NAMBLA: What are your opinions?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What are your opinions on this group?
Personally I think they are the most wretched group of creatures on Earth, but you may have differing opinions.

WARNING: LINK MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR WORK!!!

http://www.nambla1.de/welcome.htm

I think it's sad that people are so desperate that they resort to fiddling with kids to gratify themselves.
It's people like this who give homosexuals a bad name.

[Exploited Class]

Quote: from NoXion on 12:54 am on May 21, 2003
It's people like this who give homosexuals a bad name.

No, that would be the general public and christian organizations that gives homosexuality a bad name.

I think it is something to debate and talk about, when is concensioul sex and such. What are the real dangers of somebody young wanting to have sex with somebody who is older and when will they understand that and be able to think for themselves on the subject.

I think it is something to discuss and try to understand. I know I was having sex when I was 15 of course with somebody else in the same age range, but I have no regrets about it. So I think there is a lot of room for discussion and is not just a closed door subject.

I don't think they give homosexuals a bad name, I think people who would group together an adult who wants to have sex with an adult of the same gender vs. an adult wanting to have consensual sex with a minor (generally 14 to 17) of the same gender, give homosexuals a bad name. Because there is a huge difference.

I try and not just jump right into thinking something is automaticly wrong because it is popular to be wrong or is something I dislike. I would rather try and discuss and debate on subjects.

But hey some people are the knee jerk reactionaries with thier minds made up about every subject on the earth.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Excellent post exploited, I agree with it totally.

I bet this is gonna generate some debate about the organization that could be interesting, I'm gonna sit back untill then :)

--- G.

[Moskitto]

I think people assume that all paedophiles are homosexual so they are given a bad name, even though statisticaly this is definitely not the case and most paedophiles don't actually desire those of the opposite sex/same sex who just happen to be younger, just younger people in general, It's more of a power craze or general obsession than a specific lust. The gay community are showing they are doing something about their problems, such as HIV where infection rates are decreasing in homosexuals who realise it is a problem but increasing in heterosexuals who often consider it a "gay problem."

[rumblefish86]

"We call for fundamental reform of the laws regarding relations between youths and adults."

Hmmm, didnt i see an episode of South Park on this?

[redstar2000]

This is an usually serious topic for Chit-Chat...maybe it should be moved to Politics.

Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I can see only two situations that justify the prohibition of what would otherwise be mutually consensual sex...

1. People who have reached puberty should not be permitted to have sex with people who haven't.

2. People in positions of authority should not be permitted to have sex with anyone subject to their authority.

Violations of these prohibitions should not be punished with prison time...house arrest would be more appropriate.

The hysteria in some quarters about "inter-generational" sex is, in my view, just more neo-puritanical horseshit.

And the legal concept of "minor" as applied to adolescents is simply outrageous and contemptable.

I'm rather sceptical of NAMBLA though; "sex before eight or else it's too late" suggests an agenda that I would not be able to support.

:cool:

[Dhul Fiqar]

Indeed, this is not an organization I would support in any way, but the general principle about the hypocritical nature of the age of consent laws as they are today is nonetheless a valid one. However, I believe it is incorrect that the phrase "sex before eight or it's too late" came from them, it is generally attributed to a shadowy and now illegal oragnization called "The Renae Guyon Society" (those guys are, generally speaking, deeply mentally disturbed) .

They have had some splinter groups break offs from NAMBLA and Guyon, and there are other more underground type groups out there based in various iffy countries.

I guess the problem is that while people like us here in this thread may disagree with the current laws, the spokespersons for changing them are more likely to set back any efforts for change than help them. Child molesters are generally not the best spokesmen ;)

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

BTW, the quote you cited is widely attributed to NAMBLA on the net, but usually it's cited in passing as a reason they should all be hung and castrated. Uppon investigation I've found no evidence they ever used the phrase, in fact their focus is heavily on 12-17 year old boys.

http://www.clga.ca/Material/Records/docs/h...nnon/ox/cng.htm (http://www.clga.ca/Material/Records/docs/hannon/ox/cng.htm)

In the above link you see a correction of two hysterical articles that accused NAMBLA of having the phrase as it's motto.

Anyway, not terribly important, but we probably wouldn't like it if some Stalinist motto was so widely attributed to us :)

Rumblefish: You're right, there was a Southpark episode where the boys found the NAMBLA website and weer amazed to hear that grownups likes spending time with boys their age, but they didn't read on. They arranged to meet a group of pedophiles in some hotel for a weekend of fun, the misunderstanding becoming apparent at the worst possible moment ;)

--- G.

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 12:53 am on May 22, 2003)

[Moskitto]

The hysteria in some quarters about "inter-generational" sex is, in my view, just more neo-puritanical horseshit.

Very true, my girlfriend (non-sexual) is 2.5 years younger than me and one of my friends goes completely berzerk about it. But that's the way society views it.

[rumblefish86]

Quote: from Moskitto on 6:13 pm on May 21, 2003

The hysteria in some quarters about "inter-generational" sex is, in my view, just more neo-puritanical horseshit.

Very true, my girlfriend (non-sexual) is 2.5 years younger than me and one of my friends goes completely berzerk about it. But that's the way society views it.

I dont think age really matters unless one of them is ridiculously young. There is 6 years between me and Gavin and there isnt a problem.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

When I think of a 'kid' I usally come up with an image of a pre-pubescent induvidual.
I have no objection to induviduals at 13 years of age or older having sexual relations... But i have a distinct problem about such relations with kids who haven even begun puberty, let alone past it...
I can think of a rational reason why a 30 year old shoudn't have relations with a 14 year old, but
you have to draw the line somewhere I think.
Help me here someone.

[Exploited Class]

Well first off I am 29 and my significant other is 22 going on 23. We've been with each other for 4 years so I was 25 and she was 19 I think when we first met and started seeing each other. Robbing the crib and such is so stupid. To put it this way, she grounds me a bit and is a lot more adult than I am. She makes sure the bills are paid and that I vote on time..ect..ect She got to go to a good school and she is super intelligent, so I often view her being older than me.

This is the age 18 rule basically. There are many people who can easily at an earlier age be in a relationship with somebody who is older, sexual and intellectualy. But since there are people who can not, with out hurting themselves because of a lack of experience, maturity and such that they make a law forbidding it for the protection of those people. Then they say let's stick it at the 18 mark and say if you haven't figured it out by then there really is no point in us protecting you, but we are as a society going to try and give you the safest possible means of getting to adult hood.

I personally doubt that many people who would engage in a sexual relationship with somebody who is older is not prepared in maturity to do so. But the chance is there, and the chance for getting hurt is there. I think that is why the lower common denominator age 18 is in place.

We have heterosexual and homosexual sexual relationships, there is a wide spectrum of sexual likes and dislikes. With many people falling into bi-sexual and such. Some people are only attracted to their race, like white on white or black on black. Some people are attracted to other races. I don't see why biologicaly people wouldn't be sexually attracted to younger people, especially men.

If you think about it, from a purely biological sense, it would be better for older men 30 to 40 who have survived in the wild, meaning they are fit can run and see well, to want to reproduce with younger women. And since women are tied to a child for over 7 years, it would be better to reproduce with somebody who has just entered puberty. It also makes sure your gene stock is not going to the same person twice.

I think it is okay to be sexually attracted to younger people, like say 13 to 17, but I do not think it is okay to engage with these people at all. I think that a person who knows that they are, should be seeking a therepy treatment. Because they are not going to be able to act on those urges and need counseling to help them. I'd hate to see it turn to some type of frustrated rape that could only be bad for everybody.

I think the 18 rule is a safe age to place a law on for this type of situation. It allows for those who have matured, to matured and for those who are matured find somebody in the same age range that is mature as well. THE RISKS OUTWEIGHT THE REWARDS, for the youths.

I would like to see pedophilla looked at differently by society. So people wouldn't feel ashamed and could seek treatment instead of other destructive outlets.

[redstar2000]

Duhl, you may very well be right about that quote.

I recall reading a book of essays published by NAMBLA sometime in the early 1980s; one of those essays had that quote in it and I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that it was representative of the group.

Perhaps at that time people with very different agendas were moving together who would later split apart again.

ExploitedClass, the "rule of 18" is illegitimate on its face and as applied.

For the government or some other public agency to protect us against risks that we would have no way of knowing of in advance (tainted food, for example) is one thing. To attempt to protect us against "risks we are willing to assume" is a very different thing...for which I cannot imagine a legitimate, rational excuse.

We could prohibit skiing, for example, because "some people are going to get hurt". Or any one of thousands of activities. "Getting hurt" is part of being alive. It is one of the ways we learn about the world.

It is illegitimate as applied, of course, because it is applied sporadically and inconsistently. People who are presently prosecuted for "unlawful carnal knowledge of a juvenile" are simply unlucky. The vast majority of such relationships never come to the attention of the authorities and consequently go unpunished. It is rather like the laws against possession of marijuana in the U.S.---most people never get caught.

If you personally think it's a "bad idea" for someone who is 13 to be romantically involved with someone who is 38, by all means advocate that to anyone who will listen.

But you do not have the right to call in the police to enforce that opinion. That is an unwarranted inteference in the personal affairs of other people...in their right to decide who they will love.

It also represents, I think, a view of sex that is...well, archaic. Insofar as class society still considers women and children to be property, there remains the idea in the back of many people's minds that "unlawful use of my property" (sex with my daughter/son/wife) is an outrage not to be tolerated.

Surely communists should know better.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:50 pm on May 21, 2003)

[FatFreeMilk]

Ok, I almost barfed when I went to that link.Those people are disgusting!!!!I'm talkin about the nambla.eww.

[dopediana]

rumblefish, just for the record, age is much more of an issue in america than it is in europe. when i was in france, my "special friend" was 22. in brazil, i'd be at a friend's party, some 25 y/o guy would offer me a drink, noone thinks anything of it. sure it happens too in the usa, but people are much more uptight about it. "oh her boyfriend is 5 years older than she is, she must be a trashy ho" and vice versa.

while ageism is without a doubt ridiculous, you must ask yourself, what does a 25 y/o man see in a 14 y/o boy other than "a piece of ass?" there can hardly be much of intellectual equality and similar life experience in so different an age gap, therefore one must ask themselves what is that older, sexually-adept man looking for in one whose voice has barely begun to deepen?

[rumblefish86]

Quote: from the amaryllis on 1:36 am on May 22, 2003
rumblefish, just for the record, age is much more of an issue in america than it is in europe. when i was in france, my "special friend" was 22. in brazil, i'd be at a friend's party, some 25 y/o guy would offer me a drink, noone thinks anything of it. sure it happens too in the usa, but people are much more uptight about it. "oh her boyfriend is 5 years older than she is, she must be a trashy ho" and vice versa.

while ageism is without a doubt ridiculous, you must ask yourself, what does a 25 y/o man see in a 14 y/o boy other than "a piece of ass?" there can hardly be much of intellectual equality and similar life experience in so different an age gap, therefore one must ask themselves what is that older, sexually-adept man looking for in one whose voice has barely begun to deepen?

Really? People are that uptight about age? Glad i dont live in America!! I went out with a 36 year old last year!! And before you ask he wasnt a perv or anything. There is only 6 years between me and Gavin and it dont mean shit to me. Its not a matter of maturity because im more mature than he is sometimes.

As for those fucking guys at NAMBLA, why cant the just stick to the law? If they want to love these boys why cant they wait until there old enough? Its just sick pervs trying to justify practically raping these boys. Sick fucks, BURN IN HELL!!

[Moskitto]

If you personally think it's a "bad idea" for someone who is 13 to be romantically involved with someone who is 38, by all means advocate that to anyone who will listen.

I read about this woman who's daughter was 14 but looked older and had met a 20 year old and started going out. Obviously the mother didn't approve very much of the relationship and had caught him hiding suspiciously in her bedroom. she then became more disapproving of the relationship and then heard they had been seen visiting a birth control clinic, after birth control failed and the daughter became pregnant she was told to leave him or the mother would contact the police (yeah, it's illegal, but it's not really paedophillia.) She refused and he was reported to the police, who pressed charges and he was placed on the sex offenders register for a long period of time.

Just think about this, they're still together 4 years on, if they get married, he's going to be on the sex offenders register, having to sign in at police station, like actual paedophiles, for having sex with someone who's now his wife. That is crazy.

[Moskitto]

You need to have some type of age limit (although 18 is way too old) an 8 year old is unlikely to know what sex is so an 8 year old and a 27 year old is actually proper wrong, however a 17 year old is likely to know all the positions so it is rediculous to not allow them to have sex. Having a minimum of puberty is problematic since you get arguements about what stage of puberty, someone entering puberty is just going to discover sex and be unable to control their urges if they are allowed to do it. And there's also the arguement about whether people have entered puberty or not, there have been cases of girls beginning the early stages of puberty before they start school, i also have a friend who is 17 and is on testosterone replacement therapy and appears to have just begun puberty...

[Saint-Just]

The people at NAMBLA have desires which will inevitable lead to hurting someone else. Therefore they should be imprisoned.

As to sex with children aged up to 16, yes they may choose to have sex with someone thinking no one will get hurt, but they may be wrong. Children of those ages are simply often not equipped to make those decisions and therefore they should be protected by the law, those older should realise this and be punished for having sex with person of this age range. And the same for sexual relationship between two people in this age range that they should be prohibited since they are often unaware of the damage it can cause. It is reasonable to expect people to wait until they are older.

[Moskitto]

every lunchtime for a few weeks I have seen younger students put hands down a particular girls top or undo buttons.

Once upon a time a [male] teacher in the room i was in was telling one of them off "the buttons were clearly undone to an inappropriate level and i and the rest of the ICT staff could clearly see what that girl was wearing underneath."

please, if you want to do that, do it outside school, no one's going to care. And you get more for longer if you have permission.

[redstar2000]

someone entering puberty is just going to discover sex and be unable to control their urges if they are allowed to do it.

Where is it written that we must necessarily "control" our "urges"? Would you control your "urge" to try a new food, listen to some new music, read a new book, visit a new place? Sex is one of the things that people enjoy and to suggest that they have some "obligation" to refrain from that pleasure is absurd.

To suggest that the police be called in is monstrous!

The people at NAMBLA have desires which will inevitable lead to hurting someone else. Therefore they should be imprisoned.

Where they can be gang-raped on a regular basis, presumably.

And what, precisely, is the nature of this "inevitable harm"?

As to sex with children aged up to 16, yes they may choose to have sex with someone thinking no one will get hurt, but they may be wrong. Children of those ages are simply often not equipped to make those decisions and therefore they should be protected by the law, those older should realise this and be punished for having sex with person of this age range.

How does one become "equipped" to make decisions that will never do any harm? I'm a "little bit older" than 16, yet I would not dream of asserting that I could never do inadvertent harm. I think the idea of "protecting people" from risks they choose to engage in is tyrannical. Where is the social benefit of filling prisons with people who fucked without permission? And worse, possibly enjoyed it???

And the same for sexual relationship between two people in this age range that they should be prohibited since they are often unaware of the damage it can cause. It is reasonable to expect people to wait until they are older.

Damage? damage? What damage?

"It is reasonable to expect people to wait until they are older". I guess so, if the cops are peeking into every bedroom in the country. Otherwise, where is the "reasonableness"???

It still surprises and disappoints me that people who are opposed to the prevailing social order will nevertheless repeat its social dogmas without recalling that anything said by current "authority" is deeply suspect.

Our rulers say nothing without a reason...and that reason has nothing to do with our welfare.

Wise up.

:cool:

I think the best response to public displays of sexuality that one finds offensive or unappealing is to look in another direction.

[the SovieT]

my 2 cents are:

Degolate Child molesters...

that ought make an example...


call me ultra conservative..

yet the integrity of the youth MUST be conserved..
i do not say control the youth by all means necessarly nor prevent them form making theyr choices..

but i underline the CHOICES...

i wouldnt be surprised if most NAMBLA members would resort to rape...

and in that case i say death penalty...

[Palmares]

Man and boy? :shocked:

Gross... :(

[Saint-Just]

The people at NAMBLA have desires which will inevitable lead to hurting someone else. Therefore they should be imprisoned.

Where they can be gang-raped on a regular basis, presumably.

And what, precisely, is the nature of this "inevitable harm"?

People who have such lust for children and want to have sex with them are extremely likely to fulfill these desires or attempt to. Sexual desires are strong and it is difficult to keep them unfulfilled. Thus, it is inevitable a number of people with these desires will harm children. I mean harm in the sense that they will cause them and other mental anguish for the very obvious reasons i.e. a child will lose their virginity, will become confused as to their own love for others and sexual desires, feel abused etc.

I do not advocate gang-rape in prisons.

How does one become "equipped" to make decisions that will never do any harm? I'm a "little bit older" than 16, yet I would not dream of asserting that I could never do inadvertent harm. I think the idea of "protecting people" from risks they choose to engage in is tyrannical. Where is the social benefit of filling prisons with people who fucked without permission? And worse, possibly enjoyed it???

I would suggest that those who have more knowledge and experience of relationships with others are better capable of avoiding and/or dealing with harm. Not that those over 16 never make any poor decisions in this area.

I do not say we should put those who have sex before 16 in prison, but that we should create a society that those not cultivate this behaviour and that this behaviour is culturally unacceptable.

And the same for sexual relationship between two people in this age range that they should be prohibited since they are often unaware of the damage it can cause. It is reasonable to expect people to wait until they are older.

Damage? damage? What damage?

Damage such as sex becomes meaningless after it has been experienced so young and either without love (as is the case very often) or in the instance that this love only fleeting, lasting for a limited time as is almost always the case under 16.

It still surprises and disappoints me that people who are opposed to the prevailing social order will nevertheless repeat its social dogmas without recalling that anything said by current "authority" is deeply suspect.

Our rulers say nothing without a reason...and that reason has nothing to do with our welfare.

Yes, well i'm not a hippie, i'm a Marxist-Leninist, or in your opinion you would say I have distorted the views of Marx and possibly Lenin and am nothing more than a fascist or some other such dispicable political viewpoint.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Quote from Chairman Mao
People who have such lust for children and want to have sex with them are extremely likely to fulfill these desires or attempt to

That's patently false, every study I've ever heard of concludes that only a tiny fraction of those clinically defined as having "Paedofilia" ever act on their desires in any other way than masturbation and fantasy life.

I don't have any sources at the moment, but I'll have a look tonight and see if I have my old criminology books lying around. Yet I am pretty sure I remember this point correctly, the estimates of how many paedophiles are sexual abusers were I think somwhat below 10%.

--- G.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 11:28 am on May 23, 2003

Quote from Chairman Mao
People who have such lust for children and want to have sex with them are extremely likely to fulfill these desires or attempt to

That's patently false, every study I've ever heard of concludes that only a tiny fraction of those clinically defined as having "Paedofilia" ever act on their desires in any other way than masturbation and fantasy life.

I don't have any sources at the moment, but I'll have a look tonight and see if I have my old criminology books lying around. Yet I am pretty sure I remember this point correctly, the estimates of how many paedophiles are sexual abusers were I think somwhat below 10%.

--- G.


I am referring to those in NAMBLA, not paedophiles in general. In my opinion even though it is below 10% I still think that it should be illegal for Adults to sexually abuse children. I can't really relate to this issue but I do not think it is moral to suggest that it is ok to have sexual relations with young children.

[redstar2000]

People who have such lust for children...

Before things get completely out of hand, let's clarify exactly what we are speaking of here.

1. "Consensual" sexual activity between people who have reached or passed puberty--"adults"--and people who have not reached puberty--"children". We agree that this should be prohibited. You suggest prison time for the adults who engage in this behavior; I think something like house arrest is more appropriate.

2. Consensual sexual activity between people over the age of 18 (or some other arbitrary figure)--"older adults"--and people who have reached puberty but not yet the age of 18 (or whatever that arbitrary figure is)--"younger adults".

You wish to legally prohibit this activity and imprison any "older adult" who is convicted of it; I think it should be completely legal.

3. Consensual sexual activity between two people, both of whom have reached or passed puberty but have not yet reached the age of 18 (or some other arbitrary figure).

You would allow this to be legal but "culturally disapproved of". I would see no reason for any cultural disapproval of either No. 2 or No. 3 above.

These distinctions have to be made to close off any opening for the neo-puritans amongst us; they will start screaming about "sex with children" when what they really want is to crush adolescent sexuality...an aim so reprehensible that they are rarely willing to state it openly.

Now to the arguments...

I mean harm in the sense that they will cause them and other mental anguish for the very obvious reasons i.e. a child will lose their virginity, will become confused as to their own love for others and sexual desires, feel abused etc.

I can see these objections applying to No. 1 above. I don't see them as applicable to No. 2 and No. 3...except insofar as this applies to all of us; it's part of the "human condition" to lose our virginity, be confused about love, and feel abused. It happens to every one of us. The argument that it is somehow "more harmful" at 13 than at 33 does not seem to have any justification; in fact, one could easily argue that the proverbial "resilience of youth" makes healthy recovery from emotional stress more likely.

Damage such as sex becomes meaningless after it has been experienced so young...

An odd assertion and one without any justification that I've ever heard of. The whole idea that sex has some "cosmic meaning" is really just pre-capitalist superstition, anyway.

It is simply a way for people to "connect" with each other to a greater or lesser extent. Most people learn in time that sex is "best" when it comes with emotional involvement with your partner; but that part is not compulsory.

Yes, well i'm not a hippie, i'm a Marxist-Leninist, or in your opinion you would say I have distorted the views of Marx and possibly Lenin and am nothing more than a fascist or some other such dispicable political viewpoint.

Well, I'm not a "hippie" either (whatever that word is supposed to mean in this context). And certainly I have never referred to you as a "fascist".

I do think that the Maoist variant of Leninism is extraordinarily puritanical...and that you've unfortunately absorbed that as part of your ideological heritage. I think you should question that. What were the material conditions that gave rise to puritanism in China? (Hint: patriarchal society, overpopulation, lack of inexpensive and reliable birth-control, etc., etc., etc.)

Marx himself, by the way, did have a puritanical strain to his thought...he lived, after all, in the age of Queen Victoria.

You don't have that excuse.

:cool:

[Moskitto]

Where is it written that we must necessarily "control" our "urges"? Would you control your "urge" to try a new food, listen to some new music, read a new book, visit a new place? Sex is one of the things that people enjoy and to suggest that they have some "obligation" to refrain from that pleasure is absurd.

I guess I used the wrong terminology,

what I meant was people just entering puberty tend to have a one track mind centered on sex. While this wouldn't be a problem in itself, they need to know how to look after themselves when having sex and know when it is and is not acceptable (eg. rape is not acceptable, but having a girlfriend/boyfriend is), this is a problem with the current sex education system in that this information is not given to teenagers at the time they are likely to start having sex, but years before and little else is taught later on.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 3:57 pm on May 23, 2003
People who have such lust for children...

Before things get completely out of hand, let's clarify exactly what we are speaking of here.

1. "Consensual" sexual activity between people who have reached or passed puberty--"adults"--and people who have not reached puberty--"children". We agree that this should be prohibited. You suggest prison time for the adults who engage in this behavior; I think something like house arrest is more appropriate.

2. Consensual sexual activity between people over the age of 18 (or some other arbitrary figure)--"older adults"--and people who have reached puberty but not yet the age of 18 (or whatever that arbitrary figure is)--"younger adults".

You wish to legally prohibit this activity and imprison any "older adult" who is convicted of it; I think it should be completely legal.

3. Consensual sexual activity between two people, both of whom have reached or passed puberty but have not yet reached the age of 18 (or some other arbitrary figure).

You would allow this to be legal but "culturally disapproved of". I would see no reason for any cultural disapproval of either No. 2 or No. 3 above.

These distinctions have to be made to close off any opening for the neo-puritans amongst us; they will start screaming about "sex with children" when what they really want is to crush adolescent sexuality...an aim so reprehensible that they are rarely willing to state it openly.

Now to the arguments...

I mean harm in the sense that they will cause them and other mental anguish for the very obvious reasons i.e. a child will lose their virginity, will become confused as to their own love for others and sexual desires, feel abused etc.

I can see these objections applying to No. 1 above. I don't see them as applicable to No. 2 and No. 3...except insofar as this applies to all of us; it's part of the "human condition" to lose our virginity, be confused about love, and feel abused. It happens to every one of us. The argument that it is somehow "more harmful" at 13 than at 33 does not seem to have any justification; in fact, one could easily argue that the proverbial "resilience of youth" makes healthy recovery from emotional stress more likely.

Damage such as sex becomes meaningless after it has been experienced so young...

An odd assertion and one without any justification that I've ever heard of. The whole idea that sex has some "cosmic meaning" is really just pre-capitalist superstition, anyway.

It is simply a way for people to "connect" with each other to a greater or lesser extent. Most people learn in time that sex is "best" when it comes with emotional involvement with your partner; but that part is not compulsory.

Yes, well i'm not a hippie, i'm a Marxist-Leninist, or in your opinion you would say I have distorted the views of Marx and possibly Lenin and am nothing more than a fascist or some other such dispicable political viewpoint.

Well, I'm not a "hippie" either (whatever that word is supposed to mean in this context). And certainly I have never referred to you as a "fascist".

I do think that the Maoist variant of Leninism is extraordinarily puritanical...and that you've unfortunately absorbed that as part of your ideological heritage. I think you should question that. What were the material conditions that gave rise to puritanism in China? (Hint: patriarchal society, overpopulation, lack of inexpensive and reliable birth-control, etc., etc., etc.)

Marx himself, by the way, did have a puritanical strain to his thought...he lived, after all, in the age of Queen Victoria.

You don't have that excuse.

:cool:





As to number 2 I think that should be perfectly legal. But where number 3 is concerned, I think this should be illegal and culturally unapproved of. Obviously though you would rarely encounter this law being broken since it is very hard to moniter, but of course if people did it and made it known they would be re-educated to correct their behaviour. Not imprisoned for this particular crime.

As to number 1, I would punish people for this... obviously in labour camps.

I wish to prohibit sex between those under the age of 16, this is the law in my country; the UK.

I agree that people do have the misfortune to feel abused lose their virginity etc. but it is my opinion that sex between such young people increases the chance of this happening and the severity of it. I know everyone is confused about love to some degree, but in this instance I am talking of a far higher degree.

I believe it is only acceptable to have sex with someone you are strongly emotionally involved with. In addition I believe that sex whilst not having some higher cosmic meaning should be valued and valued such that it only comes with love and not to be frivolous with this kind of expression of emotion and indulgence in pleasure.

I was only joking about you being a 'hippie' - and I know you have never called me a fascist.

i do not believe that I am overly puritanical; if I was I would suggest no sex before marriage etc.

In the time of Queen Victoria, those puritanical ideas were the norms accepted by the middle and upper class, however in general I do not think they were widely adhered to.

Anyway, this opionions of mine are not exactly politically based but rather adapted from personal experience.

[Moskitto]

Mao, I agree with you that an age limit is neccesary, such as 16 which I would consider a sensible limit as it coincides with the school leaving age, because simply saying "reached puberty" is a very vague term, soes puberty start with the first pubic hairs, first shave or first period? or voice breaking or first erection? Cases would be exceptionally complex argueing whever someone has reached puberty, I have been in many arguements about whether certain people have reached puberty or not. Girls also tend to enter puberty much earlier than boys which complicates the matter further, an age limit afterwhich most people would have passed puberty seems a far more suitable suggestion to me, and 16 seems like a good one to me, both for homosexual and heterosexual couples.

However, I disagree that those over such an age should be allowed to have sex with those under the age if 2 under the age cannot. The idea that a 45 year old can sleep with a 13 year old but 2 15 years cannot sleep with each other doesn't make sense to me.

[Dhul Fiqar]

redstar2000: That was a damned excellent post, I don't know what else to say.

ChairmanMao: What do you mean exactly by the statement "I believe it is only acceptable to have sex with someone you are strongly emotionally involved with"? If you only want to have sex with people you're emotionally involved with, good for you.

If you mean that you'd tell other people when it's right or wrong for them to have sex... well, I don't like to swear but I can tell you I'm not fond of such totalitarian ideals ;)

As for China, the culture and official line (promoted by the so-called 'Chinese Communist Party') is undeniably puritanical in many aspects. That is almost entirely due to the self-evident cultural and demographic factors. However, I have no idea if you are influenced by this aspect of Maoism or not.

--- G.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 8:25 pm on May 23, 2003
redstar2000: That was a damned excellent post, I don't know what else to say.

ChairmanMao: What do you mean exactly by the statement "I believe it is only acceptable to have sex with someone you are strongly emotionally involved with"? If you only want to have sex with people you're emotionally involved with, good for you.

If you mean that you'd tell other people when it's right or wrong for them to have sex... well, I don't like to swear but I can tell you I'm not fond of such totalitarian ideals ;)

As for China, the culture and official line (promoted by the so-called 'Chinese Communist Party') is undeniably puritanical in many aspects. That is almost entirely due to the self-evident cultural and demographic factors. However, I have no idea if you are influenced by this aspect of Maoism or not.

--- G.

Yes, I wish to impose those views of morality on others too. Well, you can live that way if you want but I wouldn't want you near my girlfriend if thats how you are.

No I'm not influenced by this aspect of Maoism, as I said earlier these views are related to me personally and not any external political pursuasion. I cannot say if I agree with this part of culture in China since I do not know precisely what properties these thoughts on purity have in China.


**************

NEW POST:

Can't seem to reply at the moment so i'll post by editing this.

redstar2000, in my opinion, you, my girlfriend and Dhul are all immoral. If you or Dhul approached my girlfriend, if you're attractive guys you might get very lucky in bed with her... damm you might even get done both at the same time. Sounds all good? you all have done what you want 'for your own pleasure' (as you put it).. but wait.. actually on of use doesn't seem to be in a good situation... yeah me, I think i'd be feeling pretty rough after that experience.

Like everything in society, relationships need rules and conventions to make them work.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 3:05 pm on May 25, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Well, you can live that way if you want but I wouldn't want you near my girlfriend if thats how you are.

How can I put this in a diplomatic way?

People are not property. You can't own them once and for all.

People will stay with you or not as they wish. Just as you will stay with people or not as you wish.

There is no "external standard" that really governs human relationships; no place to plant your feet firmly on the ground and say "this is mine, now and forever."

Capitalism itself has broken down or is breaking down all of the traditional attempts to "lock in" or, often, "lock up" human relationships. As time rolls on, people will connect and disconnect at their pleasure and for no other reason at all.

As Marx said, "All that is solid melts into air."

He was right. (Again!)

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:38 pm on May 24, 2003)

[187]

Attraction to the opposite or same sex is existent long before puberty begins.

I know I found girls attractive when I was under ten. I didn't understand it fully becuase I wasn't educated. I was shielded from reality for no reason

Anything that involves ones own body can not and should not be controlled by society.

- Shielding children from sex is shielding them from reality.
- Calling what they are doing gross or sick is denial of reality and you are no better than a homophobe.
- Trying to control them is like trying to control homosexuals. They EXIST, and always will. Understand it and accept it.
- There is a difference between consensual sex and molestation/rape, at any age.

Some of you need to read the book The Catcher in the Rye.

[American Kid]

Um...no.

Who brought the "New Guy"?

-ak

[American Kid]

And doesn't his avatar look like the kind of guy you'd see prowling the streets in a big white van with tinted windows right around the time they let the kids out of school...?

"Hey, little boy. I know your mom. She told me to pick you up today..."

"Jee... you have a funny beard, mister... Well, okay..."

-ak

[rumblefish86]

Thank god for the voice of reason! AK!!

[187]

AK

What are you talking about?! What exactly did I post that was untruthful??

What exactly do you disagree with me on?

"Thank god for the voice of reason! AK!!"

Again, what exactly do you disagree with?

I don't think you're understaing what Im saying. I believe it is right for children to be educated about sex so they can understand themselves better(not neccessarly having sexual relations). That was what I was getting at. People that try and shield sexuality from children are only fooling themselves.

I am not attracted to little boys. And I have never and will never be involved sexualy with anyone who is in a pre-pupescent stage. I find it very unnerving that you would gather that from my post AK.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Let's stick to facts:

1) pedophiles (nambla members) attack for their own sexual gratification children that are UNABLE to make appropriate decisions regarding sex.

2)Pedophiles attack CHILDREN from 6 to 10 (regardless of saying "we stick to 12-17, like that's not bad enough)

3)No amount of therapy short of genetic manipulation will help these individuals defeat their instinctual behaviour.

These individuals will never produce anything worthwile in society. Watch out NAMBLA, If the government does not eradicate your sick society soon. I WILL.

For fuck's sake, why are we even discussing these scum.

[redstar2000]

Wow, American Kid, you must live in a very strange neighborhood.

And to generate an elaborate scenario from his avatar? He could, after all, be a skinny kid who doesn't even have to shave yet, could he not? He could not even be tall enough to see over the dashboard on that mysterious "white van", maybe? Possibly he has that avatar because someday he'd like to look like that, right?

Or, perhaps he has the cut up corpses of little girls in his freezer...who can say?

NOT YOU OR ME!

If you (or rumblefish86) disagree with 187, why not say so with clear arguments instead of sinister innuendos? Would that be asking too much?

Like everything in society, relationships need rules and conventions to make them work.

That's a tough one to disagree with flat out...but I wonder? What kinds of "rules" and "conventions" would be likely in a classless society? Would people still be hung up on exclusivity the way they are now? Would people think of mate selection as a form of status enhancement, the way that many do now? Would people regard rejection as a "crushing blow" to their self-esteem, the way that many people do now?

You understand, I don't claim to be able to answer such questions. What bothers me about your positions, CM, is that you regard them as "self-evident" and "natural" when in reality they are "social constructs"--things made by people that can always be replaced by better things made by people.

If you sincerely wish to be a revolutionary, it's not enough to memorize some formulas and phrases...the first duty of a revolutionary is to critically question every aspect of the social order s/he proposes to overthrow.

I daresay there will be customs and even something like "laws" in a classless society...but it's impossible for me to imagine that they would not be very different from what we know now. When you consider the magnitude of the changes we propose to make in the economic relations of society, can you think for a second that those changes won't be reflected throughout all of our social intercourse?

When capitalism's Titanic sinks beneath the waves, there's not much chance of saving the deck chairs...and no point that I can see to even trying.

:cool:

PS: Let the record show, CM, that I am not interested in your girlfriend nor she in me. Too much age difference. :biggrin:

[American Kid]

This was the sentence I had issues with, 187:

- There is a difference between consensual sex and molestation/rape, at any age.

Maybe you could clarify that a bit. But ANY AGE? To be perfectly honest, I didn't really have many issues with really anything else you wrote in your post. But "any age"? Quite a sweeping statement.

So, having sex with an 8 year old, isn't molestation if the 8 year old "consents"?

And if you're talking sex between two 8 year olds, well isn't there something inherently wrong with that too?

Well, you said "any age."

-ak

[American Kid]

Now, now, papa (Redstar).

If you think you're disappointed in me, that's nothing compared to how dissapointed I am in you.

Do you think I'm some flat-footed super hero running around with a big sheild? And if you inferred that I was, would I waste an entire paragraph complaining about how asinine an assumption it was.

No, because I'd get the joke. :)

(although, from all those little faces you put at the end of your (usuallly) well-written posts, I'd suspect you "toke" the "ganjai" now and again)

Just an observation.

HEY, maybe I've misunderstood 187 (charmingly lethal username, btw). I'm open to be set straight. Whatever.

Sensitive subject. People are liable to blow their top over it, now and again.

Or make jokes.

Ha.
-ak

[Urban Rubble]

There IS a distinct difference between consensual rape and sex, however, I agree with AK when he says 8 is too young to make that distinction.

8 year olds having sex with 8 year olds is a different topic entirely. What I thought we were talking about is someone who is an adult having sex with young kids which is wrong no matter how it happens. It is not a "social construct" to say that, it is simply wrong.

Let the debate continue, all I have to say is Fuck NAMBLA.

[nz revolution]

i thought that group was a joke from South Park til I checked out the website. As the person with the pseudonym "Chairman Mao" said they should be imprisoned.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Why should they be imprisoned? Or rather, who should be imprisoned, pedophiles or child molesters? Because the vast majority of pedophiles never touch children in their entire lives, putting them away for being born like they are seems a lot like the fascist thought police coming to town...

Abuse is one thing, having nasty urges is another entirely. I have had homicidal fantasies now and then, and even posted a thread about it, does that mean I should be imprisoned because I entertain thoughts of doing things that would hurt others?

--- G.

[redstar2000]

i thought that group was a joke from South Park til I checked out the website. As the person with the pseudonym "Chairman Mao" said they should be imprisoned.

Is thought-crime a felony or a misdemeanor?

What I thought we were talking about is someone who is an adult having sex with young kids which is wrong no matter how it happens. It is not a "social construct" to say that, it is simply wrong.

To demonstrate that human customs are not social constructs, you would have to show that they are universal, or so close to that as would make no difference.

The prohibition of murder within the group does seem to have that characteristic...every human society without exception thinks that murder is "wrong" and "evil". But even in this most "clear-cut" example, there are some surprising variations. Consider the legal concept of the "crime of passion", for example...a "social construct" if there ever was one.

And then, every human society devotes considerable energy to the aquisition, preparation, and consumption of food...we have no choice in the matter; we must eat in order to live.

But the ways in which we accomplish this necessity are obviously different...they are "social constructs."

Humans, being sociable hairless primates, gather in groups to mate and raise their young. The ways in which we do this are again quite variable...the customs, rules, and institutions surrounding this biological necessity are obviously "social constructs" -- things made by people for a purpose.

Things are not "just wrong" because you personally dislike them...when you are defending or attacking a custom, you are defending or attacking something that was made by people and can be strengthened or demolished by people based on rational discourse, not emotional reflexes that were programmed into you during your childhood.

Your feelings are just yours; you are perfectly free to conduct your own behavior in accordance with those feelings. If you think that something is "just wrong", then you don't do it...and don't even associate yourself with people who feel otherwise.

But when you enter into the public discussion of whether or not a particular social construct should be strengthened or demolished, the feeling that it's "just wrong" is insufficient. Your "feeling" is itself a social construct; in a different society you would have possibly had a different "feeling".

And if you're talking sex between two 8 year olds, well isn't there something inherently wrong with that too?

I suppose it's rare, but I'd be greatly surprised if there were not kids of that age who were curious enough to try. Of course, America's neo-puritans like to pretend that no one under the age of 18 (!) has any sexual feelings or even knows what such things are. Should we really even consider deferring to the judgments of these living fossils?

"Inherently wrong?" On what grounds?

So, having sex with an 8 year old, isn't molestation if the 8 year old "consents"?

Much of this kind of controversy does indeed turn on the nature of "consent" or even "informed consent". And it's a thorny problem because we humans are often of two minds on a proposed action; we say to ourselves "I want to and I don't want to". If we go ahead and do it, have we truly "consented"?

And do we really "know" exactly what we are consenting to? When I was eight, I was interested in baseball and science; a sexual overture towards me from an older kid or an adult would have puzzled and probably repulsed me.

But I didn't know anything; I was "protected" from any sort of sexual knowledge in accordance with the customs of that era. Suppose I had known and understood something of what human sexuality is really about...and suppose an attractive older person had "hit on me". I can't really say how I would have reacted...but who knows? Maybe it would have been great fun (kids like fun, you will recall), maybe not. Or maybe it would have been no big deal...just one of the crazy things kids do while they're growing up.

But I can tell you why your "joke" was not funny and why I took your remarks seriously...because of what lies just beneath the "humor":

These individuals will never produce anything worthwile in society. Watch out NAMBLA, If the government does not eradicate your sick society soon. I WILL.

"Eradicate" has many implications, but in the light of historical knowledge, it would not be unreasonable to assume that, in this context, it's a euphemism... like "transported to the east" or "final solution".

Not funny at all!

:cool:

[Dhul Fiqar]

Sex play among children is surprisingly common, I read a fascinating study on it last year.

I myself engaged in it a couple of times when I was just over five years old, with older kids too ;)

--- G.

[187]

"This was the sentence I had issues with, 187:

- There is a difference between consensual sex and molestation/rape, at any age.

Maybe you could clarify that a bit. But ANY AGE?"

Any age where the two parties are fully aware and fully educated about what they are doing is consensual.

All I'm saying is that at any age where the persons involved understand what they are doing is a consensual relationship and should not be classified as rape/molestation.

[Urban Rubble]

I also had stupid little sexual things as young as 5 or 6 but the thing was, they were with someone near my age. It didn't bother me at all, that's normal stuff for kids.

Let me ask you RedStar, straight up, do you believe that a 30 year old guy sticking his dick in an 8 year old, consensual or not, is O.K ? In any circumstance at all, is there any way you would think that might be O.K ?

I'm not trying to argue, I'm genuinely wondering.

[redstar2000]

Let me ask you RedStar, straight up, do you believe that a 30 year old guy sticking his dick in an 8 year old, consensual or not, is O.K ? In any circumstance at all, is there any way you would think that might be O.K ?

No, of course not.

But do you believe that there are very many eight-year-old females who "want" vaginal intercourse with a 30-year-old guy? I would think that would be an extraordinarily rare occurance.

This is the "social construct" that I proposed in an earlier post to this thread:

1. You may not have "consensual" sex with anyone who has not reached puberty if you have reached puberty.

2. You may not have "consensual" sex with anyone that you have any kind of authority over.

Now, as to penalties. As long as there was no violence or threat of violence involved, I think some sort of house arrest would be most appropriate. These people are sick, not "evil". The reason they are attracted to pre-pubescent children is that they are afraid of intimate relations with adults (who can hurt you).

Indeed, if their activities were confined to masturbation over cartoon kiddies on the internet, who would notice or care? (You know the answer to that one.)

Naturally, such people would not be allowed to have employment that would give them any kind of authority over pre-pubescent children, as they would certainly abuse that authority if they had the chance.

Otherwise, what's the fuss?

:cool:

PS: for those who use violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of "partners", I have no sympathies. Violent rapists are sick people too, but they are also dangerous to others...and I have no problem with the death penalty in those cases.

(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:26 pm on May 26, 2003)

[Urban Rubble]

O.K, I agree fully. I was a bit confused on your stance.

What I do want to make a point of though is that masturbating to kiddie porn shouldn't be accepted either. I mean let him go ahead and think what he wants but I think looking at kiddie porn should be punished harshly. Not because it's "wrong" to want to do that but because for kiddie porn to be made childeren have to be exploited. I'm sure you're aware of this, I just wanted to clarify.

Let people think what they want but when they start to act on it they should be dealt with in some way.

Sorry for being so vulgar before, I was just wondering and I thought it would be better to be blunt.

(Edited by Urban Rubble at 12:23 pm on May 27, 2003)

[Dhul Fiqar]

He purposely said cartoons, drawings of children in sexual poses which involve no exploitations. In fact, such material is currently legal. So are images of nude children in non sexual situations, such as in nudist camps or artistic photographs.

I'm not saying it's a pretty thought to think of some 50 year old truckdriver spanking his monkey over a picture of a kid, but as long as I don't have to know about it and no abuse is involved, I suppose it doesn't really hurt anyone else.

--- G.

[Urban Rubble]

Oh, O.k, I didn't notice that cartoon thing.

[Moskitto]

I'm not saying it's a pretty thought to think of some 50 year old truckdriver spanking his monkey over a picture of a kid, but as long as I don't have to know about it and no abuse is involved, I suppose it doesn't really hurt anyone else.

unless the kid grows up and discovers he's unknowingly starring in pornography. That's not the nicest thing to find out about yourself.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Now, as to penalties. As long as there was no violence or threat of violence involved, I think some sort of house arrest would be most appropriate. These people are sick, not "evil". The reason they are attracted to pre-pubescent children is that they are afraid of intimate relations with adults (who can hurt you).

Not in every case Redstar.
Pedophilia and Temporal Lobe Disturbances
Mario F. Mendez, M.D., Ph.D., Tiffany Chow, M.D., John Ringman, M.D., Geoff Twitchell, Ph.D. and Charles H. Hinkin, Ph.D.
Received March 16, 1999; accepted June 10, 1999. From the Departments of Neurology, Psychiatry, and Psychology, University of California at Los Angeles, and Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System. Address correspondence to Dr. Mendez, Neurobehavior Unit (116AF), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, 11301 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90073; e-mail: [email protected]
Paraphilias may occur with brain disease, but the nature of this relationship is unclear. The authors report 2 patients with late-life homosexual pedophilia. The first met criteria for frontotemporal dementia; the second had bilateral hippocampal sclerosis. Both were professional men with recent increases in sexual behavior. In both, 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography revealed prominent right temporal lobe hypometabolism. These cases and the literature suggest that bilateral anterior temporal disease affecting right more than left temporal lobe can increase sexual interest. A predisposition to pedophilia may be unmasked by hypersexuality from brain disease. These observations have potential implications for all neurologically based paraphilias.

And,
Psychiatric Comorbidity in Pedophilic Sex Offenders
Nancy C. Raymond, M.D., Eli Coleman, Ph.D., Fred Ohlerking, M.A., Gary A. Christenson, M.D., and Michael Miner, Ph.D.
OBJECTIVE: The primary purpose of this research was to assess the rates of axis I and axis II psychiatric disorders, as defined in DSM-IV, in a group of pedophilic sex offenders. METHOD: Forty-five male subjects with pedophilia who were participating in residential or outpatient sex offender treatment programs were recruited to participate. Subjects were interviewed by using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. RESULTS: Ninety-three percent of the subjects (N=42) met the criteria for an axis I disorder other than pedophilia. The lifetime prevalence of mood disorder in this group was 67%. Sixty-four percent of the subjects met the criteria for an anxiety disorder, 60% for psychoactive substance use disorder, 53% for another paraphilia diagnosis, and 24% for a sexual dysfunction diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Axis I and II comorbidity rates are high in this population. Untreated comorbid psychiatric disorders may play a role in treatment failure and recidivism.

To simply list fear of intimate relationships as a complete diagnosis for pedophilia would be a gross inaccuracy.

"Eradicate" has many implications, but in the light of historical knowledge, it would not be unreasonable to assume that, in this context, it's a euphemism... like "transported to the east" or "final solution".

Not funny at all!


Yes, I know what euphemism means. I too finished graduate school. (I'm assuming the same of you due to the brilliance of your postings) I stand by by original post. Several studies have shown that it's not a matter of "if" pedophiles will strike, it's a matter of "when" they will strike. Unless of course they are properly medicated but then you must rely on these individuals to medicate themselves. Look at the ramifications if they simply "choose" not to take their medications or if they reside in countries without a NHS and cannot afford these medications. I choose "the east" as you put it.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 3:43 am on May 28, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Several studies have shown that it's not a matter of "if" pedophiles will strike, it's a matter of "when" they will strike.

Several studies? Why didn't you cite them? And the methodology must have been fascinating.

As always, I wonder if it is even possible to get a research grant any more unless you can promise the results will scare the hell out of the peons?

The studies you did cite suggest pedophilia may have, in some cases, neurological causes. I have no problems with that...they're still sick by any reasonable definition...and still harmless as long as they have no opportunity to "seduce" the prepubscent from positions of authority.

I choose "the east" as you put it.

And may I inquire as to what other groups of sick people you have a "final solution" in mind for?

:cool:

PS: Since you made such a point of mentioning it, my formal education peaked at 2-1/2 years of undergraduate work at a pretty mediocre university...ran out of money! Thanks for the compliment, though.

[Urban Rubble]

Honestly, I don't know what to do about pedophiles before they strike, I mean on one hand you could say that they haven't done anything yet but on another you could argue that they most likely will. I truly believe that these people are most likely going to act on their "fantasies" (i'd call them obsessions).

Bottom line, pedophiles are sick and should be frowned upon at least, but there isn't really anything we can do about these people until they actually do something, unless of course we want to just admit we're fascists. Punishing someone for thoughts isn't O.K, even if they are sick, wrong and potentially disasterous.

[Dhul Fiqar]

If it's a question of "when" rather than "if", how come 99% of pedophiles seem to die without acting on their urges? Freak accidents minutes before they went ahead with it?

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I just spent the last hour reading through some old studies, and they all confirm what I suspected, there are A LOT more pedophiles in society than those who offend and are caught, yet they are usually the only ones available for interview, here are some excerpts:


Our random studies with the SIW and ABV tests and the enquiry at Breda were limited to those paedophiles who had dared to 'come out' into the open and to join together in a group. From the postal enquiry it was apparent that the social position (married or unmarried; convicted or unconvicted) could really influence whether one joined a group or not. Tests and enquiries thus cannot yet lead to a rounded picture of the paedophile in general......

When it is recalled that in the Netherlands the rate for convictions under article 247 of the Penal Code is 0.009 per 100 men aged between 15 and 69 years per year (Criminal Statistics for 1970) it becomes clear what an exceptional group we have to deal with here; 54% of the group have been convicted at least once for paedophile acts. If the question about convictions were to be expanded, for example to include being in trouble with the law, then the percentage of 54 would probably rise considerably.

It could also be that the convictions provide an important motive for crossing the threshold to the NVSH Work-Group and in particular for attending this meeting (coming out). These paedophiles are living with the thought 'it's known anyway'. They have their back to the wall, and this extra frustration drives them into forming a group.



The conclusion? You get caught, you admit it. Untill then, you don't exist in police statistics. Thus the estimation is that a vast majority of all pediphiles never offend, and an even larger majority never get caught.

--- G.

p.s. I mostly found the following studies helpful, but I didn't want to go through typing up shit from stuff I don't have online:

http://blueribbon.books-reborn.org/bernard...aedophilia.html (http://blueribbon.books-reborn.org/bernard/paedophilia/Paedophilia.html)

http://home.wanadoo.nl/host/wilson_83/index.htm

[Vinny Rafarino]

Several studies? Why didn't you cite them? And the methodology must have been fascinating.

As I stated in my PM to you Redstar, the information is extensive and will take time to prepare but you will se it.


As always, I wonder if it is even possible to get a research grant any more unless you can promise the results will scare the hell out of the peons?

That's just silly.

The studies you did cite suggest pedophilia may have, in some cases, neurological causes. I have no problems with that...they're still sick by any reasonable definition...and still harmless as long as they have no opportunity to "seduce" the prepubscent from positions of authority.

Unfortunately comrade, we are talking about individuals that fantasize about having sex with small children. With a large portion fantasizing about raping small children. The "lets hope they just sit at home and wank of to kiddie porn and never act on their natural impulses" argument is illogical considering that these targets are your children.

And may I inquire as to what other groups of sick people you have a "final solution" in mind for?

What kind of question is that to ask a fellow comrade? That is simply an insensate thing for you to do.

If it's a question of "when" rather than "if", how come 99% of pedophiles seem to die without acting on their urges? Freak accidents minutes before they went ahead with it?

How could you possibly have come to this conclusion? Do you realise what you sould like? Comrade. Child molesters and pedophiles rarely get caught because they victimise children. How may children whom are victims of this type of abuse immediately inform the authourities? Most are too ashamed to even tell their friends or parents! The fear of being ridiculed weighs much heavier on their pedomorphic minds than anything else. These are individuals who were sexually molested by someone they were taught to respect. Usually it's some sort of family member. I suggest 99% pedophiles do indeed act on their impulses. They don't get caught because they choose children as their victims....The perfect sexual prey.

[i]The conclusion? You get caught, you admit it. Untill then, you don't exist in police statistics. Thus the estimation is that a vast majority of all pediphiles never offend, and an even larger majority never get caught.[i/]

[b]There is a definate flaw in this formula. I believe I covered it just prior to this.[b]

[Vinny Rafarino]

Dhul and Redstar;

I would also like to state that I sincerely respect and value your opinions, as we are comrades. If I come across as being contemptuous, I will apoligise in advance.

Julian

[Dhul Fiqar]

No offence taken, but I think you took the wrong part of my post to heart.

I was simply stating the fact that almost all the people who researchers have access to HAD to admit being pedophiles because they were ALSO child abusers! I realize many cases are never reported, but that's not my main point.

My main point is that unless you actually abuse a child there is no chance anyone is going to find out you are a pedophile, thus the reasoning "this percentage of known pedophiles are child abusers" is about as statistically invalid as possible.

The known sexual offenders are so few that one must draw the conclusion they are either in an extreme minority among pedophiles, or that pedophiles are an extremely rare phenomenon. I think the internet has proven that the latter is not true, the amount of interest generated by imaged of nude children online is a sad testament to that.

It's my sincere belief that a vast majority of all pedophiles never harm children, and even if they did I find the notion of pre-empting crimes by locking people up for nasty thoughts to be highly fascistic. "Minority Report" anyone?

--- G.

[Vinny Rafarino]

What you are not considering is that the reason
these individuals do not get caught is because the children never report the crime. Not because they did not act upon their impulses.

As I stated, the information I have is vast...Here are some very interesting facts...It may take up quite a bit of space, so please don't be alarmed.


Pedophilia
Most adults who sexually molest children are considered to have pedophilia, a mental disorder described in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). An adult who engages insexual activity with a child is performing a criminaland immoral act which never can be considered
normal or socially acceptable behavior.
Pedophilia is categorized in the DSM-IV as one ofseveral paraphiliac mental disorders. The essential features of a paraphilia (“sexual deviation”) are recurrent,intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges,or behaviors that generally involve nonhuman subjects,
the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner,or children or other nonconsenting persons.The Characteristics of Pedophilia According to the DSM-IV definition, pedophilia involves
sexual activity by an adult with a prepubescent child. Some individuals prefer females, usually 8- to 10-year-olds. Those attracted to males usually prefer
slightly older children. Some prefer both sexes. While some are sexually attracted only to children, others also are sometimes attracted to adults. Pedophiliac activity may involve: undressing and looking at the child or more direct physical sex acts. All these activities are psychologically harmful to the child, and some may be physically harmful. In addition, individuals with pedophilia often go to great lengths to
obtain photos, films, or pornographic publications that focus on sex with children. These individuals commonly explain their activities with excuses or rationalizations that the activities have
“educational value” for the child, that the child feels “sexual pleasure” from the activities, or that the child was “sexually provocative.” However, child psychiatrists
and other child development experts maintain that children are incapable of offering informed consent to sex with an adult. Furthermore, since pedophiliac acts harm the child, psychiatrists con-
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders The purpose of the DSM-IV (and of the manuals which preceded it) is to provide clear, objective descriptions of mental illnesses, based on scientific data. Psychiatrists and research scientists use these descriptions to diagnose an individual’s mental illness, to communicate with each other in a common language about mental illnesses, to develop new treatments tailored to specific illnesses, and to plan the most effective treatments for their patients. The DSM-IV is not a diagnostic “cookbook,” but is intended to guide the psychiatrist’s own informed clinical judgment. DSM-IV and its predecessors are not legal documents.
The cautionary statement in the introduction to DSM-IV reads, in part: “The purpose of DSM-IV is to provide
clear descriptions of diagnostic categories in order to enable clinicians and investigators to diagnose, communicate about, study, and treat people with various mental disorders. It is to be understood that inclusion here, for clinical and research purposes, of a diagnostic category such as Pathological Gambling or
Pedophilia does not imply that the condition meets legal or other nonmedical criteria for what constitutes mental disease, mental disorder, or mental disability. The clinical and scientific considerations involved in categorization of these conditions as mental disorders may not be wholly relevant to legal judgments, for example, that take into account such issues as individual responsibility, disability determination, and
competency.”


(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 10:11 am on May 28, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Here is the continuation to the previous post...

2
demn publications or organizations which seek to promote or normalize sex between adults and children. Individuals with pedophilia may limit their activities
to their own children, stepchildren, or relatives, or they may victimize children outside their families. Some threaten the child to prevent the child from telling
others. Some develop complicated techniques for gaining access to children. They may select a job, hobby, or volunteer work that brings them into contact with children. Others may win the trust of a child’s mother, marry a woman with an attractive child, or trade children with other individuals. Except when
pedophilia is also associated with sexual sadism, the individual may be kind and attentive to the child’s needs in order to gain his or her affection, interest, and
loyalty, and also to prevent the child from reporting the sexual activity. Pedophilia usually begins in adolescence,
although some individuals report that they did not become aroused by children until middle age. Often the pedophiliac behavior increases or decreases
according to the psychological and social stress level of the individual. There is little information on the number of individuals
in the general population with pedophilia because individuals with the disorder rarely seek help from a psychiatrist or other mental health professional. However, the large commercial market in pedophiliac pornography suggests that the number of individuals at large in the community with the disorder is likely to be
higher than the limited medical data indicate. Individuals generally come to the attention of mental health professionals when their child victims tell others and when they are arrested. Pedophilia is almost always seen in males and is seldom diagnosed in females. How Psychiatrists Diagnose Pedophilia When evaluating who may have pedophilia, psychiatrists apply three criteria spelled out in DSM-IV. All three must be present for the diagnosis to be made. Whether or not all three criteria are present, an individual who has had a sexual encounter with a child has committed a crime. Psychiatrists nationwide support
the federal and state statutes that define the criminality of any sexual act or molestation involving a child. Treatment for Pedophilia Pedophilia generally is treated with cognitive-behavioral
therapy. The therapy may be prescribed alone or in combination with medication. Some examples of medications which have been used include anti-androgens
and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors
(SSRIs). But unlike the successful treatment outcomes for most other mental illnesses, the outlook for
successful treatment and rehabilitation of individuals with pedophilia is guarded. Even after intensive treatment,
the course of the disorder usually is chronic and lifelong in most patients, according to DSM-IV, which is the reason that most treatment programs emphasize
a relapse-prevention model. However, both the fantasies and the behaviors often lessen with advancing age in adults. Additional Reading Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), 1994, 886 pages, ISBN 0- 89042-062-9, paperback, $42.95 (plus $5.00 shipping), Order #2062. Order From: American Psychiatric
Press, Inc., 1400 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005.


(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 10:16 am on May 28, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

This is the last bit of info. Again...my apologies on the severe size of all this..

DSM-IV Criteria for Pedophilia
Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors
involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 or younger). Has the person had repeated fantasies or urges about engaging in sexual activity with a child generally 13 years or younger, or has he actually had sexual encounters with a child? If a psychiatrist sees an individual who has
engaged in sexual contact with a child, the diagnosis of Pedophilia should be strongly considered. (An
individual who committed a single act of molestation while under the influence of drugs, for example, but
who had not intentionally targeted a child and was unaware of the victim’s age, would not receive the diagnosis. However, this of course in no way diminishes the seriousness of the act of molestation.) A person need not have actual sexual contact with a child to be diagnosed with Pedophilia. A person who is preoccupied with sexual urges and fantasies that disturb his functioning (that is, negatively affect his relations with others or impair his ability to work effectively) could also be diagnosed as having Pedophilia, even without ever engaging in a sex act with a child. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. Is the problem clinically significant? That is, has it caused “significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning?” (Note: The same criterion is applied throughout the DSM-IV to other mental illnesses.) Under this criterion, a sexual encounter with a child constitutes “clinical significance.” To make a DSM-IV diagnosis, the psychiatrist assesses the individual for either clinically significant distress or clinically significant impairment. Most individuals with psychiatric symptoms experience a subjective sense of distress which may include feelings such as pain, anguish, dysphoria (unpleasant mood), shame, embarrassment, or guilt. However, there are numerous situations in which the individual has symptoms or exhibits behaviors that do not cause any subjective sense of distress, but nonetheless would be judged “clinically significant” and warrant a diagnosis of a mental disorder if they come to the attention of a psychiatrist. In such situations, this judgment is based on whether the presentation causes significant impairment in one or more areas of functioning, including social, relational, occupational, and academic functioning. For example, it is well-recognized that many individuals who are experiencing serious problems related to substance abuse (e.g., violent behavior, poor work, or poor school performance due to alcohol or other drug use) deny that their substance abuse is causing them any distress. Such individuals would be given a diagnosis of Substance Dependence or Substance Abuse, in spite of their denial, if the psychiatrist determines that these substance-induced problems are causing significant impairment. Similarly, many individuals who
act on their pedophiliac urges claim that their behavior is non-problematic and may even claim it is “beneficial”
to the child. Nonetheless, DSM-IV would consider such individuals to have Pedophilia because, by definition,
acting on pedophiliac urges is considered to be an impairment in functioning. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A. Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.
Is the person at least 16 years old and at least five years older than the child who is the object of his fantasies or activities? Psychiatrists must use judgment when evaluating a person in late adolescence who is engaged in a single ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old. Although such a person might not be
considered as having Pedophilia, such relationships often lead to other psychological, medical (e.g., sexually
transmitted disease, pregnancy), social, and family problems and should be strongly discouraged.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I obviously didn't read all that, but I did read some of it and found it very interesting in the same way I find a lot of perspectives interesting without agreeing with them.

But I have a feeling we're not arguing on the exact same things, and we indeed agree on the moral aspect of this whole issue. It's the theoretical and sociological issues I'm more concerned with at the moment...

I know what the psychological literature says, but I also know how psychology came to be and that what we today consider 'mental illness' did not exist before the concept was created. I'd like to suggest a fantastic book on the history of insanity as a social construct by Michel Foucault, "Madness and Civilization". The whole issue of unacceptable sexuality is covered fairly well.

I suspect we agree very much on the basics, I just tend to be more theoretical than emotional or even 'moral' about these things. Lastly I'd like to point to one very telling sentance:


An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior.

This is not a scientific statement, it's a moral statement, and taken in any kind of factual context it's patently false. If something "can never be considered normal or socially acceptable", then you most prove that it never has been accepted by any society at any time.

Greece may be the most famous example, but sex with children has been commonplace in many other societies, thus asserting a particular social construct is universal goes to the heart of my problem with the psychiatric take on pretty much everything.

I prefer a deeper, socialogical view of why some things are accepted and others are considered unacceptable, because it clearly has nothing to do with a universal human morality, because it doesn't exist. All morality is socially constructed, while ethics is perhaps a more debatable issue.

--- G.

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 6:20 pm on May 28, 2003)

[Dhul Fiqar]

Just minutes after making this post I came across the best ever article I've ever seen on the subject, you may assume anything that Michel Foucault says in that article I am willing to stand by, but in fact they're all geniuses :)

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/danger.htm

I was looking for parts to quote here, but there's just so much info...


--- G.

[Vinny Rafarino]

It is quite a bit of information to read. I would suggest doing so however..Otherwise the entire purpose of debating and learning is defeated.

As far as Michel Foucault's essay "Madness and Civilization" is concerned, I have already read it. Mental illness did indeed exist before the concept was created...It was simply called witchcraft

Greece may be the most famous example, but sex with children has been commonplace in many other societies, thus asserting a particular social construct is universal goes to the heart of my problem with the psychiatric take on pretty much everything.

I've been waiting for someone to bring up the Greeks or the Romans. Notice comrade, raping children is no longer an acceptable part of Greecian or Italian society!!!

Cannibalism and human sacrifice are "social constructs"
of many ancient and even modern cultures. These are primitive behaviours that have no place in modern society, as the same with raping children.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Just minutes after making this post I came across the best ever article I've ever seen on the subject, you may assume anything that Michel Foucault says in that article I am willing to stand by, but in fact they're all geniuses

I have just read the entire referendum. The fact you consider these individuals geniuses as odd indeed. It appears to me they are merely a few individuals who like to fuck children, and would "really" like to do it in the open as to not damage their practises. There is absolutely nothing of value within that text. I'm sure every NAMBLA member can recite each and every word of it. Fucking children has no theoretical or sociological value whatsoever. The fact that these "geniuses" agree that a 12 year old child can actually make a cognitive and rational decision regarding sexual activities with an adult is absurd.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 11:32 am on May 28, 2003)

[Dhul Fiqar]

First of all, you're the one talking about rape, I don't believe I've even commented much on that.

You'll also, then, note that women working outside the home is no longer acceptable in Afghan society, just because something is recent doesn't mean it's "less backward" than the other practice.

In fact many Islamic societies have become more and more "backward" with time. Just because Greek morality today is different from in ancient times, that says absolutely nothing about "advancement", because human evolution is not a straight line, unless you believe in the inherent superiority of Western man of course. The only people still maintaining there is such a thing as "primitive" and "advanced" are people who still believe the West is "ahead", and everyone else needs to catch up.

Different societies have different values and they change with time. I'm impressed you've read Foucault's work, but have you read "History of Sexuality" and the discussion in the link above? (I fully understand if you don't have the time, after all I didn't finish all the stuff you posted).

Basically what it boils down to is the discourse of modern (Western, specifically) society and whether it is the absolute indicator of human nature and inherent morality across all time and space. My answer is no, and it isn't really any more complicated than that.

Now, I also think you're misunderstanding the implications of my argument and of those I've quoted, no one is suggesting that pedophilia be endorsed and child abuse made legal. I think I'd best end this with a direct quote about the dubious ramifications of the argument I nonetheless choose to accept:


MICHEL FOUCAULT: Consent is a contractual notion.

HOCQUENGHEM: It's a purely contractual notion. When we say that children are "consenting" in these cases, all we intend to say is this:in any case, there was no violence, or organized manipulation in order to wrench out of them affective or erotic relations.

It's an important point, all the more important for the children because it's an ambiguous victory in that to get a judge to organize a ceremony in which the children come and say that they were actually consenting is an ambiguous victory.

The public affirmation of consent to such acts is extremely difficult, as we know. Everybody - judges, doctors, the defendant - knows that the child was consenting - but nobody says anything, because, apart from anything else, there's no way it can be introduced. It's not simply the effect of a prohibition by law: it's really impossible to express a very complete relationship between a child and an adult - a relation that is progressive, long, goes through all kinds of stages, which are not all exclusively sexual, through all kinds of affective contacts.

To express this in terms of legal consent is an absurdity. In any case, if one listens to what a child says and if he says" I didn't mind," that doesn't have the legal value of "I consent." But I'm also very mistrustful of that formal recognition of consent on the part of a minor, because I know it will never be obtained and is meaningless in any case.

[Vinny Rafarino]

That's what I had just finished reading comrade.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 7:25 pm on May 28, 2003


I have just read the entire referendum. The fact you consider these individuals geniuses as odd indeed. It appears to me they are merely a few individuals who like to fuck children, and would "really" like to do it in the open as to not damage their practises. There is absolutely nothing of value within that text.
(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 11:32 am on May 28, 2003)


Ehm, do you even know who they are? These are respect academics, unlike yourself. The fact that just because they presented a long and involved philosophical argument you disagree with, you call them pedophiles!

This has displayed to me the utter futility of going further with this issue, since anyone trying to open your eyes to the nature of humam morality has to be a "pervert". Very mature view, that.

I'll continue to rely on Foucault's work for insights untill you become as widely published and respected. This discussion is over untill you take that disgusting attack on his character back.

--- G.

[Vinny Rafarino]

to be so offended at another's opinion of someone you have never met. Again, odd. You really have no idea if I am a respected academic or not. I will at least mention this...When I was a lot younger and seeking my second undergrad degree (this one being western philosophy), my speach tenses were much as your's are now. Perhaps a bit less dramatic however. I have no problem ending this debate here and now. I do think you need to perhaps stop reading so much Neitszche.

[Dhul Fiqar]

If you wish. I did overreact, but just because Foucault is my favorite philosopher and to accuse someone of being a pervert just because he has a different oppinion is frankly astounding, simply because you've shown yourself to be familiar with him and philosophy in general! How you could throw out such a cheapshot and false argument simply flabbergasted me.

It's a lot like saying "Noam Chomsky is just an self hating anti-semite who wants to kill Americans and Jews and rationalize it" or "Dhul Fiqar just cares about Palestinians to give him an excuse for killing innocent children on buses in Israel and this is just to satisfy his bloodlust".

Just because you personally can read something into a statement, such as support for a particular idea, does not make the person that uttered that statement a selfish sicko who is out to make everyone accept his perversion.

I must say I am disappointed at how this turned out, you looked a lot more promising as a debating partner before you started accusing people of sexual deviance to smear their legitimate arguments in a light of self-servitude :(

I'm moving this to Theory and retiring, hopefully we'll get into it on better terms some other time, you're clearly an intelligent person despite our disagreements and that frankly astounding comment you made.

But then, I've made some pretty astounding comments in my time, and I wouldn't want someone to assume I was an idiot 24/7 because of it. So I guess what I'm saying is this won't be productive for much longer, so untill the next debate, I bid farewell :)

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

#Moderation Mode

and so it moved.....

Moved here (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=857)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Comrade, you are indeed a very dramatic individual.

My friend I am not to worried if you think I'm an idiot.

Yes comrade, go "retire" I'm sure we will be speaking again shortly. I hope you understand I hold no grudges
when it comes to debate. I'm actually interested to hear our other comrade's opinions of ours. And what they think of this:

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/danger.htm

[Dhul Fiqar]

I really hate it when people say they're gonna stop and then don't so I'm sorry for that, as well as any drama you may have perceived, but I like to state things as I see them, and I was truly appalled, because the tactic of unfounded personal attacks is the very worst thing that could ever happen in a debate.

Anyway, all I want to clarify is this:

1. I don't think you're an idiot

2. I don't think pedophilia is morally acceptable in our society and I don't think it should be, nor would I tolerate a grown up making sexual advances to an underage relative of mine.

That does not mean that I have to stick my head in the sand and claim that I'm right and pedophilies are disgusting creatures of the night in any social and moral context, it's simply a result of the time and place in which we live today.

I don't make any claims to moral superiority, even though I feel a certain way about pedophiles and would no doubt participate in the severe physical punishment of a convicted child abuser if I was ever invited to one.

That doesn't mean I want all people born a cetain way to be hanged, and it doesn't mean I even have any absolute moral right to attack a person guilty of even such a heinous crime as sexual abuse. It simply means I would, because in my heart it feels right, that doesn't make it so.

I have many views on many things, but none of them are correct or false, they're simply borne out of my experiences and despite whatever I may feel I always try to keep theoretical discussions such as this one in the realm of logic and not emotion or cultural conditioning.

Anyway, peace out comrade :)

--- G.

[redstar2000]

Comrade RAF, it strikes me that there is something very odd about your approach to this whole question.

Do you honestly fear that there are "large numbers" of child molesters "out there" preying on pre-pubescent children and getting away with it?

And "more large numbers", presumably, awaiting their moment to "strike"?

Like "terrorists", is there a child molester under a bed near you? Is that your message?

I will certainly look at any studies that you choose to cite in defense of such a claim, but I tell you plainly my scepticism is at its highest setting when people purport to warn me of "great dangers" that can only be overcome with more police, more arrests, more trials, and more prisons.

I've heard it all before.

:cool:

[Moskitto]

How could you possibly have come to this conclusion? Do you realise what you sould like? Comrade. Child molesters and pedophiles rarely get caught because they victimise children. How may children whom are victims of this type of abuse immediately inform the authourities? Most are too ashamed to even tell their friends or parents! The fear of being ridiculed weighs much heavier on their pedomorphic minds than anything else. These are individuals who were sexually molested by someone they were taught to respect. Usually it's some sort of family member. I suggest 99% pedophiles do indeed act on their impulses. They don't get caught because they choose children as their victims....The perfect sexual prey.

A large number of convicted sex offenders are having their convictions overturned because many of the convictions are for supposed events 20 or 30 years ago and are based on one persons word against annother which, for a crime such as child abuse, leads juries to want to protect the poor child (who's now about 30) from "the evil sick man" who juries seem to forget hasn't actually been found guilty yet. Suspected child abusers should not be tried by jury, ordinnary people get their emotions involved too much to think about the law.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Do you honestly fear that there are "large numbers" of child molesters "out there" preying on pre-pubescent children and getting away with it?

And "more large numbers", presumably, awaiting their moment to "strike"?

Yes I do comrade. And here are the sources I promised you.

250,000-500,000 pedophiles reside in the United States alone.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice

Convicted child molesters who abused girls had an average of 52 victims each. Men who molested boys had an astonishing average of 150. victims
Source: In a study funded by the National Institute of Mental Health Dr. Gene G. Abel, Emory University

They typical child sex offender molests an average of 117 children, most of who do not report the offense....
Source: The National Institute of Mental Health

Comrade RAF, it strikes me that there is something very odd about your approach to this whole question.

What is odd about being concerned with the protection of society's children? I personally have no children and could take the easy way out by ignoring the problem.
EVEN IF I am being over-concerned, I feel justifed in my efforts every time a child is sexually abused. Even one a year is too much.

Like "terrorists", is there a child molester under a bed near you? Is that your message?

If these are the tacticts that will get society to open their eyes to the issue then yes comrade.

I would imagine that if either of you had children that had been raped or sexually abused, your opinions on this matter would would be drastically altered.

I've heard it all before.

And you will continue to hear about it over and over again until something is done. These are our children we are talking about. They are the next generation of civilisation. Even possible the next "vanguard". Being a socialist, I would think you would hold them in a much higher regard.

Again, I respect your opinions however I simply feel this is an issue in which "philosophical debate" is usless. Unless of course you plan to author a book of your own maxims to hopefully impress some teens in their 100 level classes. While you're busy winning the pulitzer, please try not to think about the 8 year old child being raped by her teacher.

but I tell you plainly my scepticism is at its highest setting when people purport to warn me of "great dangers" that can only be overcome with more police, more arrests, more trials, and more prisons

You must have me confused with another. I never made any statements regarding prisons, trials,arrests, or police.



(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 8:48 am on May 30, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Comrade RAF, I am astounded that you would offer the United States Department of Justice as a credible source for anything.

If those professional liars told me it was raining outside, I'd leave my umbrella at home. Good grief!

Where did you get your degrees, divinity school? There are 14-year-old kids on this board that understand that the government lies! How come you don't?

(The National Institute of Mental Health is another federal agency; undoubtedly their track record is superior to the DOJ...but even then I'd want some opinions from people who don't depend on a federal grant to do their "research" and come up with the "right" conclusions.)

It's really all about scaring people, isn't it? You think that's ok..."if these are the tactics that will get society to open its eyes to the issue."

It's interesting that you dismissed my earlier remarks along those lines as "silly"...and then proceed to illustrate their validity with exemplary fidelity.

Scaring people "in a good cause" is "ok, if it works."

You are not the only one, of course, to practice deliberate disinformation "for people's own good". Among the things we are supposed to be scared of: global warming, serial killers, second-hand cigarette smoke, "satanic cults", cell phone radiation, "poisoned" building syndrome, date rapists, all illegal drugs, genetically-engineered foods, paedophiles, illegal immigrants, and, of course, "terrorists".

The message is fear and the "remedy" is fascism.

The technical term for people who succumb to this hysteria: suckers.

And, as a side issue, it is rather sad that so many "scientists" have prostituted themselves in service to the fear racket...trying anything they can to get that next grant.

Which leads to another point. I've noticed that some people who find themselves alienated from the central propositions of capitalist society appear to be overly-concerned, in my opinion, with establishing the fact that they are "still"...what?...still "decent", still "normal", still somehow "in tune" with some of the accepted values of the social order they oppose.

When the idiocies of "racial science" were fashionable during the first quarter of the 20th century, there were many leftists who argued quite seriously that "socialism would improve the (white) race."

Or you might look at some of the posts on this board, where you can find ringing denunciations of "terrorism" that will match anything said by Bush & Company, the point being not to understand "terrorism" but to appear normal; i.e., outraged.

I suggest, Comrade RAF, that you have fallen victim to this syndrome. Although you are technically a traitor to the social system of your country (as am I), you still want to share in the outrage and anger directed towards a despised minority...and you're willing to spread the "information" supplied by the infamous U.S. Department of Justice to do it.

That's a shame.

:cool:

PS: Is there any federal agency that can be trusted to tell the truth? I have had good experiences with the National Hurricane Center...but read what the scientists say themselves. Filtered through the media, it becomes hysteria again...makes for good ratings, I guess.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 10:47 pm on May 30, 2003


The message is fear and the "remedy" is fascism.


That's a FANTASTIC quote. I'd like to recommend a book by Barry Glassner (I think he's a prof. of sociology at USC) called "Culture of Fear".

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465014909/qid=1054364949/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9373717-0296805?v=glance&s=books)

I haven't read it but I'm gonna order it with the next batch of books we order. It's basically about how Americans are afraid of the wrong things, because the things that cause real social harm are being caused by people with a vested interest in keeping people afraid of a phantom menace instead of the actual problems in their society.


I hear it's a truly excellent book, I'm reading the first 27 pages (free on Amazon) and I'm inclined to agree so far!

--- G.

[redstar2000]

Looks like a fantastic book; best of all, my public library actually has it and there are only two people in front of me waiting to read it.

We should, at some point, definitely do a whole thread on this subject. A day that goes by without someone expressing fear of something in my presence is a very unusual day indeed.

How do these poor bastards stand it, living like that.

:cool:

[Vinny Rafarino]

I suppose I spoke to quickly when I claimed your posts were brilliant. They pretty much follow the same pattern of pseudo-intellectualism.

Relax with the insults mate. I carry degrees from The University of London and California State University at Northridge. However it's no match against your home schooling I reckon.

We all know the US government being so dastardly even fabricates information on child rapists. 'Cos they really don't exist, and there's no flag on the moon.

And, as a side issue, it is rather sad that so many "scientists" have prostituted themselves in service to the fear racket...trying anything they can to get that next grant.

'Cos we all know if you roll over for the governmet, scientist all get a hot car, a huge beach house and an 18 year old blonde to fuck. All the scientists do it, it's all the rage. Please.

The technical term for people who succumb to this hysteria: suckers.

I reccomend you read your own post when speaking of such things. You seemed to have succumed to quite a bit of hysteria concerning the government.
Sucker.

when the idiocies of "racial science" were fashionable during the first quarter of the 20th century, there were many leftists who argued quite seriously that "socialism would improve the (white) race."

I certainly hope you are not referring to me. I doubt even you would sink that low as to insult me in this fashion. PLEASE CLARIFY your intentions regarding this "statement".

I suggest, Comrade RAF, that you have fallen victim to this syndrome. Although you are technically a traitor to the social system of your country (as am I), you still want to share in the outrage and anger directed towards a despised minority...and you're willing to spread the "information" supplied by the infamous U.S. Department of Justice to do it.

That's a shame.

Truly a pathetic outlook when the victims are children. Oi, just keep blaming someone else and never take responsiblity. please do me a favour, keep hiding behind your computer and let us socialists that are prepared to do what is necessary lead the way.

[redstar2000]

I certainly hope you are not referring to me. I doubt even you would sink that low as to insult me in this fashion. PLEASE CLARIFY your intentions regarding this "statement".

Touchy, aren't we? Since it seems rather unlikely that I or anyone would assume you were alive in the first quarter of the 20th century, the remarks about "socialist racial science" could hardly refer to your own views, now could they?

I am speaking here of a "syndrome"...a formal opposition to capitalism combined with a willingness to nevertheless mindlessly parrot some, many, or most of the "official" versions of the "truth"...especially those versions specifically designed to scare the hell out of people.

And, if you're interested, the U.S. did send spacecraft to the moon; the Roswell "UFO" was a weather balloon; and the U.S. did not know about, much less plan 9/11 in advance.

Now go take a valium.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 10:00 am on June 4, 2003)

[Sabocat]

"Relax with the insults mate. I carry degrees from The University of London and California State University at Northridge. However it's no match against your home schooling I reckon."

What the hell does that have to do with anything? GW Bush "carries degrees" from Harvard and Yale and he's a fucking half wit.

To rationalize that intelligence directly corresponds to how many college degrees one "carries" is ludicrous.

Not being "home schooled" then I guess would make you an authority as to how those numbers were collected in those polls, and who distributed the results. Polls are shit. You know and I know it. No one is advocating or denying that sexual and other abuses of children takes place, just the figures and the question of how prevalent it is.

Watching the corporate news media should give you some indication as to the rampant spread of fear mongering. When is the last time you saw a piece on the news about drug problems in the inner city and been shown a white person? When they show murders on the news, most likely they will lead with stories with minorities.

After 9/11 the news spread endless stories about possible further terrorist activities with the occassional raising of the "terror alert color code" or whatever the hell they call it.

Yes, the government does feed the media and public information to keep us afraid. I find it hard to believe any rational person could deny that.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Remember who you are speaking to. I've been a member of the communist party since '83. I've seen my fair share of the tactics that the US government uses. I however refuse to use this as a crutch in order to ignore a problem and still "appear" to be a socialist to my comrades. This is not a fantasy world. If you can explain in adequate detail and provide facts as to why the government would arbitrarily increase the national statistics on pedophiles I would consider your opinions.
It appears to me however that your views are based on merely on your perception of reality rather than actual facts. I certainly give more credit and validity of fact to these doctors than I do to you.

Disgustapated,

My post was in response to this from redstar. Clearly his intentions were to insult my intelligence. Please review.

Where did you get your degrees, divinity school? There are 14-year-old kids on this board that understand that the government lies! How come you don't?


No one is advocating or denying that sexual and other abuses of children takes place, just the figures and the question of how prevalent it is.

Where do you draw the line and take action? 20 children? 100 children? A thousand?

What I have noticed throughout my adult life is that the only people that condemn having degrees are ones that do not have them. Why is that?


(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 8:55 pm on June 4, 2003)

[Sabocat]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 1:53 am on June 5, 2003
Remember who you are speaking to. I've been a member of the communist party since '83. I've seen my fair share of the tactics that the US government uses. I however refuse to use this as a crutch in order to ignore a problem and still "appear" to be a socialist to my comrades. This is not a fantasy world. If you can explain in adequate detail and provide facts as to why the government would arbitrarily increase the national statistics on pedophiles I would consider your opinions.
It appears to me however that your views are based on merely on your perception of reality rather than actual facts. I certainly give more credit and validity of fact to these doctors than I do to you.

Disgustapated,

My post was in response to this from redstar. Clearly his intentions were to insult my intelligence. Please review.

Where did you get your degrees, divinity school? There are 14-year-old kids on this board that understand that the government lies! How come you don't?[/]


[i]No one is advocating or denying that sexual and other abuses of children takes place, just the figures and the question of how prevalent it is.

Where do you draw the line and take action? 20 children? 100 children? A thousand?

What I have noticed throughout my adult life is that the only people that condemn having degrees are ones that do not have them.


I didn't really see it that way. I thought he was just trying to make a point. I doubt he was making a statement about your intelligence. Who knows, I could be wrong, only redstar knows what he truly meant.

However, with that fairly innocuous statement, he illicited the sarcastic and caustic response from you about home schooling. I just thought it was a little over the top. It came off as a bit elitist. I'm sorry if I misread that.

I'm not condemning your degrees (and yes I have one) however, I also appreciate that there are many intelligent people without them. I've actually met some people without degrees that I would classify as rather brilliant.

Please don't misconstrue my meaning here. I don't think child abuse is right. One is too many. I'm merely stating that I don't arbitrarily believe every statistic the government and it's agencies throw at me. Especially a government which seems to be rooted in christian fundamentalism.

Why would the government arbitrarily increase the national statistics on paedophilia? I don't know. Why would the government lie to us about the threat and existence of WMD's? Why would the government continue to elevate and drop the terror alert? The only answer that I can see is to propagate fear.

I wasn't questioning whether action should be taken against paedophiles, rather, how overstated is the problem? Is it in the epidemic proportions the government agencies state?

[redstar2000]

I've been a member of the communist party since '83

I think that explains quite a lot as to the source of your general political outlook.

All historical dating is, to some extent, arbitrary, but your party hasn't been "communist" since, well, 1964 that I know of personally...but really, I suspect, some time in the early 1940s when Earl Browder took over. Unless things have changed dramatically, I expect your party supported and campaigned for Al Gore; the last time the CPUSA didn't support the Democrats was in 1952. Like all reformist groups, your party places its hopes in the hands of the "progressive" wing of the bourgeoisie.

This might help explain your exaggerated confidence in the credentials of higher education; it certainly explains your respect for the Department of Justice...reformist political groups must join with the bourgeoisie in the public pretense that these bodies are "legitimate" and "above class struggle", etc.

Your question about government motives for lying is a thorny one, I will concede. We are not privy to their real deliberations nor have we the gift to see inside their heads. Sometimes, the rationale for lying is fairly straightforward; e.g., Iraq. Other times, there is probably a convergence of people with different agendas that would be served by more or less identical actions.

Why assert that there are "500,000" paedophiles in America, each with "more than 100" victims?

Fundamentalist religious zealots, an increasingly important constituency in American mainstream politics, are appalled at what they perceive to be rampant sexual "immorality" in America, especially among the young. Their agenda is to suppress adolescent sexuality altogether, as well as all female reproductive rights. By conflating real paedophilia (sex between post-pubescents and pre-pubescents) with "pseudo-paedophilia" (sex between people over some arbitrary age and people under some arbitrary age), they can create an "epidemic construct" that will buttress any and every draconian form of legal repression that their fertile little brains can imagine.

A 20-year-old guy with a 14-year-old girlfriend is not a paedophile...but if you can make him one in the public eye, that's a victory for the "Lord".

Likewise, some 50-year-old guy masturbating to a video of teen-age gay males having sex is not watching "child pornography"...but if you can make the label stick anyway, that's another victory for the "Lord".

Ok, that's one factor. A supporting factor is that we have a huge "law enforcement" establishment in the United States with direct material incentives to increase penalties for every existing "crime" and invent new "crimes" to ensure their continued growth and prosperity. The role of the California prison guards "union" is very instructive in this regard...they provided significant financing for the odious California "three-strike" law. Every new prison that California builds means new, well-paying jobs for people that would otherwise find day-labor to be intellectually too demanding...I'm talking thugs here.

I think this attitude is dominant in "law enforcement" from top to bottom: the more "crimes" there "are", the more "criminals" there "are", the better for us.

The "war on paedophilia" will never be the money-maker that the "war on drugs" is...but that's no reason not to soak it for all it's worth, right?

So that's another "converging agenda". Still another is the fact that employment in the sciences, especially the social sciences, is fiercely competitive these days. It is beyond rational belief that some scientists, when called upon by the government to "give us a number" (and I have seen that phrase actually used) will not yield to temptation to give a "suitable" number. All you have to do is take a small sample and start multiplying...and behold! You have an "official estimate". And since the labor and resources necessary to arrive at a true approximation are burdensome (who would finance the research? NAMBLA???), the "estimate" passes for "truth".

And finally there are those who happily dwell in the olympian heights of the ruling class...and who believe it is extraordinarily useful to rule a population paralyzed by fear. They don't give a rat's ass about paedophilia or drugs or crime or even terrorism...as long as the public is whipped hither and yon by fear of this or that, our rulers can feel safe.

These are the hypothetical explanations I would offer for the "epidemic" of paedophilia. But there are probably other factors that I've overlooked. Perhaps in a few decades when there are other "hysterias du jour", it will be possible to gain access to some documentation that would verify one or more of my suggested explanations.

In the meantime, I look forward to reading Culture of Fear.

You should too.

:cool:

[Vinny Rafarino]

This one may take a while as you are all around it but not quite in it. You are maing way too many assumptions and expounding upon them with unecessary opinions.

All historical dating is, to some extent, arbitrary, but your party hasn't been "communist" since, well, 1964 that I know of personally...but really, I suspect, some time in the early 1940s when Earl Browder took over. Unless things have changed dramatically, I expect your party supported and campaigned for Al Gore; the last time the CPUSA didn't support the Democrats was in 1952. Like all reformist groups, your party places its hopes in the hands of the "progressive" wing of the bourgeoisie

I can't believe so many comrades here still use the term "bourgoisie". I've been a member of several communist political parties in several different countries. Never one with this political agenda however. I was sure you would have already surmised my affiliations. I believe you call them hard-line left or upper left. Comrade, if the revolution comes, I can guarantee you one thing. I will be involved. You simply make too many judgments based on opinion. It leaves a very sour taste.

This might help explain your exaggerated confidence in the credentials of higher education; it certainly explains your respect for the Department of Justice...reformist political groups must join with the bourgeoisie in the public pretense that these bodies are "legitimate" and "above class struggle", etc.

Now, how could you possibly know if my confidence is exaggerated? Again more factless opinion.
How could you assume I have respect for the Dept. of Justice? I just live in the real world redstar and understand that there is no conspiracy by the US government to instill fear in the masses through exaggeration of statistics on pedophiliacs. Especially when the information is backed by doctors....But wait...The government got to them too right? Grow up mate.

Why assert that there are "500,000" paedophiles in America, each with "more than 100" victims?

Why? I would imagine because there is nothing good that can be said about them. So why not state the facts. I have yet to see you dispute any of my sources with sources of your own. Just more and more opinion.

I'm not even going to touch on your rantings about the religious fundamentalists in that last post as it really is irrelevant to our conversation. I believe you are attempting to make a connection between the amount of religious fundamentalists there are in the US and the "supposedly exaggerated" numbers of the US Government. I hate to correct you RS, but the right-wing religious fundamantalists probably count for half of the 500 thousand and I doubt they would like too much lite shed on their pathetic little lives.

The "war on paedophilia" will never be the money-maker that the "war on drugs" is...but that's no reason not to soak it for all it's worth, right?

I had no idea the government had formally declared a war on pedophilia. Please list some sources.

It is beyond rational belief that some scientists, when called upon by the government to "give us a number" (and I have seen that phrase actually used) will not yield to temptation to give a "suitable" number

If you have seen it used then I'm quite sure you can prove it. Or is it merely more opinion?

And finally there are those who happily dwell in the olympian heights of the ruling class...and who believe it is extraordinarily useful to rule a population paralyzed by fear. They don't give a rat's ass about paedophilia or drugs or crime or even terrorism...as long as the public is whipped hither and yon by fear of this or that, our rulers can feel safe.

Comrade. To this I can only say that when the revolution comes, please stay at home.

[redstar2000]

Comrade RAF, I find myself almost at a loss for words to reply to you...mostly, I don't even grasp what you're attempting to say.

I "assume", for example, that you have "respect" for the Department of Justice because you yourself cited them as an "authoritative" source. If you don't respect them, why ever would you give their figures the time of day? I certainly don't "respect them"--I've already said that they were, in my view, professional liars.

Do you now agree with that assessment or do you still disagree?

I would not use words like "bourgeoisie" and "proletarian" in public propaganda; but on a left message board, their meanings are understood and I use them or not as mood dictates.

I can sympathize with your desire for "sources" -- there is a lot of "information" on the internet but not all that much information, if you take my meaning. Still, to repeat, this is a message board, not a professional journal. Very few people sit at their keyboards with a stack of journals beside them to justify every point they make.

I don't expect you to accept my hypotheses based on their logical coherence alone--that is, how well they explain what is otherwise inexplicable.

But I can't help but note that you seem remarkably uncritical in a Marxist sense of "sources"...apparently regarding them as "out there" like the scoreboard in right center field.

That's just wrong.

Has it really never occurred to you to question any so-called "authoritative sources"? I recall that you were upset about my reference to socialists in the first-quarter of the 20th century accepting and trying to use "racial science" as an "argument" for socialism.

But all they did, really, is what you are doing now. They uncritically accepted the "authoritative sources" of their era...even though they should have known better. Why? Because they already knew that the "authoritative sources" were wrong about capitalism...so they had every reason to be sceptical of anything that those "authoritative sources" might say that would have any bearing on human social relationships...such as "race".

I really don't know what else to tell you, guy. You didn't really respond to any of my actual points except for a repeated demand for "sources"...as if the authorities would actually go to the trouble of investigating my hypotheses. If it enlivens your existence to imagine hundreds of thousands of dirty old men groping small childen by the millions...well, what can I possibly say to that?

It starts to get like arguing with somebody who claims to have been abducted by aliens and anally probed.

Senseless.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:07 am on June 5, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

When you make a point with some relevance, I will respond to it. I personally despise having to explain myself twice but I will in this case.

If you even bothered to read my previous posts you will notice I have already made it quite clear. I DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT COMPLETELY. RS my friend to think that any and all information produced by them is a lie is so completely juvenile it gives me quite a laugh.

A word of advice for the future my friend. The only one that really cares about your opinion is you. Try using facts in their place, it's a whole new universe.

[redstar2000]

...to think that any and all information produced by them is a lie is so completely juvenile it gives me quite a laugh.

I didn't say that, of course, but if it makes you feel better to laugh at your own wit, who am I to deny a man the simpler pleasures of life?

The only one that really cares about your opinion is you.

I have some small reason to believe you're wrong about that...but what difference does it make? What can anyone do but speak what s/he is convinced is true and let the chips fall where they may?

Try using facts in their place, it's a whole new universe.

But my challenge to you is not based on what the Department of Justice says (is that what you call "facts"?)...but whether or not the DOJ is to be believed?

The "Gospels" say that "Jesus rose from the dead"...that's a fact, they really do say that.

But are they to be believed?

:cool:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Don't believe them RS. I don't mind. Stay home, play role-playing games, drink some jolt...whatever you like mate...It's no longer a concern of mine.