Sex offenders

[Coggeh]

The sex offender crime laws , you know all them laws where it says when they get outh the residents in the area have to know about them living there etc .


I think when your bourgeois sentance it up youve paid for the crime but people say their just gonna do it again and what not.

Positions/thoughts on this?

[spartan]

if i had a child and a convicted sex offender was living near our area then yeah i would like to know where that person lived. sex with children by adults, especially pre pubescent children who probably dont know what sex is, is rape! and if anyone of those mentally ill bastards touched one of my children well i would have no problem killing them because whatever society we live in whether it be capitalist or communist we should never allow this paedophile shit to become acceptable or normal because it is wrong and is against the majority of peoples basic morals (except those sick paedophiles morals!) knowing where they live could prevent an attack in the future as you can take the necessary precautions and tell all local kids to stay away from that area. until there is a cure for paedophilia we should never accept these sickos in our society.

[guerilla E]

As an anarchist I have a moral, conditioned, crisis about this issue. The state with the power to place stigmas on people is never a good thing, however another part of me asks "why do we even find it acceptable to release most sex offenders?"

Child rapists recieve, in prisons, the most primitive form of human justice - violence. The fact that sex offenders must be seperated from general population of prisons actually show us that even the most 'criminal' members of our race find it revolting to share a living space with a sex offender, their disgust manifesting itself with justice delivered by torture and murder.

Predatory behaviours of sex offenders make them dangerous, unpredictable and ultimately untrustworthy.

Special cases do exist, we all know them, but I think if you rape a child then there should be no attempt at rehabilation.

[spartan]

As an anarchist I have a moral, conditioned, crisis about this issue. The state with the power to place stigmas on people is never a good thing, however another part of me asks "why do we even find it acceptable to release most sex offenders?"

Child rapists recieve, in prisons, the most primitive form of human justice - violence. The fact that sex offenders must be seperated from general population of prisons actually show us that even the most 'criminal' members of our race find it revolting to share a living space with a sex offender, their disgust manifesting itself with justice delivered by torture and murder.

Predatory behaviours of sex offenders make them dangerous, unpredictable and ultimately untrustworthy.

Special cases do exist, we all know them, but I think if you rape a child then there should be no attempt at rehabilation.
i completly agree but if a genuine cure that will kill off the instinct and urges (perhaps gene therapy will work if the illness is gene related?) comes about then there wont be a problem killing it off. the only problem would be in identifying paedophiles for treatment but lets say this is an anarchist society could we (even though it is against our principles) force them to have the treatment if the paedophile refuses it? if yes then who does the forcing? a police force? but you know what that leads to! hierarchy and then a new ruling class so that is a no no! personaly if we can somehow in the future detect paedophilia via genes or whatever whilst the subject is say still in the womb then we can kill it off easily then (and without the involuntary, for the patient/subject, force required if that paedophile refuses treatment).

[guerilla E]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 10:27 pm
i completly agree but if a genuine cure that will kill off the instinct and urges (perhaps gene therapy will work if the illness is gene related?) comes about then there wont be a problem killing it off. the only problem would be in identifying paedophiles for treatment but lets say this is an anarchist society could we (even though it is against our principles) force them to have the treatment if the paedophile refuses it? if yes then who does the forcing? a police force? but you know what that leads to! hierarchy and then a new ruling class so that is a no no! personaly if we can somehow in the future detect paedophilia via genes or whatever whilst the subject is say still in the womb then we can kill it off easily then (and without the involuntary, for the patient/subject, force required if that paedophile refuses treatment).
and henceforth you see my personal dilema. However I've always believed that anarchy relies heavily on the mutual agreement between independent people - that is to say instead of a state we have a collective built on mutual support ie you scratch my back I'll scratch yours, but you can't tell me what or when to scratch and neither can I to you.

The gene question is still to be answered, as some child sex offenders have also committed crimes against adults and/or exhibited other mental illnesses. The problem with this is that once we begin to isolate behaviour components in the human genome, is there really telling what the future could be?

Instead of a ruling class, we would create a god class.

I think staying true to the original meaning of 'police', 'community' in latin, could spawn forth an interesting system built on the mutualy binded collective passing judgement as a whole. This all becomes heavily reliant on technology, would also raise massive questions on morality and ethics (but so does gene therapy) but a system built on giving all individuals power to decide the fate of an offender would be better suited for a variation of the anarchist model (mutual support).

[Coggeh]

Not that i defend the actions of those sick fucks ... but whatever ....


knowing where they live could prevent an attack in the future as you can take the necessary precautions and tell all local kids to stay away from that area.
Firstly, they've paid for their crime in the sentance they were given and should be allowed a second chance at life , also police keep special tabs and watches on sex offenders so that they do not come in contact with kids on any regular basis

Letting the public know about these peoples past etc creates violence in the neighbourhood and would just make it less safe then without people knowing about it .

Its Orwellian to have this system in place because if you were going to set about this why not just give them life in prison in the first place rather than releasing them to the public ?


knowing where they live could prevent an attack in the future as you can take the necessary precautions
Most attacks are carried out by first time offenders and only a small rate do it a second time after getting out compared to murderers etc .

[The Redbear]

in my opinion a good solution to both pedophiles and rapists is chemical castration. not only does it stop the sex drive, meaning that thay no longer pose a threat to others, but it also means that we dont have to kill them, i supose guilt comes with any exicution no matter how deserving thay are....

[Freigemachten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:50 pm
Not that i defend the actions of those sick fucks ... but whatever ....


knowing where they live could prevent an attack in the future as you can take the necessary precautions and tell all local kids to stay away from that area.
Firstly, they've paid for their crime in the sentance they were given and should be allowed a second chance at life , also police keep special tabs and watches on sex offenders so that they do not come in contact with kids on any regular basis

Letting the public know about these peoples past etc creates violence in the neighbourhood and would just make it less safe then without people knowing about it .

Its Orwellian to have this system in place because if you were going to set about this why not just give them life in prison in the first place rather than releasing them to the public ?


knowing where they live could prevent an attack in the future as you can take the necessary precautions
Most attacks are carried out by first time offenders and only a small rate do it a second time after getting out compared to murderers etc .
I'd like to see the evidence that you have supporting your claim that allowing the public to know where these people live creates violence in the area. For many of these people, part of their sentence is to tell the people that they live near that they are sex offenders, so it is simply a continuation of their sentence, not an add on afterwards. I'm not sure, but I believe some may take it as part of a plea bargain to get a shorter sentence.

Clearly a free life in the general population is preferable to prison, however, when someone is convicted for say, abducting and molesting multiple children in a suburban area, and they move back to the area that was their old hunting grounds or whatever, parents obviously deserve to be made aware of the risk. It is honestly a win win situation when the alternative is life in prison, which is win-lose in the favor of parents.

[counterblast]

I'm so torn about this issue.

Our prison system is such a failure; so I can understand the fear of people who live by former sex offenders, and where the desire to know where they live comes from.

But, I think this frustration should be channeled to towards prison reform; from the current system of "eye for an eye" to one of self-help and improvement for inmates, who are often as bad off as their victims are/were.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Firstly, they've paid for their crime in the sentance they were given and should be allowed a second chance at life , also police keep special tabs and watches on sex offenders so that they do not come in contact with kids on any regular basis


The neurological disorders that these individuals suffer from will not be cured by a stint inside.

These individuals will inevitably revert back to their nature over time. The problem is that we don't know how long it will take for them to finally succumb to their desires; They are the only ones that can answer that question.

Good luck with that one.

so we have to make a choice between what we may deem as a "second chance" versus what's in the best interest of children and other victims of violent sexual crimes.

I would go with what's best for the kids but that's just me.

[Cencus]

I'd like to see the evidence that you have supporting your claim that allowing the public to know where these people live creates violence in the area.

In 2000 a U.K. newspaper took it on itself to release the names of convicted child sex offenders. It ended up with near riots, and several innocent people's home being attacked, including the home of a peadiatrician.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/874361.stm


I know I was working cleaning the streets of Portsmouth & Paulsgrove at the time. Under the current climate it would be stupid to release names, all it would do would drive the offenders undergroiund in fear of thier lives.

[synthesis]

For Christ's sake, has no one here ever watched To Catch A Predator? Sex offenders are rarely lunatics like that dude on the FBI Top 10; these are most often relatively normal people who have harmful sexual urges that need to be controlled, nothing more, nothing less. The problem is when their self-regulatory strength lapses, and the sex offender registry is a good way of letting you know whose willpower works and who's gonna fuck up.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 11, 2007 06:05 pm
in my opinion a good solution to both pedophiles and rapists is chemical castration. not only does it stop the sex drive, meaning that thay no longer pose a threat to others, but it also means that we dont have to kill them, i supose guilt comes with any exicution no matter how deserving thay are....
Ditto

[spartan]

Chemical castration does not destroy the genitals either does it? Because if it does not then it is physically humane (except for killing off all sexual desire in the paedophile but when that sexual desire is harmful to society i guess that it is acceptable to destroy a paedophiles sexual desires).

[bootleg42]

I think people who want to have sex with pre-pubesent children are disturbed and need help (chemical castration sounds right). Also I believe study into why they begin to have such wantings need to be found, if it's alienation then we know such cases will drop big time in communism (or anarchy).

But we also need to define the age of sexual consent. I mean I've seen 15 year old girls (who were not innocent in the way conservatives put them to be) go out with 20-24 year olds and believe it or not, most of them had normal relationships which ended normally. (one case i know, they had a baby and are living happy right now together, the girl is 18 and the guy is 26 but they started when she was 15 and he 23). Also anyone in the U.S. remember that case of a young teacher (who was a model too) who had sex with one of her male students of 15 years old. She had to register as a sex offender and I don't think that's fair, the male kid was found not to be in any pain over the subject. That relationship hurt no one. How would a communist (or anarchist) society deal with this issue???? (also of course, any sexual activity without the consent of the other person (or people) is wrong and should be punished)

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 11:00 pm
Chemical castration does not destroy the genitals either does it? Because if it does not then it is physically humane (except for killing off all sexual desire in the paedophile but when that sexual desire is harmful to society i guess that it is acceptable to destroy a paedophiles sexual desires).
No, not as far as I know.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 11:14 pm
I think people who want to have sex with pre-pubesent children are disturbed and need help (chemical castration sounds right). Also I believe study into why they begin to have such wantings need to be found, if it's alienation then we know such cases will drop big time in communism (or anarchy).

But we also need to define the age of sexual consent. I mean I've seen 15 year old girls (who were not innocent in the way conservatives put them to be) go out with 20-24 year olds and believe it or not, most of them had normal relationships which ended normally. (one case i know, they had a baby and are living happy right now together, the girl is 18 and the guy is 26 but they started when she was 15 and he 23). Also anyone in the U.S. remember that case of a young teacher (who was a model too) who had sex with one of her male students of 15 years old. She had to register as a sex offender and I don't think that's fair, the male kid was found not to be in any pain over the subject. That relationship hurt no one. How would a communist (or anarchist) society deal with this issue???? (also of course, any sexual activity without the consent of the other person (or people) is wrong and should be punished)
I believe the major cause of unreported sexual assault by minors is due to their lack of political and social power; and the denial of important information to them.

I think it is very similar to the 19th and 20th century womans struggle. Before she gained political/social power, she was treated like a child for much of her life. Certain information was denied to her, she was expected to always obey man, she wasn't taken seriously by man, and she had no political or social representation. So what was there left for she to do when a man forced her to have sex with him?

But now, women are free. Free to question the authority of a man over her, free to access information about sexual abuse, free to report sexual abuse, and free to demand that laws be applied equally to her.

[The Redbear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 08:40 am
I believe the major cause of unreported sexual assault by minors is due to their lack of political and social power; and the denial of important information to them.

I think it is very similar to the 19th and 20th century womans struggle. Before she gained political/social power, she was treated like a child for much of her life. Certain information was denied to her, she was expected to always obey man, she wasn't taken seriously by man, and she had no political or social representation. So what was there left for she to do when a man forced her to have sex with him?

But now, women are free. Free to question the authority of a man over her, free to access information about sexual abuse, free to report sexual abuse, and free to demand that laws be applied equally to her.
thtas a very interesting point. our socity seems to have a habit of shilding our childeren from things like sex, and im not saying we should go into graphic detail about the ins and outs, but thay should know that thay should not be ashamed to tell someone if this is happening to them.

[Vinny Rafarino]

For Christ's sake, has no one here ever watched To Catch A Predator? Sex offenders are rarely lunatics like that dude on the FBI Top 10; these are most often relatively normal people who have harmful sexual urges that need to be controlled, nothing more, nothing less.

How do you know?

The cats on that show never get a chance to show what they are capable of since they are bombarded immediately with a television camera.

What do you think would have happened if there was no camera and the kid was real?

Some sick-ass loony shit would happen; that's what.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 14, 2007 09:42 pm

For Christ's sake, has no one here ever watched To Catch A Predator? Sex offenders are rarely lunatics like that dude on the FBI Top 10; these are most often relatively normal people who have harmful sexual urges that need to be controlled, nothing more, nothing less.

How do you know?

The cats on that show never get a chance to show what they are capable of since they are bombarded immediately with a television camera.

What do you think would have happened if there was no camera and the kid was real?

Some sick-ass loony shit would happen; that's what.
Or a child would've had his/her first consentual sexual encounter.

Maybe he/she would have regretted it the next day, and felt bad that he/she didn't have his/her first time with someone special. But how is that really any different than a drunk college girl losing her virginity to someone at a bar? Or an 18-year old boy losing his virginity to a prostitute?

It isn't different at all. And children willingly having sex isn't the atrocity that To Catch a Predator makes it out to be. Their efforts should be put towards catching rapists and child abusers.

[ComradeR]

Their efforts should be put towards catching rapists and child abusers.
Funny thing is pedophiles are child abusers. A child is not emotionally or psychologically prepared to make such a decision so they're consent is meaningless, and the act causes psychological damage, this is a proven fact. I swear counterblast some of the stuff you say makes it sound like you want a return to a middle ages way of things when it comes to children.

[spartan]

A child is not emotionally or psychologically prepared to make such a decision so they're consent is meaningless, and the act causes psychological damage, this is a proven fact
This statement is complete and utter bullshit and the most oppressive and repressive thing i have ever read on this forum yet! The fact is no matter how young they are if they (yes they as in themselves not you!) make a decision then that is their decision and no one has a right to stop them in our new society as this will lead to an emotion police or thought police like we have now. This of course will lead in turn to a new ruling class/hierarchy as this thought police will demand certain separate rights from the "proles" and they will also suppress the proletarian's individual rights (like deciding who they want to have sex with at what ever age!). Not all child adult sexual relationships are paedophilic! Because if people here think that then those people who think that are completly and utterly ignorant! All in all your "theory" that children are emotionally or psychologically unprepared to consent to sexual acts is not grounded in fact (well perhaps psychological "fact" but as psychology is not an exact science can we really trust in it?) and therefore seriously flawed!

[Cencus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 11:32 am

A child is not emotionally or psychologically prepared to make such a decision so they're consent is meaningless, and the act causes psychological damage, this is a proven fact
This statement is complete and utter bullshit and the most oppressive and repressive thing i have ever read on this forum yet! The fact is no matter how young they are if they (yes they as in themselves not you!) make a decision then that is their decision and no one has a right to stop them in our new society as this will lead to an emotion police or thought police like we have now. This of course will lead in turn to a new ruling class/hierarchy as this thought police will demand certain separate rights from the "proles" and they will also suppress the proletarian's individual rights (like deciding who they want to have sex with at what ever age!). Not all child adult sexual relationships are paedophilic! Because if people here think that then those people who think that are completly and utterly ignorant! All in all your "theory" that children are emotionally or psychologically unprepared to consent to sexual acts is not grounded in fact (well perhaps psychological "fact" but as psychology is not an exact science can we really trust in it?) and therefore seriously flawed!
So in your society pedarists/paedophiles would be free to to molest children at any age as long as the child could say yes?

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 10:04 am

Their efforts should be put towards catching rapists and child abusers.
Funny thing is pedophiles are child abusers. A child is not emotionally or psychologically prepared to make such a decision so they're consent is meaningless, and the act causes psychological damage, this is a proven fact. I swear counterblast some of the stuff you say makes it sound like you want a return to a middle ages way of things when it comes to children.
The problem with those studies, is they make no distinction between rape and consent. Of course rape causes psychological damage.

You cannot put all children on the same level of mental capability any more than you can put all adults; make the common arguement "children are incapable of consent" an utter generalization.

And believe me, if I wished to return to the middle ages, I would be in the living room weaving fruit baskets for my non-existant husband and 14 kids. I merely wish for it to be clarified that all children are neither as naive or as helpless as they are portrayed in contemporary culture.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Cencus+September 15, 2007 12:10 pm--> (Cencus @ September 15, 2007 12:10 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 11:32 am

A child is not emotionally or psychologically prepared to make such a decision so they're consent is meaningless, and the act causes psychological damage, this is a proven fact
This statement is complete and utter bullshit and the most oppressive and repressive thing i have ever read on this forum yet! The fact is no matter how young they are if they (yes they as in themselves not you!) make a decision then that is their decision and no one has a right to stop them in our new society as this will lead to an emotion police or thought police like we have now. This of course will lead in turn to a new ruling class/hierarchy as this thought police will demand certain separate rights from the "proles" and they will also suppress the proletarian's individual rights (like deciding who they want to have sex with at what ever age!). Not all child adult sexual relationships are paedophilic! Because if people here think that then those people who think that are completly and utterly ignorant! All in all your "theory" that children are emotionally or psychologically unprepared to consent to sexual acts is not grounded in fact (well perhaps psychological "fact" but as psychology is not an exact science can we really trust in it?) and therefore seriously flawed!
So in your society pedarists/paedophiles would be free to to molest children at any age as long as the child could say yes? [/b]
No, molestation indicates unwarranted or unwanted sexual intercourse. I advocate only sexual intercourse carried out by two consenting individuals of competent mind.

[spartan]

So in your society pedarists/paedophiles would be free to to molest children at any age as long as the child could say yes?
Where exactly did i propose that in my post? You will have to better than just throwing unfounded accusations around! Anyway the answer i would give to that is:

No, molestation indicates unwarranted or unwanted sexual intercourse. I advocate only sexual intercourse carried out by two consenting individuals of competent mind.
I dont think i could have put it better myself!

[Cencus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 01:56 pm

So in your society pedarists/paedophiles would be free to to molest children at any age as long as the child could say yes?
Where exactly did i propose that in my post?


erm here

The fact is no matter how young they are if they (yes they as in themselves not you!) make a decision then that is their decision and no one has a right to stop them in our new society as this will lead to an emotion police or thought police like we have now.

[spartan]

I still cannot see where in that post i specifically said "Paedophiles should be free to molest children whenever they want to". All i said was "If an individual who is a child wishes and decides to have sexual relations with an adult what right have we to stop this child?".

[Cencus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:18 pm
I still cannot see where in that post i specifically said "Paedophiles should be free to molest children whenever they want to". All i said was "If an individual who is a child wishes and decides to have sexual relations with an adult what right have we to stop this child?".
So If say Mr X, a 40 year old deciedes, he wished to have sex with Miss Y who is 8 years old and then goes about convincing her, this would be perfectly acceptable?

[spartan]

So If say Mr X, a 40 year old deciedes, he wished to have sex with Miss Y who is 8 years old and then goes about convincing her, this would be perfectly acceptable?
Yes it would be unacceptable if an adult tried to seduce a child into wanting to have sex but what if the child (by the childs own free choice and without the adults attempts at influencing a decision) decided that s/he wanted to have a sexual relationship with an adult? Why should that be unacceptable? Of course to you children are not in the right "Psychological" (even though Psychology is not an exact science) frame of mind to make a decision based around consenting to sex (even though children are trusted to make decisions on other important things in life). You know what is acceptable to us in our "normal" culture might be unacceptable to a person of another culture. Just read up on primitive tribes hardly touched by the modern world and their "bizzare" (to us so called "normal civilized people" that is) practices. Are you going to say that their cultures that might involve Cannibalism, Incest and Paedophilia amongst other things are somehow wrong? Even though they have been living happily with their so called "bizzare" cultures since time began (just like we have been living with ours).

[Comrade Rage]

The only sex-offenders who should not have to register are the kind that are say 19 and having sex with a 16 yr old. These cases where 45 yr old men are raping 8 yr old boys---UH NO!

[YSR]

I am so tired of "communists" and "anarchists" talking 'bout castrating, imprisoning, or killing people who have committed sexual crimes. It's the most inconsistent thing about all our "after the revolution" talk.

Seriously. Don't you folks think that after we take control of our society, we won't be able find hospitals for these people to get treated? Will we really have to hurt them? I thought we were trying to reach for a less violent society, not one which selectively applies extreme violence.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

The only sex-offenders who should not have to register are the kind that are say 19 and having sex with a 16 yr old.

I agree.

But I think the use of the word "offender" is a wrong.

I am 19, my girlfriend is 16 (a few days from turning 17). We've been together for almost half a year now.

That is legal where I live, but just because it isn't where you live doesn't mean one become a "sex offender" just because the partner is 1,000 days younger.
People on the revolutionary left shoudln't be dependent on the bourgeois to decide what is an "offence" and what is not.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Cencus+September 15, 2007 02:32 pm--> (Cencus @ September 15, 2007 02:32 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 02:18 pm
I still cannot see where in that post i specifically said "Paedophiles should be free to molest children whenever they want to". All i said was "If an individual who is a child wishes and decides to have sexual relations with an adult what right have we to stop this child?".
So If say Mr X, a 40 year old deciedes, he wished to have sex with Miss Y who is 8 years old and then goes about convincing her, this would be perfectly acceptable? [/b]
Or, how about... say Mr X, a 25 year old, decides he wishes to have sex with Miss Y who is 25 years old and then goes about convincing her. Would this would be perfectly acceptable?

Answer this question and you've got your answer for the former question. It all depends upon if you personally find unsolicited sexual advancements toward an unreceptive person, a form of harassment.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 15, 2007 07:57 pm
The only sex-offenders who should not have to register are the kind that are say 19 and having sex with a 16 yr old. These cases where 45 yr old men are raping 8 yr old boys---UH NO!
So you don't have a problem with a 19 year old raping a 16 year old?

[Freigemachten]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 16, 2007 02:25 pm--> (counterblast @ September 16, 2007 02:25 pm)
COMRADE [email protected] 15, 2007 07:57 pm
The only sex-offenders who should not have to register are the kind that are say 19 and having sex with a 16 yr old. These cases where 45 yr old men are raping 8 yr old boys---UH NO!
So you don't have a problem with a 19 year old raping a 16 year old? [/b]
That is not at all the situation that was suggested and you know it full well. The suggestion was that STATUTORY RAPE should not exist between two people so close in age and at such an age that they might be considered somewhat emotionally stable and aware of what they feel. The implication is entirely that consenting partners of like age should not be registered as sex offenders. Of course any one who is raping some one is in the wrong and should be dealt with thusly.


QUOTE (Cencus @ September 15, 2007 02:32 pm)
QUOTE (spartan @ September 15, 2007 02:18 pm)
I still cannot see where in that post i specifically said "Paedophiles should be free to molest children whenever they want to". All i said was "If an individual who is a child wishes and decides to have sexual relations with an adult what right have we to stop this child?".

So If say Mr X, a 40 year old deciedes, he wished to have sex with Miss Y who is 8 years old and then goes about convincing her, this would be perfectly acceptable?

Or, how about... say Mr X, a 25 year old, decides he wishes to have sex with Miss Y who is 25 years old and then goes about convincing her. Would this would be perfectly acceptable?

Answer this question and you've got your answer for the former question. It all depends upon if you personally find unsolicited sexual advancements toward an unreceptive person, a form of harassment.

A 25 year old female has the life experience to expect and hopefully be able to emotionally handle such a situation and would be much more capable of saying no to a person in whom she had no interest, as where an 8 year old would be saying no to an adult, something that is, in most modern societies taboo.

[phasmid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:27 pm

QUOTE (spartan @ September 15, 2007 02:18 pm)
I still cannot see where in that post i specifically said "Paedophiles should be free to molest children whenever they want to". All i said was "If an individual who is a child wishes and decides to have sexual relations with an adult what right have we to stop this child?".

Even more than a right it's a bloody duty. I can't believe anyone would think that a child having sex with an adult is acceptable. Children have childrens minds. Do you also think they should be allowed to work in strip clubs if they wish?

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Freigemachten+September 16, 2007 07:27 pm--> (Freigemachten @ September 16, 2007 07:27 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:25 pm

COMRADE [email protected] 15, 2007 07:57 pm
The only sex-offenders who should not have to register are the kind that are say 19 and having sex with a 16 yr old. These cases where 45 yr old men are raping 8 yr old boys---UH NO!
So you don't have a problem with a 19 year old raping a 16 year old?
That is not at all the situation that was suggested and you know it full well. The suggestion was that STATUTORY RAPE should not exist between two people so close in age and at such an age that they might be considered somewhat emotionally stable and aware of what they feel. The implication is entirely that consenting partners of like age should not be registered as sex offenders. Of course any one who is raping some one is in the wrong and should be dealt with thusly.


QUOTE (Cencus @ September 15, 2007 02:32 pm)
QUOTE (spartan @ September 15, 2007 02:18 pm)
I still cannot see where in that post i specifically said "Paedophiles should be free to molest children whenever they want to". All i said was "If an individual who is a child wishes and decides to have sexual relations with an adult what right have we to stop this child?".

So If say Mr X, a 40 year old deciedes, he wished to have sex with Miss Y who is 8 years old and then goes about convincing her, this would be perfectly acceptable?

Or, how about... say Mr X, a 25 year old, decides he wishes to have sex with Miss Y who is 25 years old and then goes about convincing her. Would this would be perfectly acceptable?

Answer this question and you've got your answer for the former question. It all depends upon if you personally find unsolicited sexual advancements toward an unreceptive person, a form of harassment.

A 25 year old female has the life experience to expect and hopefully be able to emotionally handle such a situation and would be much more capable of saying no to a person in whom she had no interest, as where an 8 year old would be saying no to an adult, something that is, in most modern societies taboo. [/b]
So you know all 25 year old females? And shouldn't we be working to expell taboos like child consent and polygamy that restrict consentual sexual practices?

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Alicia+September 18, 2007 02:02 am--> (Alicia @ September 18, 2007 02:02 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 07:27 pm

QUOTE (spartan @ September 15, 2007 02:18 pm)
I still cannot see where in that post i specifically said "Paedophiles should be free to molest children whenever they want to". All i said was "If an individual who is a child wishes and decides to have sexual relations with an adult what right have we to stop this child?".

Even more than a right it's a bloody duty. I can't believe anyone would think that a child having sex with an adult is acceptable. Children have childrens minds. Do you also think they should be allowed to work in strip clubs if they wish? [/b]
As long as they are paid equal wages.

[Freigemachten]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 18, 2007 11:40 am--> (counterblast @ September 18, 2007 11:40 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 07:27 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:25 pm

COMRADE [email protected] 15, 2007 07:57 pm
The only sex-offenders who should not have to register are the kind that are say 19 and having sex with a 16 yr old. These cases where 45 yr old men are raping 8 yr old boys---UH NO!
So you don't have a problem with a 19 year old raping a 16 year old?
That is not at all the situation that was suggested and you know it full well. The suggestion was that STATUTORY RAPE should not exist between two people so close in age and at such an age that they might be considered somewhat emotionally stable and aware of what they feel. The implication is entirely that consenting partners of like age should not be registered as sex offenders. Of course any one who is raping some one is in the wrong and should be dealt with thusly.


QUOTE (Cencus @ September 15, 2007 02:32 pm)
QUOTE (spartan @ September 15, 2007 02:18 pm)
I still cannot see where in that post i specifically said "Paedophiles should be free to molest children whenever they want to". All i said was "If an individual who is a child wishes and decides to have sexual relations with an adult what right have we to stop this child?".

So If say Mr X, a 40 year old deciedes, he wished to have sex with Miss Y who is 8 years old and then goes about convincing her, this would be perfectly acceptable?

Or, how about... say Mr X, a 25 year old, decides he wishes to have sex with Miss Y who is 25 years old and then goes about convincing her. Would this would be perfectly acceptable?

Answer this question and you've got your answer for the former question. It all depends upon if you personally find unsolicited sexual advancements toward an unreceptive person, a form of harassment.

A 25 year old female has the life experience to expect and hopefully be able to emotionally handle such a situation and would be much more capable of saying no to a person in whom she had no interest, as where an 8 year old would be saying no to an adult, something that is, in most modern societies taboo.
So you know all 25 year old females? And shouldn't we be working to expell taboos like child consent and polygamy that restrict consentual sexual practices? [/b]
Absolutely yes, we should be working very hard to expel irrational taboos, offensive taboos, taboos that restrict the rights of people who can enjoy them in an educated and experienced way. Child consent is in no way a taboo, there is a reason for it, a very practical reason. Such restrictions protect children. Would you dream of allowing an average Joe to jump into an airplane and take off with no flight experience and no training in the proper handling of a plane? I should hope not. Would you let a person work on a bomb squad who knew nothing about explosives? No you wouldn't. Would you let a child, who is not experienced in the nature of relationships, is ignorant of the power of a sexual relationship, have sex with an adult? ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOT!

I never claimed to know all 25 year old females, and stated that hopefully they would be able to handle such a situation, yes clearly there will be exceptions but the standard is that 25 year old women are usually more experienced in relationships than 8 year old children, it's just common fucking sense.

I'm not even going to respond to the stripper strain of this conversation, that's just patently stupid.

Edit: really annoying typo

[phasmid]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 18, 2007 11:43 am--> (counterblast @ September 18, 2007 11:43 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 02:02 am

[email protected] 16, 2007 07:27 pm

QUOTE (spartan @ September 15, 2007 02:18 pm)
I still cannot see where in that post i specifically said "Paedophiles should be free to molest children whenever they want to". All i said was "If an individual who is a child wishes and decides to have sexual relations with an adult what right have we to stop this child?".

Even more than a right it's a bloody duty. I can't believe anyone would think that a child having sex with an adult is acceptable. Children have childrens minds. Do you also think they should be allowed to work in strip clubs if they wish?
As long as they are paid equal wages. [/b]
That's disgusting. you obviously have no idea of the phsycological effects on children who are in the sex industry. Are you even aware of the magnitude of exploitation that would occur if it were legal? I suppose you see paedophiles as completely normal people? Why dont you go talk to some child prostitutes and see if they tell you what a great life they have.Idiot.

[JoePedo]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 16, 2007 06:46 am
I am so tired of "communists" and "anarchists" talking 'bout castrating, imprisoning, or killing people who have committed sexual crimes. It's the most inconsistent thing about all our "after the revolution" talk.

...

I thought we were trying to reach for a less violent society, not one which selectively applies extreme violence.
...there's always the danger of finding one's revolution consists of people buying Che apparel at the Gap. Sadly, I don't think there's been a movement in history whose members were self-consistent.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 16, 2007 06:46 am
I am so tired of "communists" and "anarchists" talking 'bout castrating, imprisoning, or killing people who have committed sexual crimes. It's the most inconsistent thing about all our "after the revolution" talk.
What should we do? Give them a slap on the wrist and tell them not to do it again (making sure we don't hurt their feelings too much in the process)


Seriously. Don't you folks think that after we take control of our society, we won't be able find hospitals for these people to get treated?

Anyone that acts on their desire to sexually abuse others is beyond treatment.


Will we really have to hurt them?

The point of castration is not the pain, but the way it makes it *much* harder fr them to re-offend.


I thought we were trying to reach for a less violent society, not one which selectively applies extreme violence.

A society with rapists and child abusers is never going to be free of violence, even if you try to take the moral highground and choose not to punish them the risk of them re offending and therefore adding to the "violence levels" of our society is fairly high.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by YSR+--> (YSR)I am so tired of "communists" and "anarchists" talking 'bout castrating, imprisoning, or killing people who have committed sexual crimes.[/b]
What people like Young Stupid Radical don't look into is the fact that the kid after being assaulted like that posess really fucked up perceptions of sex, love, and family. These feelings tend to be incurable, and often result in them abusing their partners, children, or both.

The same, to a lesser extent, is true when an adult is sexually assaulted.


YSR
It's the most inconsistent thing about all our "after the revolution" talk.
What?! :huh: Communists, such as myself, believe in Law and Order after the revolution. Not only would not adequately punishing sex offenders be unjust and wrong morally, but it would be wrong tactically, since the working class will NOT support a revolution that puts people at increased risk of sexual assault.

Not to mention that rape, as well as street crime, disproportionally affects the working class!

[JoePedo]

~sigh~


What people like Young Stupid Radical don't look into

...and you can prove your assertion of the actions of persons not you?


is the fact

The factuality of anything you say is utterly unestablished. Try again.


that the kid

May or may not exist.

If I were to moon a police officer at a protest, I would very swiftly become a "sex offender." However, it would be entirely probable that there would be no children present to be "traumatized" (read : laughing their ass off) that someone would do something so totally anti-statist as to moon an officer of the state!

So with the ease of finding an obscene myriad of nonconformant examples, it becomes obvious that your "facts" are a work of fiction.


after being assaulted

Similarly, such a notion of "assault" is quite easily a fiction.

Someone who was, say, prosecuted for "obscenity" for distributing sexual violence prevention advocacy pamphlets which conveyed victims' stories - an easy prosecution, and one which has had very tight analogs happen - would not have assaulted anyone. However, they would most certainly be a 'sex offender' from the point of conviction by the state.

So, again... it appears that you are writing in fiction nonapplicable to the question.


posess really fucked up perceptions of sex, love, and family.

Turning to the minute subset which actually fits the paramaters of your broad-brushed fiction... no, not neccesarily. Some do, some don't.

News flash - human experience is an individual matter, and you have no right to write other people's stories. Sometimes, the outcome is what you have described. Other times, someone reads crap like what you have just written and starts spouting sexist crap as "she must just be a slut, because she didn't cry" because of the crap you proposed, and your determination that all of other peoples' experiences must conform perfectly to your mold.

...and yes, that text is a quote, regarding one of my friend's parents. So, uhh... "thanks," comrade. Now, could you knock it off?


These feelings tend to be incurable

Nothing is incurable.

However, I suppose if someone like you were to follow them around telling them at regular intervals that they were "ruined," and "damaged goods," your continued abuse could serve as an additional obstacle to the integration and understanding of experience and a return to a healthy, forward-driven life.


and often result in them abusing their partners, children, or both.

Actually, "pedophilic seduction," much like "homosexual seduction" and all other "contagious nonheterosexuality" theories, have been repeatedly debunked.

Wandering around telling rape victims that they're doomed to become worthless rapists probably isn't too helpful in the experience integration and progression proccess, either.


What?!

~shrug~ Well, it's true. 'n a lot of that has to do with the vast numbers of innocent people you're throwing under that label...

...though there's still something to be said for restorative vs. retributive justice as competing models of lex talionis. Then again, reform of the justice system is probably, sadly, a future progression, coming somewhere after the removal of equivocation (potsmoker = theif, nonwhite = carjacker, peeing on a bush = serial psycho child rapist, and the like) from the notion of jus ad bellam in the civilly ordered execution of war by the state upon its own populace.

Radical, this "justice reform" crap, I know... and yet, some people still have standards.


Communists, such as myself, believe in Law and Order after the revolution.

Umm... you do know that both law and order have certain... traditions... required for the legitimacy of either title, don't you? An eye for an eye as an upward limit on the violence of the state, not a downward one... that persons must be punished for a crime that they did commit, not one they didn't - which is a flaw riddling your message - and the like...

...and that's the minimum standards of retributive justice, not more advanced models.


Not only would not adequately punishing sex offenders be unjust and wrong morally...

...and yet, I find no major impetus to form a 'vigilance committee' to lynch anyone I find urinating on a bush.

Odd.


but it would be wrong tactically, since the working class will NOT support a revolution that

...last I checked, the working class had pretty much ceased to support the draconian and literally-fascist mismanagement of the "their sexuality is offensive" label, either.


...that puts people at increased risk of sexual assault.

Having read through this thread, I don't think a single one of the dissenters to the regieme has advocated the assault of others, whether sexually or otherwise. In fact? I believe most of them have argued against injust violence.

I am aware that "war is peace" has been the 'official' doctrine from 9/11/01 to the present - but is your assertion now that peace is now war, as well? Odd...


Not to mention that rape, as well as street crime, disproportionally affects the working class!

...as does getting screwed over for public urination or "transporting obscenity across state lines" - also known as 'using the internet' - in a sham trial. In fact, it's amazing what large sums of money can do for avoiding being a victim of a regieme perpetrated more-or-less on fraud and deception.

Speaking of fraud, deception, and the like...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venn_diagram
http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/math/venn/LVenn.htm
http://purplemath.com/modules/venndiag.htm

...are a few tutorials on the concept of venn diagrams in set theory. With the greatest of respect, I would humbly ask you to study the tool before discussing persons whose sexuality you claim to find offensive in the future. You may find them profoundly illuminating.

Thank you.

[ComradeR]

Edit-nvm

[Jazzratt]

JoeNonce:

You're not very good at this whole "debating" thing are you? Putting up a strawman (Your constant attacks on unrelated laws and blind assertions of how crime will be dealt with in a post revolutionary society) . YOu also seem to be arguing against the laws of the current bourgeois state which is utterly irrelevant. Most of your arguments mean nothing to anarchists as well who have no need or desire for state coercion.

However I suppose I should wade through this unreadable, illogical dross and try to find something that may be the larval form of an argument in order that I might get something about posting here.

I did, and I came up with nothing but you seem to have this strange idea that if we punish rapists we'll immediately descend into some bizarre society that arrests people for pissing in bushes. I doubt you understand the term "non sequitur" but I suggest you look it up so you can perhaps make a better argument next time.

[JoePedo]

You're not very good at this whole "debating" thing are you?

Well, I get sent. I'm getting the idea that this might be fun, shortly...


Putting up a strawman

"Strawman." Remember that phrase.


I did, and I came up with nothing but you seem to have this strange idea that if we punish rapists...

Oh, look. "Strawman." It came up already.

Guess what, buddy... "rapist" may be a subset of "sex offender." "Sex offender," however, is nowhere near a subset of "rapist." 'n in fact...


...we'll immediately descend into some bizarre society that arrests people for pissing in bushes.

I hate to be the first to inform you of this, but it so happens we already do live in a bizzare society which arrests people for pissing in bushes.


(Your constant attacks on unrelated laws...

Well, it's already proven that said laws are not at all unrelated. See that bit about Venn diagrams, above? Read it. It might help you. Alot.


...and blind assertions of how crime will be dealt with in a post revolutionary society) .

Actually, most of my discussions on law in that post revolved around the very, very pre-revolutionary society which we are currently in. The singular exception was a brief discourse on the definitive minimums required to call a state action "law," and are not so much "blind" as they are "the results of several thousand years of philosophy and tradition."

Not that I'm a fan of law, but if you're going to fake it, you might as well hold to its minimum standards, no?


YOu also seem to be arguing against the laws of the current bourgeois state

My god, that's a crime now?


which is utterly irrelevant.

Well, it might be until, I dunno... someone launches a couple-page thread to discuss the laws of the current bourgeois state, which has such fine examples as yourself willing to lie in defense of it.


Most of your arguments mean nothing to anarchists as well who have no need or desire for state coercion.

An anarchist who does not desire state coercion under color of law is self-consistent.

An anarchist who cannot discuss the current state of state coercion under color of law is woefully unaware of current events.

...and if one is woefully unaware of current events, one might make such ludicrous assertions that peeing on bushes and mooning cops will not get one arrested in the current regieme - as you have.

To (try to) cut off your future strawmanning, since you're so fond of it... no, awareness of current law does not mean advocacy of the current state - or existance of - law. Just by chance, quite the opposite.

It does not, however, mean that "if I ignore the state, it will go away" actually works - sad as this fact is.


However I suppose I should wade through this unreadable, illogical dross

Big words coming from someone who woefully fucked up their set theory in the course of attempting an apologia for statism...


I doubt you understand the term "non sequitur" but I suggest you look it up so you can perhaps make a better argument next time.

Well, I could have just written it as the content of my reply, but it's so much more entertaining to deconstruct how you attained such a nonsensical and baseless output... mostly, it seems, through belligerent man of straw argumentation in defense of the state combined with the most ludicrious inversion of set inclusion that has ever been seen.

Better luck next time.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:18 pm
I still cannot see where in that post i specifically said "Paedophiles should be free to molest children whenever they want to". All i said was "If an individual who is a child wishes and decides to have sexual relations with an adult what right have we to stop this child?".
The adult with whom the child wishes and decides to have sexual relations can and must stop the child. If they don't, then they are criminals.

Luís Henrique

[spartan]

Luis Henrique i have now changed my mind on this issue and agree with you that sex with children is absolutely wrong even if the child "consents" to it.

The question is though how do we stop these Paedophiles? I say forced chemical castration of Paedophiles who are caught is the way as it kills off their desires whilst retaining their genitalia thus being as humane as possible in the inhumane circumstances.

[Jazzratt]

JoeNonce:


I hate to be the first to inform you of this, but it so happens we already do live in a bizzare society which arrests people for pissing in bushes.

You may do well to note that no one here is defending the current society, so you can stop being a ****.


Well, it's already proven that said laws are not at all unrelated. See that bit about Venn diagrams, above? Read it. It might help you. Alot.

Not really they explain what Venn diagrams are (which, you should probably know that anyone that received a decent education already knows), none of those were loinks to anything which showed how the laws you're railing against (and that no one disagrees with your criticisms of) and their relation to sex crimes.


Actually, most of my discussions on law in that post revolved around the very, very pre-revolutionary society which we are currently in.

And are thus irrelevant for criticising the laws we advocate you thick twat.


My god, that's a crime now?

No but it's considered bad form to attack something the person you're arguing against doesn't advocate. Sheesh.


An anarchist who does not desire state coercion under color of law is self-consistent.

An anarchist who cannot discuss the current state of state coercion under color of law is woefully unaware of current events.

...and if one is woefully unaware of current events, one might make such ludicrous assertions that peeing on bushes and mooning cops will not get one arrested in the current regieme - as you have.

To (try to) cut off your future strawmanning, since you're so fond of it... no, awareness of current law does not mean advocacy of the current state - or existance of - law. Just by chance, quite the opposite.

It does not, however, mean that "if I ignore the state, it will go away" actually works - sad as this fact is.

You are confused. My opossition to these laws no more constitutes ignorance of them, that's impossible by definition. The fact you are arguing as if I adovacte these laws is bloody stupid though.


Big words coming from someone who woefully fucked up their set theory in the course of attempting an apologia for statism...

Did you read a different post to the one I'd written?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:29 pm
I say forced chemical castration of Paedophiles who are caught is the way as it kills off their desires whilst retaining their genitalia thus being as humane as possible in the inhumane circumstances.
I really doubt so.

As far as I know, rape is a power game, not a sexual one. Just a power game which uses sex as an instrument of humiliation. Unless such chemical castration removes the desire to abuse and oppress, which doesn't seem likely at all, they will again abuse. Even if the chemical castration makes erections impossible, also. To rape people using objects instead of sexual organs is an old practice; it is arguable that some sex offenders do things like that exactly because they are incapable to maintain normal sexual relationships (Ted Bundy comes to mind).

Luís Henrique

[JoePedo]

You may do well to note that no one here is defending the current society...

Odd. Such did not seem to be the case. At all.

In fact, it looked like a very vigorous defense which used fraud as a tool to defend the status quo.


...so you can stop being a ****.



Not really they explain what Venn diagrams are (which, you should probably know that anyone that received a decent education already knows)

I would hope that people could understand set theory; it doesn't always appear that way in the field, however.

For instance...


none of those were loinks to anything which showed how the laws you're railing against (and that no one disagrees with your criticisms of) and their relation to sex crimes.

Their relation would be... that those laws I was 'railing' against [u]happen to be 'sex crimes' in the current regieme.

Since your assertion is that no one disagrees with my criticisms of said law, it would appear that no one disagrees with my criticisms of this thread. If you really need proof that the thread topic involved 'sex crimes under the current regieme,' I can quote the first post if you'd like...


And are thus irrelevant for criticising the laws we advocate you thick twat.

Apparently, quoting the first post may become neccesary in the future if this trend continues. Nonetheless, the thread does revolve around the current legal state - making it very relevant. Unless, of course, you believe that 'bourgeois sentance' describes postrevolutionary society.

On another note, what is your fascination for equivocating female genitalia with people you appear to be angry with?


No but it's considered bad form to attack something the person you're arguing against doesn't advocate. Sheesh.

~sigh~ Fine. I give up... from the original post...

The sex offender crime laws , you know all them laws where it says... I think when your bourgeois sentance

Note that it neither uses future tense, nor the phrase "communist sentence" (let alone the oxymoron "anarchist sentence"). This is not a discussion of future laws - if there should even ever be such a thing as laws - but a critique of the current regieme.


You are confused. My opossition to these laws...

...is a welcome change from your previous posts, where you successfully managed to argue for the physical castration of persons for being homosexual - yet another fine "sex offense" within living memory...

I suppose I could grant stipulation that your doing so was accidental. After all, you seem to claim it was such, now. Thank you.


no more constitutes ignorance of them

Correct; one would have to know of the existance of something to oppose it.

Then again, you were successfully - albeit, allegedly accidentally - defending them a few short posts ago... apparently - by your claim - because you were unaware of them.


The fact you are arguing as if I adovacte these laws is bloody stupid though.

You... did... advocate those laws... openly and on record - though apparently, by your phrasing of current law you disagree with in future tense, simply because you were prior unaware of their inclusion by the current state.

I am glad to see that with knowledge, you have grown to make a refined decision about what you do and do not support about the current regieme as regards the topic.


Did you read a different post to the one I'd written?

Nope.

1. The topic was "sex offenses/sex offenders."

2. Rapists are in the set of sex offenders, yes... but more pertinently...

3. The vast majority of so-called "sex offenders" are not in any way, shape or form in the subcategory of "rapists" by any stretch of the imagination. The homosexual community (conviction pre-Lawrence), public urinators, people who lost their virginity in a car, anyone who's ever engaged in sexual activity with a virgin in the state of WA, US, anyone who buys an "adult toy" in Alabama, anyone who owns more than two dildos in arizona, and any unmarried cohabitors in Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia, for instance...

So, yes... perhaps you can see how set theory pertains, and perhaps you can see how grotesquely slandering the above to provide apologia through fraud for the current state expansion might possibly be... unconscionable, at least.

But now you know. These laws are still out there, and included in the heading. This is how fascism grows - hiding more and more of the innocent behind a scapegoat.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:15 pm
...is a welcome change from your previous posts, where you successfully managed to argue for the physical castration of persons for being homosexual - yet another fine "sex offense" within living memory...
See, I was going to bother replying to you but it's clear that you're arguing against figments of your imagination. Since no one has argued for the castration of homosexuals in this thread (although nonces that rape kids are fair game) I can only conclude you're fighting invisible enemies and as such don't really need me to post.

[luxemburg89]

last I checked, the working class had pretty much ceased to support the draconian and literally-fascist mismanagement of the "their sexuality is offensive" label, either.


Told you that in those exact words did they? Idiot. Sorry, that was not relevent but it really sets the tone for the rest of your posting :D


...is a welcome change from your previous posts, where you successfully managed to argue for the physical castration of persons for being homosexual - yet another fine "sex offense" within living memory

Well actually the argument was for the castration of PAEDOPHILES (by the way you have a very interesting name) not for homosexuals. Paedophiles could be heterosexual, but just like the idea of raping a younger model - as I find it very hard to believe sex between a 45-year-old and an 8-year-old is consensual. Sex between a 20 year-old and a 14-year-old is really a different matter. However, I would really like you to consider what physical effect - if you will ignore the psychological, as I'm sure you will do - of sex on a very young girl. I do not wish to go into details, suffice to say there will be damage, severe damage as certain organs will not be sufficiently developed, and thus unable to cope with certain actions; particularly when said actions are forced. When an adult has sex with an 8-year-old I can only see manipulation of the body, and if not that they manipulation of the mind.


Since your assertion is that no one disagrees with my criticisms of said law, it would appear that no one disagrees with my criticisms of this thread.

Uh-huh? And if all zags are zigs then all zigs are definitely zags then?


But now you know. These laws are still out there, and included in the heading. This is how fascism grows - hiding more and more of the innocent behind a scapegoat.


I think you are totally stupid if you think because you disagree with one law you disagree with them all - fascism does NOT grow from a praise for any one law. I support a law that forbids murder (unless it is Jeremy Clarkson) and I support a law that forbids rape, equally I support a societal belief that some fat, balding 50-year-old twat with no company but his computer who goes out and touches, corrupts the hearts and minds of very small children forever, should be looked down upon. That does not make me reactionary, as far as I can see, that makes me human.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 08:15 pm
The vast majority of so-called "sex offenders" are not in any way, shape or form in the subcategory of "rapists" by any stretch of the imagination. The homosexual community (conviction pre-Lawrence), public urinators, people who lost their virginity in a car, anyone who's ever engaged in sexual activity with a virgin in the state of WA, US, anyone who buys an "adult toy" in Alabama, anyone who owns more than two dildos in arizona, and any unmarried cohabitors in Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia, for instance...

[...]

But now you know. These laws are still out there, and included in the heading. This is how fascism grows - hiding more and more of the innocent behind a scapegoat.
Country of savages, that of yours, hm?

Except that, among the savage ways of the Americans, there is also the fact that their legal system is Common Law... which means that loads of outdated legislation that is no longer enforced for decades or centuries hasn't been formally overturned.

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Nadezhda]

The problem in the United States with sex offenders is the whole concept of what is sexual offense in the first place. It is unfair for two consenting individuals to be accused of sexual offense. A lot of times this accusation occurs when individuals have passed puberty but aren't 18 years old yet. The United States has become too concerned with this topic area. sexual offense (in my opinion at least) means, for example, a 30 year old sexually offending a child (someone who hasn't reached puberty). once an individual has reached puberty that's not an offense. when two individuals consent regardless of age that is not even considerably the same as if they were unwilling (which is rape). of course I'm not talking in regards to an 8 year old, I am talking in regard to individuals who are capable of consenting to sexual intercourse and have reached puberty.

i knew someone, a close friend. he was young at the time, 20 years old. it was about 2 years ago. he and a 16 year old girl had sexual intercourse. the girls parents pressed charges. he was about to go to court in regards to the issue, a day before he went he committed suicide. i still think about it now, how such a definition of sexual assault/sexual offense is often completely irrelevant. there is no regard of the person being past puberty and "consenting" to it, even if there is only a couple years of age difference. all i know is that when the parents pressed charges he knew he could not fight it- and in the state where I live it is very difficult even in that situation for someone to be employed, etc - there is always record of it and laws to make life difficult. i probably wouldnt think of it in the same way if that didnt happen. but when i think about it, even now, i think of how many people that happens to- and how wrong the whole thing is.