Age of Consent

[NorthStarRepublicML]

was talking with a guy from the Sparticist League the other day and age of consent laws came up, although the actual conversation was a bit more meandering i cut out this snippet from their party program:


We oppose efforts to regulate the manifold expressions of human sexuality. Our guiding principle is simply that of mutual effective consent. Down with reactionary “age of consent” and “statutory rape” laws which criminalize consensual sexual activity of youth! We oppose the reactionary crusade against pornography and the “date rape” hysteria, spearheaded by bourgeois feminists in league with puritanical bigots. Government out of the bedrooms!

the Spartacist league defends NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) and even mentioned that Mark Foley was not in the wrong. do members here agree with this?

not sure if this topic has been discussed here but i would imagine that most people here have divergent viewpoints on where the line is drawn over sexual consent.

do people here believe that age is not a factor in consent and that maturity should be the only aspect taken into consideration .... and if so how is maturity measured?

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:50 pm
the Spartacist league defends NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) and even mentioned that Mark Foley was not in the wrong. do members here agree with this?
I don't and I certainly hope I'm not alone.

To be sure, the pedophile community has been unfairly demonized, but that doesn't make their acts any less wrong.


not sure if this topic has been discussed here but i would imagine that most people here have divergent viewpoints on where the line is drawn over sexual consent.

do people here believe that age is not a factor in consent and that maturity should be the only aspect taken into consideration .... and if so how is maturity measured?
Age is a factor, but not a direct factor. That is to say that a person of age 14 may be mature enough to give consent and be trusted not to be coerced, etc., but it can be equally true that a 20 year old is incapable of giving reasonable consent.

However, it is a very thin and immeasurable line, so I don't think age of consent is something that will be outdated any time soon.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 04:02 pm
To be sure, the pedophile community has been unfairly demonized, but that doesn't make their acts any less wrong.

The pedophile community should be demonised. If they act on thier mental illness I really don't care if they face the death penalty for that level of child abuse. I feel the same about most rapists.

If they even come into ownership of child pornography, they should be locked away. It's normally paid for, and that means they actually fund that shit. Also, from what I understand it's not the sort of thing you just come across on google. These people obviously know people, and therefore help keep the secret.

It makes me sick to the bones thinking about it.

Though, if someone has those sort of urges, and comes forward, they should recieve as much help as possible. As far as im concerned it's a mental illness.

But, the age of consent is to a certain extent, subjective. I mean, puberty occors at different times for different people. As does mental development. I know 15 year olds, and even 14 year old that are far more developed mentally and physically than some 16 or 17 year olds I know.

[spartan]

Unconsentual sex between an adult and a child is wrong and their also should not be a Paedophile "community" in the true sense of the word. I just hope that by the time the revolution comes there is a cure for these people who have sexual desires to hurt children sexually. What that cure will be i dont know perhaps it would be gene therapy? Though i have heard promising things about chemical castration which is being proposed by the authorities as a good way of killing off there desires (And it wont destroy there genitles so it is humane if of course you want to be as humane as possible with sick people). Anyone know if this is true about chemical castration? Do you think chemical castration is the answer to the problem? What if the Paedophile does not want to be chemically castrated? Do we force the Paedophile to be chemically castrated? Surely force would require a higher authority to do the forcing like a police force for instance? The whole paedophile issue and how to treat and/or get rid of the problem always conjures up lots of different questions on what to do, how to do it and who will do it when it comes to curing them.

[Whitten]

I will point out that paedophile is someone hwo is sexually attracted to prepubescents, so a 14 year old wouldn't usually fall into this category.

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+September 20, 2007 04:40 pm--> (Urban Spirit @ September 20, 2007 04:40 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 04:02 pm
To be sure, the pedophile community has been unfairly demonized, but that doesn't make their acts any less wrong.

The pedophile community should be demonised. If they act on thier mental illness I really don't care if they face the death penalty for that level of child abuse. I feel the same about most rapists.

If they even come into ownership of child pornography, they should be locked away. It's normally paid for, and that means they actually fund that shit. Also, from what I understand it's not the sort of thing you just come across on google. These people obviously know people, and therefore help keep the secret.

It makes me sick to the bones thinking about it.

Though, if someone has those sort of urges, and comes forward, they should recieve as much help as possible. As far as im concerned it's a mental illness.

But, the age of consent is to a certain extent, subjective. I mean, puberty occors at different times for different people. As does mental development. I know 15 year olds, and even 14 year old that are far more developed mentally and physically than some 16 or 17 year olds I know. [/b]
Thank you! This is exactly right, it is very relieving to see someone talk sense for once US!

Paedophilia corrupts children - that is taking non-consentual pictures of children, or effectively raping them. Or even looking at pictures of children - these children are, may I add, exploited.

Obviously if they are two consenting teens then who am I to judge - but when it is 4/5/6/7/8/9/10...11/12 even then it is wrong and the children are being exploited!

[Dean]

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+September 20, 2007 04:40 pm--> (Urban Spirit @ September 20, 2007 04:40 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 04:02 pm
To be sure, the pedophile community has been unfairly demonized, but that doesn't make their acts any less wrong.

The pedophile community should be demonised. If they act on thier mental illness I really don't care if they face the death penalty for that level of child abuse. I feel the same about most rapists.

If they even come into ownership of child pornography, they should be locked away. It's normally paid for, and that means they actually fund that shit. Also, from what I understand it's not the sort of thing you just come across on google. These people obviously know people, and therefore help keep the secret.

It makes me sick to the bones thinking about it.

Though, if someone has those sort of urges, and comes forward, they should recieve as much help as possible. As far as im concerned it's a mental illness. [/b]
Exactly: it is a mental illness, whether or not people come forward with it.

And the outlet of actually acting upon it is a part of that mental illness, albeit a far worse form of responding to the illness.

I agree, completely, that these people are sick, and do terrible things. But the demonization, I think, encourages more of a punitive outlook on the pedophiles than a constructive, rehabilitative outlook. When found to have committed crimes, they should be rehabilitated, not killed. Maybe even a life sentence is necessary for some, but I don't think it's justifiable to accept capital punishment for somethin gthat you say yourself is a mental illness.

[counterblast]

The most depressing part of this situation, is that many of those individuals who are so fervidly opposed to child rape, are the very people who campaign against sex education and support placing more social restrictions on children.

This, of course, just increases their susceptibility to rapists and hinders their ability to object to the unwarranted actions of adults.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:32 am
The most depressing part of this situation, is that many of those individuals who are so fervidly opposed to child rape, are the very people who campaign against sex education and support placing more social restrictions on children.
Proof for that strawman please? I find child-rapists to be subhuman scum but support a better sex education and more social freedoms for children.


This, of course, just increases their susceptibility to rapists and hinders their ability to object to the unwarranted actions of adults.

It could well do, but you're still using the baseless assumption that people who hate nonces are also anti-child.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Urban Spirit+September 20, 2007 05:40 pm--> (Urban Spirit @ September 20, 2007 05:40 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 04:02 pm
To be sure, the pedophile community has been unfairly demonized, but that doesn't make their acts any less wrong.

The pedophile community should be demonised. [/b]
There is about as much evidence to support the assertion that paedophilia is a mental illness as there is to support the assertion that homosexuality is a mental illness and it is within that narrow-minded, myopic, reactionary point of view where this tragic problem begins.

It is really easy to just react to a problem like this with the same socially conditioned response as with any human condition that exists in which human beings cannot comprehend or find morally reprehensible.

This whole issue is the last human taboo in my opinion and a really difficult one to approach. First and foremost it is important for anyone attempting to analyse this subject to not be afraid of being attacked or demonised for giving an opinion, I certainly have no issue with people accusing me of defending paedophiles because I am.

First of all paedophilia is mostly classed as a sexual preference and it is important to make the distinction between someone who has a sexual preference and someone who forces someone to do something they do not want to do. Force has nothing to do with sexual preference and making these kinds of claims implies that you can quantify what kind of rape or force is worse than another kind of rape or force; to me they are all equally as deplorable.

Secondly, by using the word paedophile in the general way within your claim that they "should be" demonised assumes that every paedophile wants to rape children. I'm not sure, even if that was true, how you can reasonably make that claim. Do you have any evidence to suggest that this is the case or are you simply using bourgeois statuary rape laws to blankly attack people who have sexual urges towards children?

People who happen to have such an unfortunate sexual preference as paedophilia i.e. paedophiles should not be demonised. Rapists and exploiters should be demonised.


If they even come into ownership of child pornography, they should be locked away.

True progression.


It makes me sick to the bones thinking about it.

Can you explain why child rape makes you more "sick to the bones" as any other kind of rape?


Though, if someone has those sort of urges, and comes forward, they should recieve as much help as possible. As far as I’m concerned it's a mental illness.

There is, somewhere in that sentence, some kind of compassion but a very guarded kind. The term 'Mental Illness' can not be applied in any way to sexual preferences. Paedophiles do not suffer from a psychological dysfunction. They are normally very ordinary people, doing ordinary jobs in their ordinary lives. Just like gay people.


But, the age of consent is to a certain extent, subjective.

The age of consent is totally arbitrary and any duty to protect children should fall to communities, not to legislators or moralists, such as yourself, to determine what is or is not appropriate.

In modern society we have essentially criminalised children, making them second-class citizens forced to accept any decision made for them by adults. We have destroyed their independence and placed them into a system that instils in them fear, dependence and that stifles their creativity.

Perhaps in a society where children are encouraged to think for themselves and are equipped with all the necessary tools, teachings, love and support to develop that we may see that children are not as weak and docile as we would like to make them think.

Of course, as everyone has pointed out, there is a line where it is objectively impossible for a child to understand what sex is or be physically or emotionally capable of participating in sex. I think those lines are obvious; but as soon as they are capable, emotionally and physically then regardless of age what is there that we as alleged adults can do to stop them from exploring a very natural part of being a human being?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:32 am
The most depressing part of this situation, is that many of those individuals who are so fervidly opposed to child rape, are the very people who campaign against sex education and support placing more social restrictions on children.

This, of course, just increases their susceptibility to rapists and hinders their ability to object to the unwarranted actions of adults.
I totally agree. Criminalising children and telling them they cannot think for themselves produces exactly that: Children who cannot think for themselves.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 10:07 pm
I agree, completely, that these people are sick, and do terrible things.
Rapists are sick and do terrible things. Not paedophiles.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 21, 2007 02:59 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 21, 2007 02:59 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 04:32 am
The most depressing part of this situation, is that many of those individuals who are so fervidly opposed to child rape, are the very people who campaign against sex education and support placing more social restrictions on children.
Proof for that strawman please? I find child-rapists to be subhuman scum but support a better sex education and more social freedoms for children.


This, of course, just increases their susceptibility to rapists and hinders their ability to object to the unwarranted actions of adults.

It could well do, but you're still using the baseless assumption that people who hate nonces are also anti-child. [/b]
Where did she make those claims? Her generally assumption is right. Considering that those people who provide sex education are in a reactionary/right wing teaching system.

I'm confused at why you're attacking what she is saying?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+September 21, 2007 02:42 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ September 21, 2007 02:42 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 02:59 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:32 am
The most depressing part of this situation, is that many of those individuals who are so fervidly opposed to child rape, are the very people who campaign against sex education and support placing more social restrictions on children.
Proof for that strawman please? I find child-rapists to be subhuman scum but support a better sex education and more social freedoms for children.


This, of course, just increases their susceptibility to rapists and hinders their ability to object to the unwarranted actions of adults.

It could well do, but you're still using the baseless assumption that people who hate nonces are also anti-child.
Where did she make those claims? [/b]
Here:


[email protected] 21, 2007 04:32 am
The most depressing part of this situation, is that many of those individuals who are so fervidly opposed to child rape, are the very people who campaign against sex education and support placing more social restrictions on children.


Her generally assumption is right.

Really, the people who hate nonces are the very same ones who do not want children to receive a sex education? :wacko: Sounds more like a baseless assumption tome.


Considering that those people who provide sex education are in a reactionary/right wing teaching system.

Irrelevant, whoever is teaching sex education doesn't affect who does and doesn't support it.


I'm confused at why you're attacking what she is saying?

Because it's paedo apologist crap.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:03 pm

[QUOTE=Jazzratt,September 21, 2007 02:59 pm] [QUOTE=counterblast,September 21, 2007 04:32 am] The most depressing part of this situation, is that many of those individuals who are so fervidly opposed to child rape, are the very people who campaign against sex education and support placing more social restrictions on children.
Proof for that strawman please? I find child-rapists to be subhuman scum but support a better sex education and more social freedoms for children.
Re-read what she said, sparky.



Considering that those people who provide sex education are in a reactionary/right wing teaching system.

Irrelevant, whoever is teaching sex education doesn't affect who does and doesn't support it.

But those people are the "many individuals" who fervidly oppose child rape...




I'm confused at why you're attacking what she is saying?

Because it's paedo apologist crap.

And you're an idiot.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 03:11 pm
But those people are the "many individuals" who fervidly oppose child rape...
I think it's safe to venture that the people who oppose child rape number more than those that are involved in sex education.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 21, 2007 04:16 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 21, 2007 04:16 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 03:11 pm
But those people are the "many individuals" who fervidly oppose child rape...
I think it's safe to venture that the people who oppose child rape number more than those that are involved in sex education. [/b]
You're assumption is that she was attacking you (I'm still unclear why you think that) and my assumption is that she is attacking the bourgeois/right wing education system.

I suspect, going from her posts, that my assumption is probably the correct one.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+September 21, 2007 03:18 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ September 21, 2007 03:18 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:16 pm

The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 03:11 pm
But those people are the "many individuals" who fervidly oppose child rape...
I think it's safe to venture that the people who oppose child rape number more than those that are involved in sex education.
You're assumption is that she was attacking you [/b]
"You are assumption"? What the fuck are you talking about?

Anyway, it was my "assumption" that she was attacking people who were opposed to child rape, as she said in her post - not just me. She was making a hasty generalisation.


(I'm still unclear why you think that)

I don't. Stop being a cretin.


and my assumption is that she is attacking the bourgeois/right wing education system.

What in the hell gave you that impression?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:23 pm
"You are assumption"? What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm talking about my interpretation of what she is saying is different to your paranoid one.


Anyway, it was my "assumption" that she was attacking people who were opposed to child rape

Even though I've asked you, I'm still unclear on where it is that she is doing that?


as she said in her post - not just me. She was making a hasty generalisation.

I can't see where. All I can see is: " The most depressing part of this situation, is that many of those individuals who are so fervidly opposed to child rape, are the very people who campaign against sex education and support placing more social restrictions on children."

I don't see where in that statement she is attacking people who are opposed to child rape?



(I'm still unclear why you think that)

I don't. Stop being a cretin.

If you don't think that, why did you make it personal? You said "I find child-rapists to be subhuman scum but support a better sex education and more social freedoms for children."

If it wasn't about you then why did you make it about you?



and my assumption is that she is attacking the bourgeois/right wing education system.

What in the hell gave you that impression?

"The most depressing part of this situation, is that many of those individuals who are so fervidly opposed to child rape, are the very people who campaign against sex education and support placing more social restrictions on children."

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 03:29 pm

Anyway, it was my "assumption" that she was attacking people who were opposed to child rape

Even though I've asked you, I'm still unclear on where it is that she is doing that?
By saying that those who oppose it are also opposed to sex education.


I don't see where in that statement she is attacking people who are opposed to child rape?

By implying they are also the ones who "campaign against sex education and support placing more social restrictions on children."


If you don't think that, why did you make it personal? You said "I find child-rapists to be subhuman scum but support a better sex education and more social freedoms for children."

If it wasn't about you then why did you make it about you?

I was putting myself forward as an example of one of the many people fervently opposed to child rape who didn't conform to her straw man.




and my assumption is that she is attacking the bourgeois/right wing education system.

What in the hell gave you that impression?

"The most depressing part of this situation, is that many of those individuals who are so fervidly opposed to child rape, are the very people who campaign against sex education and support placing more social restrictions on children."

Once more, taking into account she begins with "many of those individuals who are so fervidly opposed to child rape" what the hell makes you think it's not a generalisation against those who oppose child rape?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:35 pm
Once more, taking into account she begins with "many of those individuals who are so fervidly opposed to child rape" what the hell makes you think it's not a generalisation against those who oppose child rape?
If it was a generalisation she would have said ""all of those individuals who are so fervidly opposed to child rape"

She didn't say that, she said "many" and then made it specific to people who campaign against sex education and social restrictions on children.

I don't think it helps when people just react to what people say without really taking the time to understand it. It shocks me that seemingly radical people can be so purposefully unprogressive.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 03:43 pm
She didn't say that, she said "many" and then made it specific to people who campaign against sex education and social restrictions on children.
Many implies a great number, but aside from her wild accusation I've never heard a regressive view on sex education and violent opposition to paedophiles being linked.


I don't think it helps when people just react to what people say without really taking the time to understand it. It shocks me that seemingly radical people can be so purposefully unprogressive.

Who's being "unprogressive[sic]"?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 21, 2007 04:51 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 21, 2007 04:51 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 03:43 pm
She didn't say that, she said "many" and then made it specific to people who campaign against sex education and social restrictions on children.
Many implies a great number, but aside from her wild accusation [/b]
Oh come on, it wasn't that wild, was it?


I've never heard a regressive view on sex education and violent opposition to paedophiles being linked.

Clearly.



I don't think it helps when people just react to what people say without really taking the time to understand it. It shocks me that seemingly radical people can be so purposefully unprogressive.

Who's being "unprogressive[sic]"?

I couldn't think of a better word. I didn't want to call you anti-progressive because I just think your opinions (on paedophiles) is just a common socially conditioned reaction, which isn't your fault necessarily.

[bezdomni]

The only issue that should ever be taken into account in regards to sexual behavior is consent.

[spartan]

Saying unconsentual sex between an adult and child is acceptable is like saying murder for the sake of murder is acceptable. The fact is neither of them will be acceptable whether it be in a Capitalist society or an Anarchist society.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:04 pm
The only issue that should ever be taken into account in regards to sexual behavior is consent.
Essentially, I agree.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+September 21, 2007 04:08 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ September 21, 2007 04:08 pm)
SovietPants[email protected] 21, 2007 05:04 pm
The only issue that should ever be taken into account in regards to sexual behavior is consent.
Essentially, I agree. [/b]
So let's review:

The leftist ideology:
- Consensual sexual intercourse between a child and a pedophile: YES
- Consensual exchange of goods and services: NO

I can't imagine why your ideology is so unpopular.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 03:03 pm
Proof for that strawman please? I find child-rapists to be subhuman scum but support a better sex education and more social freedoms for children.

So it is your suggestion that rapists support social freedom? I guess I am under the "strawman" impression that forcing another to commit sexual acts is clearly an imposition to anothers' social freedom.

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher robot+September 21, 2007 07:50 pm--> (pusher robot @ September 21, 2007 07:50 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 04:08 pm

[email protected] 21, 2007 05:04 pm
The only issue that should ever be taken into account in regards to sexual behavior is consent.
Essentially, I agree.
So let's review:

The leftist ideology:
- Consensual sexual intercourse between a child and a pedophile: YES
- Consensual exchange of goods and services: NO

I can't imagine why your ideology is so unpopular. [/b]
You're completely ignorant to the ehtire argument of every side of this debate. You are just tring to find a random quote and act like it sums up the ideology not only for the quoted, but for all leftists. You've done this numerous times to "discredit" leftism.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 21, 2007 08:15 pm--> (counterblast @ September 21, 2007 08:15 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 03:03 pm
Proof for that strawman please? I find child-rapists to be subhuman scum but support a better sex education and more social freedoms for children.

So it is your suggestion that rapists support social freedom? I guess I am under the "strawman" impression that forcing another to commit sexual acts is clearly an imposition to anothers' social freedom. [/b]
What the fuck are you talking about?

[spartan]

Dean:
You are just tring to find a random quote and act like it sums up the ideology not only for the quoted, but for all leftists. You've done this numerous times to "discredit" leftism.
And every time Dean pusher robot has failed in his attempts to discredit leftism.

[ack]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 20, 2007 12:40 pm
If they even come into ownership of child pornography, they should be locked away. It's normally paid for, and that means they actually fund that shit. Also, from what I understand it's not the sort of thing you just come across on google. These people obviously know people, and therefore help keep the secret.
Yeah, duh. You get it from *chan.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Dean+September 21, 2007 08:25 pm--> (Dean @ September 21, 2007 08:25 pm)
Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 21, 2007 07:50 pm

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 04:08 pm

[email protected] 21, 2007 05:04 pm
The only issue that should ever be taken into account in regards to sexual behavior is consent.
Essentially, I agree.
So let's review:

The leftist ideology:
- Consensual sexual intercourse between a child and a pedophile: YES
- Consensual exchange of goods and services: NO

I can't imagine why your ideology is so unpopular.
You're completely ignorant to the ehtire argument of every side of this debate. You are just tring to find a random quote and act like it sums up the ideology not only for the quoted, but for all leftists. You've done this numerous times to "discredit" leftism. [/b]
Well, what specifically do you disagree with?

Do not some leftists hold these views?
Are they not inconsistent?
Is leftism not unpopular?

Feel free to substantively refute any of these.

Of course, if you do not hold these particular views, then my comment was not really directed at you.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 21, 2007 08:27 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 21, 2007 08:27 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:15 pm

[email protected] 21, 2007 03:03 pm
Proof for that strawman please? I find child-rapists to be subhuman scum but support a better sex education and more social freedoms for children.

So it is your suggestion that rapists support social freedom? I guess I am under the "strawman" impression that forcing another to commit sexual acts is clearly an imposition to anothers' social freedom.
What the fuck are you talking about? [/b]
I find child-rapists to be subhuman scum but support a better sex education and more social freedoms for children.

This is what I'm talking about.

How can one whose perpetual sexual practices involve forcing others to have sex with them, support more social freedom?

[ComradeR]

Man i can't believe some of the crap I hear regarding this. You people who are apologists for pedophiles are defending child abuse regardless if it was rape or consensual. You can not possibly think that if a six year old "consents" to sex with a forty year old is fine do you? A sexual relationship between an adult and a child is by it's very nature exploitive and abusive! Regardless if the child knew what sex was and consented it screws up the child's perception of sex for life, it leads from one screwed up abusive relationship to another. No matter what you apologists for child abusers may say children are not "little adults" and even though I agree that the current attitude towards children is repressive and screws them up as well doesn't mean we should go to the other extreme.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by counterblast+September 22, 2007 09:46 am--> (counterblast @ September 22, 2007 09:46 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:27 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:15 pm

[email protected] 21, 2007 03:03 pm
Proof for that strawman please? I find child-rapists to be subhuman scum but support a better sex education and more social freedoms for children.

So it is your suggestion that rapists support social freedom? I guess I am under the "strawman" impression that forcing another to commit sexual acts is clearly an imposition to anothers' social freedom.
What the fuck are you talking about?
I find child-rapists to be subhuman scum but support a better sex education and more social freedoms for children.

This is what I'm talking about.

How can one whose perpetual sexual practices involve forcing others to have sex with them, support more social freedom? [/b]
Ah the curse of a badly constructed sentence :blush: . I wasn't commenting on what child rapists support, rather on what I support.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Can you explain why child rape makes you more "sick to the bones" as any other kind of rape?

Because it's a fucking child! You're destroying the innocence of the child when you rape him/her! A part of the child dies when you do that to them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think that all of us can agree that child abuse is wrong, but from what I gather from counterblast's post is that the same people who instigate paedophile "witch hunts" are the same people who would restrict or abolish sex education because it "corrupts the children".

Think of the lurid red-top British tabloids and the Daily Mail's attitude to paedophiles, and then consider what their position on sex education might be.

Seeing the connection yet?


Originally posted by luxemburg89+--> (luxemburg89)Obviously if they are two consenting teens then who am I to judge - but when it is 4/5/6/7/8/9/10...11/12 even then it is wrong and the children are being exploited![/b]

Are you saying that if two 8 year olds have sex with each other, they're raping each other? That's ridiculous.


Originally posted by pusher robot+--> (pusher robot)The leftist ideology:
- Consensual sexual intercourse between a child and a pedophile: YES[/b]

You're a fucking idiot. Not only is it impossible for a child to consent to sexual activity with an adult, but you actually think that we all find such activity acceptable.

Fess up the proof or piss off, you trolling fuck.


[email protected]
Yeah, duh. You get it from *chan.

All the *chans I have been to have rules against posting CP. Now if your talking things like loli, shota etc. please tell us how one exploits a drawing.


ComradeR
Man i can't believe some of the crap I hear regarding this. You people who are apologists for pedophiles are defending child abuse regardless if it was rape or consensual.

Please quote the posts which are condoning child abuse. Also, please remember that a child cannot consent to sexual activities with an adult.

[ComradeR]

Please quote the posts which are condoning child abuse.
I meant that by defending pedophiles having sex with children they are defending child abuse whether they know it or not.

Also, please remember that a child cannot consent to sexual activities with an adult.
Agreed, but some of the people who have defended pedophiles say that as long as the child "consents" then it's fine which is of course bullshit.

EDIT: Sorry forgot to add the bit about having sex with children in the first line.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I meant that by defending pedophiles they are defending child abuse whether they know it or not.

Then allow me to inform you that not all paedophiles are child abusers. Smashing in the head a paedophile who hasn't harmed a child is just as wrong as harming the child in the first place.

We don't hang people who might murder others, now do we? We save the rope for those who actually commit the crime.


Agreed, but some of the people who have defended pedophiles say that as long as the child "consents" then it's fine which is of course bullshit.

Again you appear to be putting words into people's mouths. It would be nice to see a quote.

[ComradeR]

Then allow me to inform you that not all paedophiles are child abusers. Smashing in the head a paedophile who hasn't harmed a child is just as wrong as harming the child in the first place.

We don't hang people who might murder others, now do we? We save the rope for those who actually commit the crime.
I completely agree, what I said was misleading due to me forgetting to add the bit about actually having sex with children, see the edit.

Again you appear to be putting words into people's mouths. It would be nice to see a quote.
I was referring to shit said by groups like the Spartacist league. For example see they're quote from the beginning of this very thread.

[Whitten]

Are you saying that if two 8 year olds have sex with each other, they're raping each other? That's ridiculous.

Two 8 year olds arn't capable of having sex with each other...

[pusher robot]

but you actually think that we all find such activity acceptable.

No, I never said that at all. Doesn't the fact that I quoted a particular person(s) give you a clue that I responding to that particular person(s)? I don't think you "all" find such activity acceptable, but clearly "some" do.

[Louis Pio]

Is leftism not unpopular?

Ehmm depends who you ask, what a stupid rhetorical question really.

Of course small kids are not able to give consent, a grownup they trust can misuse their trust and later claim it was with consent.
Which is why an age of consent is quite reasonable unless it's put too high, like for example in the USA were it seems to have been made by chaste religious people with no connection and understanding of teenagers. Here in Denmark it's 15, but if a boy have sex with his girlfriend who are under 15 it's not put to court.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Whitten+--> (Whitten)Two 8 year olds arn't capable of having sex with each other...[/b]

Now that's a bold statement. On what do you base this on? Even babies can have erections, and 8 years old is old to at least understand the concept of sex if not it's subtleties.


Originally posted by pusher [email protected]
No, I never said that at all. Doesn't the fact that I quoted a particular person(s) give you a clue that I responding to that particular person(s)? I don't think you "all" find such activity acceptable, but clearly "some" do.

You're a lying sack of shit:


The worthless trolling palmfucker
The leftist ideology:
- Consensual sexual intercourse between a child and a pedophile: YES

You made a blanket statement about "the leftist ideology" without any kind of qualifiers whatsoever.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:15 pm

Can you explain why child rape makes you more "sick to the bones" as any other kind of rape?

Because it's a fucking child!
You destroy anyone when you rape them.


A part of the child dies when you do that to them.

Apart of anyone dies when they are raped.

Rape is rape.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 21, 2007 08:56 pm


The leftist ideology:
- Consensual sexual intercourse between a child and a pedophile: YES
- Consensual exchange of goods and services: NO

I can't imagine why your ideology is so unpopular.
You built such a huge strawman that I can already see it crumbling from here.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 12:14 pm
Man i can't believe some of the crap I hear regarding this. You people who are apologists for pedophiles are defending child abuse regardless if it was rape or consensual.
How can consensual sex be regarded as abuse?


You can not possibly think that if a six year old "consents" to sex with a forty year old is fine do you?

Your reaction is absurd. Try and take it easy for a second and engage this debate with rationale rather than emotion.

A six year old child is objectively incapable of consenting to sex. That's obvious, so of course no one is saying that is ok.


A sexual relationship between an adult and a child is by it's very nature exploitive and abusive!

I'm happy to accept that if you define to me what a child actually is?


egardless if the child knew what sex was and consented it screws up the child's perception of sex for life, it leads from one screwed up abusive relationship to another.

This is just emotionalist conjecture. Where is your evidence for this? How have you come to make such an assertion?


No matter what you apologists for child abusers may say children are not "little adults" and even though I agree that the current attitude towards children is repressive and screws them up as well doesn't mean we should go to the other extreme.

I find this paragraph odd. You have just coined a phrase that no one in this thread ever used? Why? Who is arguing that children are "little adults"? Secondly, please can you provide a quote that shows someone in this thread "apologising" for child abusers?

You need to calm the fuck down and take a second to realise what people are discussing in this thread. Your knee-jerk reaction to this topic is just a regurgitated bourgeois attitude that serves no progressive purpose.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 04:24 pm
Of course small kids are not able to give consent, a grownup they trust can misuse their trust and later claim it was with consent.
Which is why an age of consent is quite reasonable unless it's put too high, like for example in the USA were it seems to have been made by chaste religious people with no connection and understanding of teenagers. Here in Denmark it's 15, but if a boy have sex with his girlfriend who are under 15 it's not put to court.
How do you determine what is a correct age of consent?

[pusher robot]

You made a blanket statement about "the leftist ideology" without any kind of qualifiers whatsoever.

Imagine the following conversation:

SILLY PERSON: Obviously, we have to look at corn yields to be able to predict peanut butter production.
ME: Of course, because peanut butter is made from corn.

Now, would you jump in at this point to pedantically call me an idiot [correction: "lying sack of shit"] because in fact, peanut butter is made from peanuts and here I am making a blanket assertion that peanut butter is made from corn without any qualifiers whatsoever?

Or would you be able to tell that I was sarcastically mocking that person's beliefs?

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 25, 2007 05:04 pm

You made a blanket statement about "the leftist ideology" without any kind of qualifiers whatsoever.

Imagine the following conversation:

SILLY PERSON: Obviously, we have to look at corn yields to be able to predict peanut butter production.
ME: Of course, because peanut butter is made from corn.

Now, would you jump in at this point to pedantically call me an idiot [correction: "lying sack of shit"] because in fact, peanut butter is made from peanuts and here I am making a blanket assertion that peanut butter is made from corn without any qualifiers whatsoever?

Or would you be able to tell that I was sarcastically mocking that person's beliefs?
...except for the obvious implications in the language you used.

If I say "The Communist ideology is the abolition of private property" it is clear that I am making a statemetn abut communists in general, not just a single communist. It may refer to a single person if there is only one communist in the debate, but otherwise it is pretty clear what is being said.

[Louis Pio]

How do you determine what is a correct age of consent?

Well it will of course have to be a general age, but in practice it will have to be determined on evidencebased research on when children mature physically, mentally etc etc.
Which will of course mean there are exceptions like 12 year old people way ahead of their peers or the opposite of course.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 12:15 pm

Can you explain why child rape makes you more "sick to the bones" as any other kind of rape?

Because it's a fucking child! You're destroying the innocence of the child when you rape him/her! A part of the child dies when you do that to them.
And part of a woman or man doesn't?

[The Feral Underclass]

The age of consent in Spain is 13 and the age of consent in Mexico is 12.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 27, 2007 09:38 pm
The age of consent in Spain is 13 and the age of consent in Mexico is 12.
Those seem sensible to me.

[Dr Mindbender]

Does a 12 year old have the maturity to make those decisions? Lets let them drive and vote as well, they may as well have the full package.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 27, 2007 09:49 pm
Does a 12 year old have the maturity to make those decisions? Lets let them drive and vote as well, they may as well have the full package.
Social and cultural differences also make up for these judgements. If a 12yo is treated as an adult, that is, given more responsibility, more personal freedoms, and a mentality which recognizes the links between actions & consequences, then I think a 12 year old can make the decision about their sexuality, as well. In the US, I think our children are too coddled to be given such a distinction.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Dean+September 27, 2007 10:32 pm--> (Dean @ September 27, 2007 10:32 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 27, 2007 09:49 pm
Does a 12 year old have the maturity to make those decisions? Lets let them drive and vote as well, they may as well have the full package.
Social and cultural differences also make up for these judgements. If a 12yo is treated as an adult, that is, given more responsibility, more personal freedoms, and a mentality which recognizes the links between actions & consequences, then I think a 12 year old can make the decision about their sexuality, as well. In the US, I think our children are too coddled to be given such a distinction. [/b]
its not so much sexuality, but the repercussions. Does a 12 year old have the sense and maturity to handle parenthood?

[Comrade Rage]

DEAN:

I'd have to agree. Parents try and shelter kids from this stuff, which results in a fucked up attitude towards sex. I'm not saying that little kids should deal with sex, but 12 is probably the best year to educate kids on the issue.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 27, 2007 10:41 pm
DEAN:

I'd have to agree. Parents try and shelter kids from this stuff, which results in a fucked up attitude towards sex. I'm not saying that little kids should deal with sex, but 12 is probably the best year to educate kids on the issue.
educate being the operative word. Allowing kids to have kids is downright irresponsible, not to mention an unfair burden.

[Comrade Rage]

I agree. I was involved years ago with a non-profit that educated kids about sex, as well as distributing birth control for free. Such programs must be expanded. One of my hometown's biggest problems is that we're America's teen pregnancy capital. This of course has created the usual effects: Poverty, Crime, Hunger, etc.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 27, 2007 09:49 pm
Does a 12 year old have the maturity to make those decisions? Lets let them drive and vote as well, they may as well have the full package.
As long as they are taught to drive I don't see anything absurd in this proposition.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 27, 2007 11:05 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 27, 2007 11:05 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 27, 2007 09:49 pm
Does a 12 year old have the maturity to make those decisions? Lets let them drive and vote as well, they may as well have the full package.
As long as they are taught to drive I don't see anything absurd in this proposition. [/b]
theyd have to build little cars so their feet can reach the peddles. :lol:

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Ulster Socialist+September 27, 2007 11:07 pm--> (Ulster Socialist @ September 27, 2007 11:07 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 11:05 pm

Ulster [email protected] 27, 2007 09:49 pm
Does a 12 year old have the maturity to make those decisions? Lets let them drive and vote as well, they may as well have the full package.
As long as they are taught to drive I don't see anything absurd in this proposition.
theyd have to build little cars so their feet can reach the peddles. :lol: [/b]
Yeah. Also anyone who has ever tried to get a twelve year old to sit still in a car for five seconds in a row will probably see why making them learn to drive first will mean they won't bother until they're older.

[RNK]

Sex is not driving. It does not require advanced motor skills, a deep-seeded knowledge of driving conditions and laws, nor a booster seat.

Sex does require, however, an actual understanding of what it is, and children still need protecting from people who would prey on them. Can a 5 year old consent to sex? Does a 5 year old know wtf that is? I didn't. How about an 8 year old? A 12 year old? 15 year old? What about a mentally handicapped 20 or 25 year old?

[Iron]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:47 am
Sex is not driving. It does not require advanced motor skills, a deep-seeded knowledge of driving conditions and laws, nor a booster seat.

Sex does require, however, an actual understanding of what it is, and children still need protecting from people who would prey on them. Can a 5 year old consent to sex? Does a 5 year old know wtf that is? I didn't. How about an 8 year old? A 12 year old? 15 year old? What about a mentally handicapped 20 or 25 year old?
Agreed, but does this give the state the right to tell everyone when you are ready? or should it be up to the parents? or up to the people themselves? there are no real answer to it... human sexuality is a very strange thing

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 02:47 am
Sex is not driving. It does not require advanced motor skills, a deep-seeded knowledge of driving conditions and laws, nor a booster seat.
Speak for yourself. :lol:


Sex does require, however, an actual understanding of what it is, and children still need protecting from people who would prey on them. Can a 5 year old consent to sex? Does a 5 year old know wtf that is? I didn't. How about an 8 year old? A 12 year old? 15 year old? What about a mentally handicapped 20 or 25 year old?

An excellent argument for contextual legislature.

[jasmine]

Agreed, but does this give the state the right to tell everyone when you are ready? or should it be up to the parents? or up to the people themselves? there are no real answer to it... human sexuality is a very strange thing

I think this is true but it is because we live in a society where sexuality is corrupted and made into a commodity. We cannot adequately answer the questions posed on this thread because whilst sex should be a pure expression of personal love, in the society and period in which we live it is usually anything but. I agree with a lot of what the anarchist tension has written but I think in our current society all that is possible is age of consent laws that filter out the worst abuses.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 12:15 pm
Can you explain why child rape makes you more "sick to the bones" as any other kind of rape?

As "sick to the bones" were my words I'll assume this was directed at me...

Firstly. I think we can all agree sex with a pre-pubesant individual is rape ?. That said, there are differences between raping an adult and raping a child, beyond the fact that it's coercion, and non-consensual.

Although the rape of an adult and of a child are both hideous acts of barbarism, an adult is more aware of what is happening/or what has happened. Adults are mature enough to seek out help, and deal with the trauma, they are more mentally developed. Obviously it's fucking destructive, and traumatic.

But a child is still developing mentally, and such an incident can cause deep long-term trauma that will possibly lead to mental health problems. Depending on the age of the child, they may not even be able to communicate to anyone what has happened. I am thinking back to a story I read a year ago about a couple raped their one month year old baby... :angry: As far as I am concerned they should be shot!

Im not sure you can actually have a universal age of consent. People are just too different, and develop at different rates, as I have said before. I would say most people are capable of understanding the implications of sex at 14/15. Some earlier, some later.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 27, 2007 11:05 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 27, 2007 11:05 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 27, 2007 09:49 pm
Does a 12 year old have the maturity to make those decisions? Lets let them drive and vote as well, they may as well have the full package.
As long as they are taught to drive I don't see anything absurd in this proposition. [/b]
Actually at twelve, depth perception is still not fully developed, so it simply wouldn't be safe to let twelve ear olds operate vehicles on the road.

As for te age of consent questio, I thnk t should be set at a sensible level, perhaps fourteen with the provision that it is legal at any age if participants are within three years of each other.

But I am afraid I am never going to se eye to eye with someone who says fifty year olds should be allowed to have sex with five year olds...

[spartan]

I think 16 is the perfect age to legally begin having sex as it is quite fair. Remember some teenagers take a bit longer to develop into puberty so 16 gives everyone a chance as by then you would expect the majority of 16 year olds to be fully developed into puberty and sexuality. Of course some people develop alot younger and quicker then others and if you read the newspapers nowadays then you will always here the stories of sexually active 12 year old girls having babies all the time. I think that the youngest age that sexual activity should be allowed (Not legally though) is 13 years old as this is the general start of puberty and of a childs teenage years when they start to develop into an adult.

[Faux Real]

The perfect age is whenever you begin to masturbate.

Originally posted by Jasmine+--> (Jasmine)
Ulster Socialist
Agreed, but does this give the state the right to tell everyone when you are ready? or should it be up to the parents? or up to the people themselves? there are no real answer to it... human sexuality is a very strange thingI think this is true but it is because we live in a society where sexuality is corrupted and made into a commodity.[/b]
I agree with this.

[spartan]

rev0lt:
The perfect age is whenever you begin to masturbate.
Thirteen for me then :lol: But still what about people who develop late into puberty?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:43 pm
The perfect age is whenever you begin to masturbate.
SEVEN?! :huh:

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 29, 2007 03:40 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 29, 2007 03:40 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 08:43 pm
The perfect age is whenever you begin to masturbate.
SEVEN?! :huh: [/b]
Okay, okay... until you've successfully orgasmed//ejaculated yourself.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by rev0lt+September 29, 2007 11:12 pm--> (rev0lt @ September 29, 2007 11:12 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:40 pm

[email protected] 29, 2007 08:43 pm
The perfect age is whenever you begin to masturbate.
SEVEN?! :huh:
Okay, okay... until you've successfully orgasmed//ejaculated yourself. [/b]
That's probably a better guideline. If you've ever read Freuds research you'd know that children as young as three masturbate!

[luxemburg89]

Originally posted by William Everard+October 01, 2007 12:53 pm--> (William Everard @ October 01, 2007 12:53 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:12 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:40 pm

[email protected] 29, 2007 08:43 pm
The perfect age is whenever you begin to masturbate.
SEVEN?! :huh:
Okay, okay... until you've successfully orgasmed//ejaculated yourself.
That's probably a better guideline. If you've ever read Freuds research you'd know that children as young as three masturbate! [/b]
I don't think Freud is credible any longer. His theories are highly sexist, ethnocentric and his own study participants claimed he changed and manipulated results. Yes he was extremely important in his time but we now have much better psychologists than Freud to refer to. Hodges and Tizard have some fantastic findings that are beneficial to the left-wing, Freud's work generally reads like the nonesense ramblings of a pervert - not that I'd know anything about them :D .

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Freud's work generally reads like the nonesense ramblings of a pervert - not that I'd know anything about them

spoken like a true idiot ...

i suppose we should be accustomed to you mouthing off about subjects that you know little to nothing about ...

not that i believe Freud is extremely well founded, however much of the work that he pioneered in dealing with the subconscious was groundbreaking, sure he put a lot of emphasis on sexuality in not only adults (also children) but that does not make him a pervert ....

Lux perhaps if you don't have anything but generalizations and poor knowledge to contribute you should just keep your mouth shut .... its better for everyone involved ...

that way we don't have to be bothered with your stupidity and you avoid looking like a fool ...

or else perhaps you should cite some of the claims that you make ... at least then we can have an argument ....


Hodges and Tizard have some fantastic findings that are beneficial to the left-wing

.... although i am unfamiliar with these psychologists, you seem to be endorsing them on their politics rather then their science .... in my view that is not how science works .... (well it does if you are George Bush and the subject is global warming) ...

remember that Marxists are also scientists and like a good scientist they must explore all fields of research with the least amount of bias as necessary ... in my view they should be impartial when examining data ..... i don't care if a scientist is a leftist or a right winger i will look at their data and then make my judgment ....

in that same vein .... if a scientist claims to be upholding a certain political agenda ... left-wing or right .... i'm going to have a harder time believing in his impartiality and his ability to examine and interpret data without contaminating it ....