at me at a gun show, and it hasn't gotten any better with age. It cost Five. Million. Dollars. to execute Ted Bundy. That's one person. And it's going to be that expensive unless you want to get rid of all the bureaucratic roadblocks that help keep the appearance that we give a fuck about who's dying, because after all, we don't want to make it so obvious that we're just out for blood.

Capital punishment should be used only when we have an abundance of evidences and only then.
Say if a person walks to a crowded bar and cuts someone's throat and runs off.
He gets caught at the next block and is taken to custody.
You have cca 30 witnesses who saw him kill, we are 100% CERTAIN we have the right guy.
What then? Claim he was insane? Well, that's true - apparently he was. But he should be executed nevertheless.

If he's insane then he can't be held responsible for his actions. That's basically the definition of insane. Further, eye witness accounts are the worst sort of evidence there is, despite eye witness testimonies being one of the best things to have in court. 30 people can get it wrong. And finally, the fact is we live in a world where it is impossible to know anything with absolute certainty, and if there is even the slightest, most offhand chance that someone could be wrongfully executed, then, that's it, capital punishment is off the table. It's cheaper to keep a man in jail for the rest of his life than it is to kill him, and you don't run the risk of killing an innocent person.

Ele'ill

19th July 2010, 22:08

Let's not forget about the time they spend on death row waiting to die. Food, prison guards, deathrow upkeep etc.. All of that is money too.

Coggeh

19th July 2010, 22:29

Charles Xavier

19th July 2010, 22:30

blank

Coggeh

19th July 2010, 22:31

All pedophiles should be beat up daily in prison.
Nice contribution ...

Sasha

19th July 2010, 22:53

All pedophiles should be beat up daily in prison.

You think you dont have enough infractions yet?

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

20th July 2010, 00:52

You think you dont have enough infractions yet?

Since he's not being beat up daily in prision, he prefers infractions daily.

Glenn Beck

20th July 2010, 01:00

A capitalist court in Ireland today ruled that a man who killed his mother was not guilty based on his mental illness which was schizophrenia. Its nice to see how progressive some leftists are that they would be more conservative than the capitalist legal system that people should be killed when their mental illness causes harm.

Link: http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0719/marrinanc.html

A pedophile who abuses a child is competent to stand trial. Their 'mental illness' does not cause severe delusional states that can have one ruled unfit to stand trial. They have a condition that causes them to lust after children but does not in any way impede their understanding that this is an act deemed unacceptable nor does it compromise their ability to govern themselves.

I can't believe I'm actually explaining this.

You know, I think we should claim an insanity defense for capitalists too. I mean clearly, they have no choice in what they are. They're sick people and what they need is treatment, not to be held responsible for all the workers they've exploited in the past. Right? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_cool.gif

NGNM85

20th July 2010, 03:46

A pedophile who abuses a child is competent to stand trial. Their 'mental illness' does not cause severe delusional states that can have one ruled unfit to stand trial. They have a condition that causes them to lust after children but does not in any way impede their understanding that this is an act deemed unacceptable nor does it compromise their ability to govern themselves.

Precisely. There was a little bit of this earlier when people were talking about psychopaths, which is further muddied by the similarity between 'psychotic' and 'psychopath' and the use of the word 'psycho' in common parlance. Psychopathy is a personality disorder, and has no bearing on the indiduals' understanding or perception of reality, similarly with pedophilia, which a sexial disorder, or paraphilia. These people know exactly what they're doing.They may be mentally ill, but not insane. This is different from someone with schizophrenia who is unable to differentiate between reality and fantasy.

HammerAlias

20th July 2010, 04:06

Pedophilia is quite different from actual, physical molestation. If they keep their thoughts to themselves and their desires of little kids under control, then I see nothing wrong with it.

punisa

20th July 2010, 07:05

your the first of the "shoot them" crowd (sorry to lump you in with them idiots for the sake of argument) that seems to be able to difrentiate between an pedophile (someone with an atraction/urges towards pre-pubescents) and an abuser/rapist (someone who acts uppon that atraction/urges)
so i would say yeah, a lot of people where talking (out of sheer stupidity i must admit) about mass slaughter.

I highly value one's own right to fantasize about whatever he/she wants and I honestly don't think that a person who masturbates to some Japanese hentai video is someone we should fear.
For that matter, it is quite educational to research a large list of sexual fetishes people tend to have - some of which are clearly impossible (sex with unicorns or whatever..)

your position i can respect, i'm no pacifist and i can see how you could argue that you need to protect your society from certain people, out of morality i would offer them a choice between life humane imprisoment or human euthansaia, but your position is i admit defendable.

Exactly the point - what i argue is that we move capital punishment way more into the "certainty" level.
Everything in our material world can be proven statistically, for example I remember a while ago some mathematician developed a statistical chance as to whatever the sun will rise again tomorrow.

I hope I'm making my point here. Cases such as "that guy raped me, I'm 100% sure - please kill him now" are in no way candidates for capital punishment.
I'm no lawyer, but I can differentiate between "some evidence" and "a massive amount of evidence".

In Europe you can wake up one morning, rape 10 kids, kill 20 parents, blow up a marketplace and sodomize an entire flock of sheep.
You can be filmed by 10 cameras doing this.
After the rape/slaughter is over you can simply walk into a police station and say "yep, I did - I'd like to be jailed now. Thank you."

I say no to such practices.

although here you go in the same kneejerk idiocy has the idiot capitalpunishment crowd.
You know damn well that capital-punishment isnt expensive because of the price of bullits/electrcity/lethalinjections/etc but because if you as an society are killing a person you have to be (like you yourself argued) absolutly, without any doubt, 100% sure that they are guilty. Wich means a lot of long, dificult appeal procedures. Even in the most obvious cases (DNA/witnesses) it has been proven that (sometimes intentional) mistakes are made and people turn out innocent years later.

and thats the ***** with capital punishment, someone convicted to live you can always release, someone you shot you cant bring back to live.

I agree, I went into some nasty knee jerk rant about the price of a bullet and made myself look like Stalin's dog.
Ofcourse I don't seriously mean that we should order ammo from the web and perform judgments as we please.
My intention was to counter a massive "totally pro life" ideology which is in some cases not reasonable (such as in that example I came with earlier.)

---------- back to pedophile topic.
Institutions and experts should be there to explain to these people that the urges that they have are perfectly "normal" and its not their fault.
Just as statistically a small percentage will be born blind, some will be born with a pedophile tendency.
These people are victims of DNA genes or whatever process made them that way.

Hmm, this kinda reminds of something.
You all remember how left usually hates Richard Dawkins because he wrote the book "selfish gene" where he proclaims that evolution indeed is the survival of the fittest and strongest?
Left was furious cause they instantly thought that this is a pro fascist statement.
But actually reading the book provides some additional information that can also be applied here.
Yes - we are governed by the evolutionary process, BUT we are also possessing the rationality and intellect that can be used to transcend and overcome it.
It goes well with pedophiles, they must learn to overcome their urges just as everyone else must.

Optiow

20th July 2010, 08:05

They should not be tolerated in society. I understand they may be born that way, but it is not fair they should carry out their own lusts while others keep their bottled up, as they should be. If everyone did what they wanted to because they liked it, we would have rape everywhere.

I think they should be helped, but under no circumstances tolerated.

Sasha

20th July 2010, 11:48

Exactly the point - what i argue is that we move capital punishment way more into the "certainty" level.
Everything in our material world can be proven statistically, for example I remember a while ago some mathematician developed a statistical chance as to whatever the sun will rise again tomorrow.

well, to go a bit offtopic here, a while back a nurse here in the netherlands got convicted to live imprisoment on statistics for being an serial killing "angel of death", turned out the statistics where faulty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk) and she got released last year.
people make mistakes, and when it comes to crime and punishment people make even intentional mistakes (ever read or seen millers the crucible?)

anyway, on the topic of mental ilnesses and competence to stand trial.
if someone is insane that doesnt mean they get away scot free (at least not here in the netherlands).
we have an system called TBS wich is basicly an system of psychiatric prisons providing therapy and judging if someone is "safe" to be released back in society. most of the time an TBS sentence is given on top of the normal prison sentence.
the conservatives want to do away with this system because its not deemed punishment. funny thing is more and more aperent batshit crazy offenders are refusing psychiatric assesment before their trial because the chances on live imprisoment are actualy higher if you get TBS than without. this because its not about "serving your time" but about being deemed, in the eyes of profesional psychiatrists safe to go back in society.

in my eyes whe should do away with the whole focus on punishment system

progressive_lefty

20th July 2010, 13:38

I think pedophilia is terrible. The only circumstance where I believe offenders should be allowed some understanding (only some and not much) is in relation them being a victim at childhood themselves. It's depressing to hear of the victim - offender cycle, that referring to the notable number of offendors who themselves were abused at childhood.

Charles Xavier

20th July 2010, 15:12

blank

Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures

20th July 2010, 17:55

Adi Shankara

20th July 2010, 22:09

The voice of the moral majority.

does that make you the voice of the unwanted minority?

meow

21st July 2010, 04:20

No one is born being attracted to Children. Just as no one is born having a shoe fetish. Its behavior that should not be tolerated in a democratic society. Children and even teens should not be subject to rape. Children and young teens are incapable of giving their consent. As their brains are not fully developed. Pedophiles who act out on their behavior should be executed. No tolerance for pedophiles and rapists. People who support pedophiles should be banned from this forum.
no one supports rape or sexual abuse. whether against children or adults.
people may disagree about whether or not children can give consent.

and saying no one is born being attracted to children is same as no one is born attracted to people of same sex. you have no evidence. im not sure if either claim is correct. i strongly suspect second one (same sex) is just wrong.

does that make you the voice of the unwanted minority?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority

The Moral Majority was a political organization of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) which had an agenda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda) of evangelical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism) Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity)-oriented political lobbying (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying). It was founded in 1979 and dissolved in the late 1980s.

yes i am minority. i am athiest. i am socialist. i am anarchist. i am proud not to be a member of "moral majority".

Adi Shankara

31st July 2010, 07:17

yes i am minority. i am athiest. i am socialist. i am anarchist. i am proud not to be a member of "moral majority".

how can you be proud of a non-belief? ;)

LETSFIGHTBACK

31st July 2010, 12:39

Yes, and that's why I'm very puzzled when many communists exhibit a level of pointless moralism I'd expect from Christians.

Yes, and that is because even though they babble about revolution, and it seems they are on a higher plane intellectually, they are also, STILL, a product of this culture. It still AMAZES me how Americans still react to nudity and sex. Adults still have this infantile attitude, which is why sex is used to sell a wide variety of products.

4 Leaf Clover

31st July 2010, 15:07

paedophilia cannot be legalised and certanly not "liberated from opression" because pedophiles sexually attack age groups that are not "fit" and biologically ready to be involved into sexual actions. Therefore , those groups are violated.

No one is born as paedophile , because he would have to be paedophile entire life, which means he would have to be paedophile when he had 3 years only , which is nonsense.

Youth needs education and protection , not sexual harassment

Widerstand

31st July 2010, 15:24

paedophilia cannot be legalised and certanly not "liberated from opression" because pedophiles sexually attack age groups that are not "fit" and biologically ready to be involved into sexual actions. Therefore , those groups are violated.

Youth needs education and protection , not sexual harassment

Not everyone who is attracted to minors/children (whatever the definition of it) harasses or molests them. You need to get that idea out of your head.

No one is born as paedophile , because he would have to be paedophile entire life, which means he would have to be paedophile when he had 3 years only , which is nonsense.

You can't prove that, and your argument is weak. Humans don't experience sexual lust at the age of 3, so obviously no one was a pedophile when he was 3 years old. When they start developing feelings of lust, between 12 and 16 I would assume - unless suppressed, eg because of religion - Teens are usually attracted to people their age, so at this point, pedophilia can't really be "diagnosed". In fact, for a long time after the teenager years, it's okay for the individual to be attracted to teenagers.
Which then opens the question as to what exactly is pedophilia. I'd say it's largely a social construct. According to some US laws, having sex with an under-18yo is pedophilia. Under German law, it isn't necessarily. In fact, a lot of US "pedophiles" wouldn't be in Germany, or most other European countries. In Japan, the age for consent is 12 years of age. So what definition of pedophilia do we use? Someone who is sexually attracted to minors/children? That, as demonstrated, doesn't work, since "minor" and "child" are constructed terms.

Thirsty Crow

31st July 2010, 15:32

Which then opens the question as to what exactly is pedophilia. I'd say it's largely a social construct.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that pedophilia is largely a social construct.
It's quite simple in my opinion.
If rape means non-consensual sexual intercourse (by means of force or any other), pedophilia is also rape since the act includes a person who is not capable of making this decision.
Of course, what I said above only relates to children who are yet biologically incapable of sexual desire. However, I wonder if biology is the sole determinant when it comes to sexuality :confused:

Widerstand

31st July 2010, 15:37

I wouldn't go so far as to say that pedophilia is largely a social construct.
It's quite simple in my opinion.
If rape means non-consensual sexual intercourse (by means of force or any other), pedophilia is also rape since the act includes a person who is not capable of making this decision.

But is sex necessary for a person being a pedophile? What would you call someone watching child pornography, or just hentai involving loli or shota, or even just fantasizing about it, then?

Of course, what I said above only relates to children who are yet biologically incapable of sexual desire. However, I wonder if biology is the sole determinant when it comes to sexuality :confused:

I'm not sure where you are going with your second sentence, but I tend to agree with your first one. Sex with a person incapable of sexual lust is hardly defensible.

GreenCommunism

31st July 2010, 15:40

Teens are usually attracted to people their age, so at this point

but we all watched porn as a teen and i'm sure 18 year old porn star were always more attractive. by the way, isn't watching porn supposed to cause such perversion if you're not ready to watch it, as in you're under 18?

i think i would agree that it is not genetical but environmental, many pedophile report sexual abuse as children and teenage bullying.

According to some US laws, having sex with an under-18yo is pedophilia. Under German law, it isn't necessarily. In fact, a lot of US "pedophiles" wouldn't be in Germany, or most other European countries. In Japan, the age for consent is 12 years of age.

is it american cultural imperialism if nobody would allow his underage kids with someone older than 18? i think not, law and morality are 2 things.

personally, have any of you experienced love as a child? i remember falling in love with girls in my classroom as early as 7 years old. this is part of the reason why i don't believe sexual attraction to children exists, it may be just like the word says, pedophilia is child love, which for some odd reason turn into sexual abuse.

also, i had an alternative theory about pedophilia, when such pedophiles are 25 years old, do they like cougars?,most offenders realize their sexuality or act after 30 years old. are they attracted exclusively to much younger persons? i would argue that it is possible that such people are attracted to people outside their age group as an evolutionary strategy, since all mates their own age are taken,they aim for the youngest and the oldest about to hit menopause.

Quail

31st July 2010, 15:47

I wouldn't go so far as to say that pedophilia is largely a social construct.
It's quite simple in my opinion.
If rape means non-consensual sexual intercourse (by means of force or any other), pedophilia is also rape since the act includes a person who is not capable of making this decision.
Of course, what I said above only relates to children who are yet biologically incapable of sexual desire. However, I wonder if biology is the sole determinant when it comes to sexuality :confused:

Pedophilia itself is not rape. Pedophilia is an attraction to children. People should really stop confusing pedophilia and child abuse.

Thirsty Crow

31st July 2010, 15:47

But is sex necessary for a person being a pedophile? What would you call someone watching child pornography, or just hentai involving loli or shota, or even just fantasizing about it, then?

I really don't know and I wouldn't like to speculate if sexual intercourse is a neccesity for ALL pedophiles.
However, child pornography still fits into the above mentioned definition. Children, who are incapable of such a desire, are in one way or another "violated" and forced into an act which becomes a "product" used for satisfaction. I wouldn't necessarily advocate outright indictment of the pedophile, but I would advocate "keeping a close eye on him/her".

I'm not sure where you are going with your second sentence, but I tend to agree with your first one. Sex with a person incapable of sexual lust is hardly defensible.
As you've said, humans develop sexual desire from the age of 12 to 16. However, I've heard of instances when a 10 year old girl was involved in a sexual act with a 14 year old boy. And it comes down to this: sociocultural practices and "usage" of sexuality. What I want to say is that sexual behaviour may or may not be derived from various phenomena, one of which is the prevailing attitude towards sexuality in a given society.

GreenCommunism

31st July 2010, 15:49

As you've said, humans develop sexual desire from the age of 12 to 16. However, I've heard of instances when a 10 year old girl was involved in a sexual act with a 14 year old boy. And it comes down to this: sociocultural practices and "usage" of sexuality. What I want to say is that sexual behaviour may or may not be derived from various phenomena, one of which is the prevailing attitude towards sexuality in a given society.

ive heard of people saying they had sex too early and it resulted in a certain amount of psychological distress as child and adults. i guess it might have been done with alcohol though.

Thirsty Crow

31st July 2010, 16:00

Pedophilia itself is not rape. Pedophilia is an attraction to children. People should really stop confusing pedophilia and child abuse.
I phrased that wrong, it's true. What I wanted to illustrate that in both cases there is the thing of witheld consent.
You're right, pedophilia is an attraction to children. But, once this attraction manifests itself in the form of a sexual act with a child (who is incapable of making the decision and having such desires), I don't see the important difference between the two phenomena.

Widerstand

31st July 2010, 16:07

but we all watched porn as a teen and i'm sure 18 year old porn star were always more attractive. by the way, isn't watching porn supposed to cause such perversion if you're not ready to watch it, as in you're under 18?

Sounds really far-fetched to me, can you find me where you heard that?

i think i would agree that it is not genetical but environmental, many pedophile report sexual abuse as children and teenage bullying.

I think there's a strong probability that environmental causes play a role. I'm not too sure about the sexual abuse and bullying though. I'm assuming you refer to pedophiles convicted of sexual abuse here, right? Aren't childhood traumas rather common in all kinds of sexual offenders?

is it american cultural imperialism if nobody would allow his underage kids with someone older than 18? i think not, law and morality are 2 things.

Law is derived from morality. In Germany, the majority has no problem with 14 years being the age of consent (unless the other person is above 21, then the age of consent can be raised to 16, but not always I believe). In fact, a lot of Germans, or other Europeans, are pretty perplexed at the American 18yo-age-of-consent laws, especially since they have an image of getting abused by parents to get rid of their kids boy-/girlfriend through pedophilia charges.

personally, have any of you experienced love as a child? i remember falling in love with girls in my classroom as early as 7 years old. this is part of the reason why i don't believe sexual attraction to children exists, it may be just like the word says, pedophilia is child love, which for some odd reason turn into sexual abuse.

I'd argue that love and sexual attraction are two very different things. It's an interesting hypothesis though that pedophilia is just gone-wrong child love.

i would argue that it is possible that such people are attracted to people outside their age group as an evolutionary strategy, since all mates their own age are taken,they aim for the youngest and the oldest about to hit menopause.

Another interesting theory, hm. I don't know about that, it would imply that pedophiles have often failed to establish relationships with people their ages.

I really don't know and I wouldn't like to speculate if sexual intercourse is a neccesity for ALL pedophiles.
However, child pornography still fits into the above mentioned definition. Children, who are incapable of such a desire, are in one way or another "violated" and forced into an act which becomes a "product" used for satisfaction. I wouldn't necessarily advocate outright indictment of the pedophile, but I would advocate "keeping a close eye on him/her".

As you've said, humans develop sexual desire from the age of 12 to 16. However, I've heard of instances when a 10 year old girl was involved in a sexual act with a 14 year old boy. And it comes down to this: sociocultural practices and "usage" of sexuality. What I want to say is that sexual behaviour may or may not be derived from various phenomena, one of which is the prevailing attitude towards sexuality in a given society.

Ah yes, I agree. Wouldn't that just support the point that, since sexuality is shaped by society, pedophilia is a social construct? I would further argue the possibility that all forms of sexual abuse have similar causes, and that they need to be addressed equally, without stigmatizing all pedophiles as sex offenders. As long as they are, it will be inevitably harder for them to come out to society, which eventually pushes them in an outsider position, which IMO makes them more likely to act out their desires and commit sexual abuse.

ive heard of people saying they had sex too early and it resulted in a certain amount of psychological distress as child and adults. i guess it might have been done with alcohol though.

I'd definitely blame it on the circumstances of the sex, rather than the sex itself.

4 Leaf Clover

31st July 2010, 16:10

Not everyone who is attracted to minors/children (whatever the definition of it) harasses or molests them. You need to get that idea out of your head.

paedophile is person who finds kids sexually attractive , who fucks kids , or wants to do so

Which then opens the question as to what exactly is pedophilia.
its a mental condition of having desire to do sexual acts with people who are not sexually mature for being involved in such acts

therefore ,40 year old man having sex with 14 year old girl , is wrong no matter how much the girl wanted it... Its immoral and unethical from the older partners side , because he is not taking into consideration that girl might be less concious because of her age , and she might regret it when she is older

you cant be sure with teenagers because their mind , ideas and conciousness is yet to be developed completely , ignoring that fact for doing your pleasure is just unethical

im not going even to talk about hardcore paedophiles who are wanking on kids 7 years old

But is sex necessary for a person being a pedophile? What would you call someone watching child pornography, or just hentai involving loli or shota, or even just fantasizing about it, then?

that is a sign of tolerance to these things . It means you show some small signs of tolerance to such behaviour. and watching porns in which people rape kids is rather sick.

Thirsty Crow

31st July 2010, 16:43

Ah yes, I agree. Wouldn't that just support the point that, since sexuality is shaped by society, pedophilia is a social construct? To be frank, it's a problem and a question that I cannot really answer. The debate on wether social factors or biological ones play a greater role is something perplexingly complex. I do know, in the broadest sense, that sexuality and sexual practices are also influenced by social factors. But at the same time, for instance, homosexual people, or some of them, insist that they were born with such preference. So it remain a big question, at least for me :confused: (although I probably shoudn't have argued against your notions of social influence in the first place :D)
I would further argue the possibility that all forms of sexual abuse have similar causes, and that they need to be addressed equally, without stigmatizing all pedophiles as sex offenders. As long as they are, it will be inevitably harder for them to come out to society, which eventually pushes them in an outsider position, which IMO makes them more likely to act out their desires and commit sexual abuse.

I'd definitely blame it on the circumstances of the sex, rather than the sex itself.
I agree that demonization is hardly the best solution to this problem. However, I still think that some sort of careful, subtle caution is necessary since human desires are not easily contained, generally speaking.

GreenCommunism

31st July 2010, 16:49

Sounds really far-fetched to me, can you find me where you heard that?

i dunno, i just thought it was the reason why we couldn't get porn before 18 even if everyone on earth does. it hmm, change our perception of sexuality? i wouldn't say pedophilia but i would say any perversion.

I think there's a strong probability that environmental causes play a role. I'm not too sure about the sexual abuse and bullying though. I'm assuming you refer to pedophiles convicted of sexual abuse here, right? Aren't childhood traumas rather common in all kinds of sexual offenders?

i guess you're right, i just thought that childhood trauma would be a defining factor for pedophilia but i guess it isn't.

Law is derived from morality. In Germany, the majority has no problem with 14 years being the age of consent (unless the other person is above 21, then the age of consent can be raised to 16, but not always I believe). In fact, a lot of Germans, or other Europeans, are pretty perplexed at the American 18yo-age-of-consent laws, especially since they have an image of getting abused by parents to get rid of their kids boy-/girlfriend through pedophilia charges.

many people are against the 18 year old age of consent laws ,especially since they simply don't give the results that are asked for, there is i think 3 time more teenage pregnancies in the united states compared to canada. i thought 15 was the age of consent for germany, and i'm not sure the majority really don't care like you say they do but i guess i will believe you.

Another interesting theory, hm. I don't know about that, it would imply that pedophiles have often failed to establish relationships with people their ages.

i wouldn't mean that, i would say they are geared toward sex with large age difference as an adaptation. does not mean they are not attracted to those of their age.

paedophile is person who finds kids sexually attractive , who fucks kids , or wants to do so

many psychologist are having problems with considering pedophilia a mental illness, it has to cause personal problems for the pedophile himself to be an illness, not just the victim, thus if a pedophile is ashamed it might be, however are there not homosexuals who are ashamed and repress their desires?

its a mental condition of having desire to do sexual acts with people who are not sexually mature for being involved in such acts

therefore ,40 year old man having sex with 14 year old girl , is wrong no matter how much the girl wanted it... Its immoral and unethical from the older partners side , because he is not taking into consideration that girl might be less concious because of her age , and she might regret it when she is older
the real problem is that in the good ol days few girls or boys developed puberty before 16-18, and now they do because we have better health and nutrition. but i would disagree that the sex itself is wrong, when love is mutual then how can nature be wrong. there are other factor, like keeping the children in school because that is their place and not be sexually harassed at every corner by mens twice their age, teenage pregnancies, the fact that most of those who are over 18 and have sex with underage girls less often use condoms which shows how irresponsible they are. kids just don't have sex with each other as often as a adult and child couple. i almost forgot one big factor, money and power. i guess 40 year old is pretty old anyway though., but i question the idea that our sexuality evolve as we grow .i would say love do.

that is a sign of tolerance to these things . It means you show some small signs of tolerance to such behaviour. and watching porns in which people rape kids is rather sick.

i don't want to be a post-modernist piece of shit, but this is a value judgement. i don't know if being the most extremist anti-child abuse is a prize that should be won as we all know who oppose gay marriage the most aka closet homosexuals.

ContrarianLemming

31st July 2010, 16:53

Pedophilia is quite different from actual, physical molestation. If they keep their thoughts to themselves and their desires of little kids under control, then I see nothing wrong with it.

EDIT; sorry didnt know my pic was so large.

anyhoo I agree with whoever explained that its a choice to act on this fethish. they are mentally competant individuals who made the biggest mistake of there lives. I sincerly believe all of them can better themselves and find redemption.

4 Leaf Clover

31st July 2010, 16:59

i dunno, i just thought it was the reason why we couldn't get porn before 18 even if everyone on earth does. it hmm, change our perception of sexuality? i wouldn't say pedophilia but i would say any perversion.

i guess you're right, i just thought that childhood trauma would be a defining factor for pedophilia but i guess it isn't.

many people are against the 18 year old age of consent laws ,especially since they simply don't give the results that are asked for, there is i think 3 time more teenage pregnancies in the united states compared to canada. i thought 15 was the age of consent for germany, and i'm not sure the majority really don't care like you say they do but i guess i will believe you.

i wouldn't mean that, i would say they are geared toward sex with large age difference as an adaptation. does not mean they are not attracted to those of their age.

many psychologist are having problems with considering pedophilia a mental illness, it has to cause personal problems for the pedophile himself to be an illness, not just the victim, thus if a pedophile is ashamed it might be, however are there not homosexuals who are ashamed and repress their desires?

the real problem is that in the good ol days few girls or boys developed puberty before 16-18, and now they do because we have better health and nutrition. but i would disagree that the sex itself is wrong, when love is mutual then how can nature be wrong. there are other factor, like keeping the children in school because that is their place and not be sexually harassed at every corner by mens twice their age, teenage pregnancies, the fact that most of those who are over 18 and have sex with underage girls less often use condoms which shows how irresponsible they are. kids just don't have sex with each other as often as a adult and child couple. i almost forgot one big factor, money and power. i guess 40 year old is pretty old anyway though., but i question the idea that our sexuality evolve as we grow .i would say love do.

i don't want to be a post-modernist piece of shit, but this is a value judgement. i don't know if being the most extremist anti-child abuse is a prize that should be won as we all know who oppose gay marriage the most aka closet homosexuals.

you turn a blind eye on fact , that not only that underage people are not mature , but they are not psychically mature either. So noone can take advantage of that fact

about your comment concerning right wingers and paedophilia , well right wingers also think world is round (i guess) , so now i should advocate the world is square ?

anyway , since you are in between

can you tell clearly your statement

do you , or do you not , tolerate paedophilia as normal behaviour , and do you think it should be forbidden or not ?

danyboy27

31st July 2010, 17:06

of all the pedophiles, only 7% are exclusively attracted to children, and that a fair margin for a neurological disorder.

most case of paedophilia are the result of abuse, or psychological disorder in general, most pedo can be cured and life a ''normal'' life.

for those who cannot be cured, isolation from society or tigh surveillance within society itself can or will do the job.

there is no need for a punitive justice to do all that.

GreenCommunism

31st July 2010, 17:16

ou turn a blind eye on fact , that not only that underage people are not mature , but they are not psychically mature either. So noone can take advantage of that fact

about your comment concerning right wingers and paedophilia , well right wingers also think world is round (i guess) , so now i should advocate the world is square ?

anyway , since you are in between

can you tell clearly your statement

do you , or do you not , tolerate paedophilia as normal behaviour , and do you think it should be forbidden or not ?

you sound like you want to trap me or something, but oh well. i actually didn't want to post on this topic because i'm sick of the topic. but i still did since i wanted to bring up the subject of sexuality evolving with our age.

i've researched the topic for a long while having someone close to me being a victim, brain develop themselves at an equal rate from 14 to 25, but then again, i guess you could argue that it is still at a certain point of development substantially lower than another.

i usually take socially conservative viewpoint to explain many phenomenon, abortion is murder but it is socially acceptable murder like self-defense etc. for pedophilia i would say that woman do not developpe their legs well enough to give birth without extra complications before they are 17-19, and i believe the point of sex to be making children and pleasure is a side effect of this.

anyway , since you are in between

can you tell clearly your statement

do you , or do you not , tolerate paedophilia as normal behaviour , and do you think it should be forbidden or not ?

i do am in between, i am just skeptical about the idea of regulating mutual attraction just like i am skeptical of such couples lasting for a long time since studies have shown that couples who have more than 5 year difference are much more unstable than those who have 1-2 year difference, those who have the same age are more unstable too but less than those with 5 year difference. i am not an extremist on this subject. i do believe in protecting children with laws, i just wonder how. i believe both moderate side are right but for the wrong reasons. then again i would say that i am skeptical of social experiments as a whole.

for example, we used to allow sex offenders to leave at 1/8 their sentence(like all criminals), this was a social experiments to see if it would be better to keep them out of jail, as it is possible that jail and oppression fuel futur crime and in this case sexual abuse, and it was a fiasco and the law changed because of too many high profile cases and the stupidity of the board allowing such people out. this is a social experiment, that even if the law changed for sex offenders, caused harm to society for a while. lowering age of consent would be a social experiments, and i am not in favor of such things lightly, though social experiments are needed as test to see if policy can be improved.

4 Leaf Clover

31st July 2010, 18:06

i think paedophiles should definitely be forced to rehabilitation programme in their prisons

Quail

31st July 2010, 18:52

I phrased that wrong, it's true. What I wanted to illustrate that in both cases there is the thing of witheld consent.
You're right, pedophilia is an attraction to children. But, once this attraction manifests itself in the form of a sexual act with a child (who is incapable of making the decision and having such desires), I don't see the important difference between the two phenomena.

It doesn't have to manifest itself as sex with children though. Sex with someone who cannot consent (as children cannot because they don't understand the implications of sex) is always rape, but pedophiles don't have to act on their urges. Being a pedophile isn't a problem in itself, but acting on the urges is.

Adi Shankara

31st July 2010, 18:59

It doesn't have to manifest itself as sex with children though. Sex with someone who cannot consent (as children cannot because they don't understand the implications of sex) is always rape, but pedophiles don't have to act on their urges. Being a pedophile isn't a problem in itself, but acting on the urges is.

if they want to keep their thoughts to themselves, that's fine I'd think, no such thing as a thought crime, right? but the minute they want to act upon those thoughts, demand that CP be made legal, they start sharing stories, or do the light CP (child modelling pics with the intent to arouse; just because they aren't naked doesn't mean they aren't being exploited, could apply for child actors as well) that should be an imprisonment.

al8

31st July 2010, 19:45

Sex with someone who cannot consent (as children cannot because they don't understand the implications of sex) is always rape, [...]

How does that make sense, what are these implications of sex that one only can appreciate after one has reached the legal age of consent? I have never gotten this sudden rush of special magical understanding about sex simply by getting older, or passing some happenstance legal age stipulation depending on what country I lived in. What is it all about? Children are in the process of learning about many things. Why hasn't this policy of "you can't really want anything until your old in enough to understand it" been made to be about candy as well - as a lot of kids apparently don't understand the consequences of tooth decay. Can kids really consent to eating candy?

Sasha

31st July 2010, 20:23

How does that make sense, what are these implications of sex that one only can appreciate after one has reached the legal age of consent? I have never gotten this sudden rush of special magical understanding about sex simply by getting older, or passing some happenstance legal age stipulation depending on what country I lived in. What is it all about? Children are in the process of learning about many things. Why hasn't this policy of "you can't really want anything until your old in enough to understand it" been made to be about candy as well - as a lot of kids apparently don't understand the consequences of tooth decay. Can kids really consent to eating candy?

Like I said before, the problem isn't with the kid wanting to have sex (with an adult) but with the adult who wants sex with an kid. 14 year olds should by all means fuck each others brains out. Just as there isn't any thing wrong with sexual experimentation between two pre-pubecent kids. But in no way should adults take advantage from this urges.

GreenCommunism

31st July 2010, 21:17

Like I said before, the problem isn't with the kid wanting to have sex (with an adult) but with the adult who wants sex with an kid. 14 year olds should by all means fuck each others brains out. Just as there isn't any thing wrong with sexual experimentation between two pre-pubecent kids. But in no way should adults take advantage from this urges.

why? i thought 2 people enjoyed sex together. the main problem i see are adults seeking to have sex with 14 year old, as in talking and flirting with them, some 14 year old are not developed enough for it since not all kids sexually mature at the same rate.

most of what you say is about the potential for abuse, like i said, what do you have against mutually beneficial sex?

another argument should be that 14 year olds should have sex with 14 year olds, as in leaving them to the kids because if every adult on this planet started flirting with 14 year olds there wouldnt be any left for those who are underage.

StrictlyRuddie

31st July 2010, 22:49

For a point of view that rejects moralism that, as you can see has brought the discussion no where except people calling for other people to "Be shot in the face"..

Read:

http://troploin0.free.fr/biblio/alice/

Quail

31st July 2010, 23:32

How does that make sense, what are these implications of sex that one only can appreciate after one has reached the legal age of consent? I have never gotten this sudden rush of special magical understanding about sex simply by getting older, or passing some happenstance legal age stipulation depending on what country I lived in. What is it all about? Children are in the process of learning about many things. Why hasn't this policy of "you can't really want anything until your old in enough to understand it" been made to be about candy as well - as a lot of kids apparently don't understand the consequences of tooth decay. Can kids really consent to eating candy?

Never said anything about the age of consent. However, young children don't tend to be emotionally mature enough to have sex, especially not with someone several times their age who could easily manipulate them.

4 Leaf Clover

1st August 2010, 00:41

Immature people are not emotionaly and psyhicaly developed completely. These are scientifical facts. Adult ignoring these facts for the sake of pleasure is immoral and unethical. No matter how underage person wants it. By underage i mean young teenagers , i guess i dont have to explain how wrong and sick is to have sex with kids. I hope no smartpants is going to show up and tell me how revolutionary it is to support irresponsible people ,
taking advantage of young teens who just want adventure

GreenCommunism

1st August 2010, 06:04

i am not yet completly developed either being 22. i will now stop replying this topic and it is too much of a charged topic. but it piss me off how it seems impossible for teenagers to have an orgasm according to you.

then again i do agree with the idea that all sex under patriarchy is rape since woman are not on an equal footing to men so this kind of relationship is an even more extreme form of disproportionate power dynamics between men and woman.

4 Leaf Clover

1st August 2010, 19:48

i am not yet completly developed either being 22
exactely

but it piss me off how it seems impossible for teenagers to have an orgasm according to you.

now you are being cheeky. How many times i dont have to repeat, its about psychical developement , do you think its normal for emotionally undeveloped person to have sex with 40 year persons. Its not about orgasms. 20 year guy can have sex with 17 year old girl , and such differencies , but 40 year old man/woman cant have sex with 16 year old man/woman , because it is irresponsible and unethical not to take into consideration young person not being emotionaly and psychically mature , and bringing right decision.

then again i do agree with the idea that all sex under patriarchy is rape since woman are not on an equal footing

and why does it have to be disadvantage ? i hate those stupid stereotypes. Who says women dont like their body

GreenCommunism

1st August 2010, 22:05

i'm not a big fan of 40 year olds having sex with minors either.

Adi Shankara

1st August 2010, 23:28

and I'm not a big fan of 25 year olds having sex with 14 year olds.

durhamleft

1st August 2010, 23:45

On a side note, I think our society (UK- probably the west generally?) is greatly hypocritical regarding the way we deal with child sex offences.

For example, we quite rightly say it's wrong for an adult to have sex with a child, however the media then encourages the sexualisation of young girls; with this 'celebrity culture' we see girls in miniskirts and heels, and we get cosmetic companies trying to market their products to literally pre-pubescent teens.

Also, we say it's statutory rape for a 17 year old to have sex with a 15 year old, yet its totally okay for a 60 year old man to be fucking an 18 year old, not only is it legally okay, but most men would probably shake his hand and congratulate him- when it's almost always as a result of an abuse of power- and money!

So regarding paedophiles, sure its wrong, but at the same time it would be totally misguided to say the way the law regards it is necessarily right, and I do think there should be some open discussion regarding child pornography, as while the people responsible for the material should be punished, I'm not completely sure watching it is a serious criminal offence. It's not a criminal offence to watch a robbery, murder or whathaveyou on tape, so why it should be an imprisonable offence to watch a rape, or child pornography I'm not entirely sure- to me it is something that should probably warrant counselling, not prison time.