Pedophilia; I can't accept it.

[Gilgamesh]

So puberty is the signpost you want to use?

In that case if the 13 year old girl has not yet gone through puberty we can agree that she is not ready for sex - whatever she says?

No, we can't say this is true in 100% of cases. However, if law is concerned, puberty is a much more reasonable signpost to use.

---

And its not my argument. As a parent I am responsible legally. Therefore, what I, as the legally responsible parent wants is not irrelevant. It only becomes irrelevant when I am no longer legally responsible. Oh - and it is worth remembering that the adult who is having a relationship with the child is breaking the law in most western countries and so the law is going to be very relevant. If this is something you wanted to pursue doing so without the law changing would be risky. I am sure you know how "kiddy-fiddlers" are treated in prison.

But what I'm arguing is completely free of law. Why can't one talk about right vs wrong anymore without someone bringing law into the picture? What the shit does law have to do with right vs wrong on any given subject? It doesn't have anything to do with it.

I'm going to create a hypothetical so it's easier for you to understand. This hypothetical will be closely related to what we're currently talking about so it shouldn't be too difficult to understand.

There's exists a government and this government enforces age of consent laws. The age of consent in this government is 50. Up until the age of 50, the person's parents are legally responsible for them.
Someone notices this is absurd and speaks up: "The parents wants are not relevant in their childs lives up until the age of 50 and here is why _______. This law makes no sense."
This governments version of you: "My wants are relevant because the law says so."

Do you not see why saying that is fucking retarded?

[max-greece]

Because the law is not so extreme and can be changed if it were.

As it happens we are still working on right and wrong between us here. I was merely explaining to you why some of your statements were not safe. We do not live in an ideal Utopian society where laws are not required. We do, however, live in democracies where unfair or improper laws that do not reflect a population's morality get changed. An example of this is the gay marriage legislation that is making its way across Europe as I type.

Now we seem to have established puberty as a measure of sexual readiness with apparently some reservation on your part:

Beginning, during or after puberty? How do we measure it? You have stated it would be a better indicator for the law. Is it by pubic hair, breast development, first period or other? What did you have in mind?

In the meantime I would like to investigate the flip-side if you don't mind.

Now we have established that a pubescent (if not earlier) girl (in this case) should be allowed to have a sexual relationship if she wants one. My question is, is she, or someone like her, now fair game? In other words is it OK for men to hit on her on the basis she might think she is ready for sex. If she is not ready how do we advise her to deal with these unwanted sexual advances? How is a man supposed to know if, when she says no, she means it?

[Gilgamesh]

Because the law is not so extreme and can be changed if it were.

The laws are the exact same. Only the age is different. There is no extreme. I just want you to acknowledge that saying something is so because it is so in a legal context is circular reasoning and fallacious. My argument, if accepted as true, would have the legalities change to fit the new truth. Do I get to then say this new truth is true because it is legally so? No, because that's retarded.

As it happens we are still working on right and wrong between us here. I was merely explaining to you why some of your statements were not safe. We do not live in an ideal Utopian society where laws are not required. We do, however, live in democracies where unfair or improper laws that do not reflect a population's morality get changed. An example of this is the gay marriage legislation that is making its way across Europe as I type.

Relevance. Where is it?

Now we seem to have established puberty as a measure of sexual readiness with apparently some reservation on your part:

Beginning, during or after puberty? How do we measure it? You have stated it would be a better indicator for the law. Is it by pubic hair, breast development, first period or other? What did you have in mind?

After they feel the urge to have sex. Other peoples urges are not tangible, of course, but sure we can go by first period and descended testicles. They're pretty good bets.

In the meantime I would like to investigate the flip-side if you don't mind.

Now we have established that a pubescent (if not earlier) girl (in this case) should be allowed to have a sexual relationship if she wants one. My question is, is she, or someone like her, now fair game? In other words is it OK for men to hit on her on the basis she might think she is ready for sex. If she is not ready how do we advise her to deal with these unwanted sexual advances?

Anyone is already aloud to hit on anyone and there needs to be no basis to allow for that. If someone doesn't want to have sex with someone; they say no. Nobody needs to even tell them that.

How is a man supposed to know if, when she says no, she means it?

I dunno'. I'm just a stupid man and I couldn't possibly know.

But how about if someone says 'no', it is to be taken that they do, in fact, mean 'no.' If someone (man or otherwise) doesn't agree with that, then throw them in jail after they rape.

[Violet]

Violet,

We are simply never going to agree on this.

Well, that's a fine and dandy cop-out.

Society regards paedophilia as wrong - you don't. I agree with society and think you are glossing over the potential for lasting damage to children who are not informed enough on the social aspects to give proper informed consent.

'Society' used to regard homosexuality as wrong. A good number of societies still do. I tend to not agree with <things> simply because <society> says <things>. I think you are glossing over the reality of the various lasting damages dealt to all people regardless of how well informed they might be on any matter at all.

Children aren't a special case by any means, and you've yet to establish a foundation for the special pleading you assume for them.

BTW: I used "prey on" deliberately. Serial child rapists (where the child is fooled into giving consent) are doing exactly that.

Was it deliberate? Well then, maybe you should think about those who don't 'prey upon' others before you make a blanket statement.

Serial child rapists? Because anyone with an interest in having sex with a child is necessarily a person who would force such upon a child, and every one of these people is a serial offender? Maybe a serial child rapist is doing exactly that... but then, maybe this time it's different.

Is not foolish consent still consent? We are all fools, the permission we give for others always is dependent on how well we've been fooled. If we mortal creatures cannot give consent to an incomplete set of data resultant of our very limited perception: we can never consent to anything.

I am interested however in what you might regard as unacceptable. How about a 45 year old man with a 6 year old boy? Do you think the boy can give his consent? Is it better,worse, or the same thing if its a 6 year old girl? Are there circumstances where you think it might be acceptable?

I sincerely doubt that first claim

Haven't you been listening? Age is irrelevant: the ability to communicate consent given, on the other hand, is. The ability to consent, also, is. If a given 45 year old man is able to communicate his consent to the 6 year old boy: yeah, the 6 year old boy can fuck him without any issue from me.

He probably can, by six. But you know: he could be retarded. Exactly the same with a six year old girl, except she might be wanting a strap-on dildo. Maybe.

Many.

---

I think that she is looking to argue and getting off topic. I also agree that none of us are going to change our minds.

Talking about pedophilia in a pedophilia thread is getting off topic?

Now that last bit is just plain ignorant. You know everything, do you?

---

Max, I totally and completely agree with everything you just said. I was trying to come back from the sock that violet thinks a 13 year old has the same physical maturity as an adult. That is just...blind.

So... you can't read. Which is cool: can. Important keyword, followed by some examples of where it is true. In particular: cloning. Never let it be said that I don't have the foresight to consider a serious issue that's right around humanity's corner... let alone that I am blind XD

I feel like she is just trolling now. I think she is just looking to argue and whatnot instead of actually converse about the subject.

I haven't trolled you yet, sister... but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't considering it.

How about I make absolutely pointless conjecture that you're only here to <engage in some ridiculous behavior> for a change? Would I get a kudos for it? Don't I wonder.

---

Just to add as I forgot to comment on this:

" it's if she thinks she's ready to have sex with someone."

Or, if she can be persuaded to think that she is ready, which is where the whole scope of abuse and potential for it comes in.

Huh, so every case of courting ever is an abuse case. Fascinating. I'll have to tell my children that dating is abuse.

---

Savannahw,

Thanks - but I really don't think Violet is trolling - I think we are talking at cross purposes. I can fully see that a 13 year old could be ready for a sexual relationship and would feel frustrated at being restricted. On the other hand I think that would be an uncommon 13 year old and as I would guess the majority are not....

You're not very familiar with teenagers, are you?

I don't have to guess... just saying.

I wonder what Violet thinks of the minimum age for driving a car? I swear I could have done that at 7...

I don't think there should be a minimum age for a license to drive a car (or for anything, actually)... I also DO think that the testing you must undergo to obtain a license (for anything) should be SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult, and that rules on driving under the influence should be much more rigidly enforced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjPau5QYtYs

I was driving cars sans-license when I was 7. I am still driving cars and heavy machinery without licenses when the need arises. I usually argue against putting me in that position, though.

---

If one is going to be honest, after all, one's reproductive organs inform us exactly when we are ready for sex. I believe that teenagers who have already been through puberty are perfectly capable of handling sex and giving consent as well as any adult.

Well, they give us a heads-up that they're probably ready for sex. Even those who haven't gone through puberty can still have a good time with sex, and they can be quite ready for it.

Really, if two people agree to the doing of an activity together (that isn't murder or some shit): who am I to tell them that they aren't allowed to do it? Don't get me wrong: I'm totally okay with having our line of consent drawn at something which actually does have some relevance (the start of puberty), and many cultures before me have also done the same... I am, however, interested in *precisely what* the line should be drawn at in a setting where we're able to find out perfectly (the science!).

[Arellius]

I do believe that pedophilia is wrong. No doubt about it. What I consider pedophilia, however, has nothing to do with a sixteen year old having sex with an adult. Pedophilia is adult men and woman, over the age of eighteen, who sexually molest prepubescent children. Prepubescent children obviously cannot understand sex to the point of giving proper consent to engage in sexual activities.

Just to get my story straight, because it seems we are going a bit of track here. The Prophet Muhammad was an adult, and Aisha a prepubescent girl. That's what made me come up with the title for the topic and what had shocked me to the extent to start this thread. All the other categories; under age sex and statutory rape are also overlooked subjects, especially when it comes to grown men wedding and bedding barely teenage/prepubescent girls ! Whether or not the correct definition for pedophilia only refers to young boys, I don't really care. Little girls are equal to me in that sense. A grown man is at his sickest to even think sexual thoughts about a child for f*ck sake. - Oh but wait, it's with God's consent they say, so it must be alright then ?!!

I agree with Savannahw's first reply to the thread.

[max-greece]

Because the law is not so extreme and can be changed if it were.

The laws are the exact same. Only the age is different. There is no extreme. I just want you to acknowledge that saying something is so because it is so in a legal context is circular reasoning and fallacious. My argument, if accepted as true, would have the legalities change to fit the new truth. Do I get to then say this new truth is true because it is legally so? No, because that's retarded.

Neither circular nor fallacious. There is no "truth" merely reflections of public morality, which is the point you don't want to understand. If the majority of the population want the law on the age of consent changed then that is what will happen. If the majority don't want it changed than your "truth" or moral position doesn't reflect that of the majority

As it happens we are still working on right and wrong between us here. I was merely explaining to you why some of your statements were not safe. We do not live in an ideal Utopian society where laws are not required. We do, however, live in democracies where unfair or improper laws that do not reflect a population's morality get changed. An example of this is the gay marriage legislation that is making its way across Europe as I type.

Relevance. Where is it?

Its an example of laws changing to reflect public morality. How can you not see the relevance in that?

Now we seem to have established puberty as a measure of sexual readiness with apparently some reservation on your part:

Beginning, during or after puberty? How do we measure it? You have stated it would be a better indicator for the law. Is it by pubic hair, breast development, first period or other? What did you have in mind?

After they feel the urge to have sex. Other peoples urges are not tangible, of course, but sure we can go by first period and descended testicles. They're pretty good bets.

In the meantime I would like to investigate the flip-side if you don't mind.

Now we have established that a pubescent (if not earlier) girl (in this case) should be allowed to have a sexual relationship if she wants one. My question is, is she, or someone like her, now fair game? In other words is it OK for men to hit on her on the basis she might think she is ready for sex. If she is not ready how do we advise her to deal with these unwanted sexual advances?

Anyone is already aloud to hit on anyone and there needs to be no basis to allow for that. If someone doesn't want to have sex with someone; they say no. Nobody needs to even tell them that.

How is a man supposed to know if, when she says no, she means it?

I dunno'. I'm just a stupid man and I couldn't possibly know.

But how about if someone says 'no', it is to be taken that they do, in fact, mean 'no.' If someone (man or otherwise) doesn't agree with that, then throw them in jail after they rape.
[/quote]

So you've never been with a woman who is screaming no and it means yes?

I have to say what we are now discussing is a tiny part of what paedophilia really is. Usually men - often hanging around places children are playing, looking to lure them away with the promise of sweets or puppies where they can rape them. Or, as seems to be the most commonly reported case, priests raping choir boys. That doesn't have to be violent rape. These are cases where an adult is using their power or authority to force a child to have sex against their will.

This is preying on the most vulnerable in society - children. That neither you nor Violet see children as being more vulnerable is, frankly astonishing but I, obviously, can't persuade you.

---

Anyone is not allowed to hit on anyone by the way. Try it for yourself. Go hang around a kindergarten attempting to lure children into your car and see what happens.

---

Violet,

Saying we are never going to agree is not a cop out - its simply a statement of fact.

Society did indeed used to regard homosexuality as wrong but I don't live in that society. The one where I do regards almost all adult sexuality as fine but it recognizes children are a special case. I agree with society - you don't.

Foolish consent is only consent if it is reasonable to accept that the person giving their consent understood what that meant. In the case of a smaller child they probably have little to no idea of what they are consenting to. They might simply be agreeing to "Now you do want to make Daddy happy don't you?"

Surely you see the scope for abuse here. Children, despite all your claims to the contrary, are more trusting. Children up to the age of about 6 are not even capable of lying.

Again we are at cross purposes. You are focusing on what I would maintain is a very rare child indeed that wants sex and actually understands what that means. You are ignoring issues such as the physical damage that might do to them and indeed the psychological damage that could affect them their entire lives. I am focusing on the child that gives its consent but doesn't actually know what that means.
At 6 years old I wouldn't even let my daughter choose her own clothes. "I want to wear this dress." "That's a summer dress and its snowing - you can't."

We do not hold children as responsible for their actions as a society until they reach a certain age. I agree that this is an imperfect rule but its about the best we have. There are very good reasons for this. I suggest you take a look at how the human brain develops as they are growing up. Decision centres in the brain are different between children and adults. That you think it's fine for a seven year old to drive really says a lot. How do you handle responsibility in this case? The child loses control of the vehicle and ploughs into a bus-stop full of people. Is the child responsible? Do you have no problem imprisoning that child for manslaughter? Do you not hold the parents responsible for allowing their child to drive in the first place?

[Gilgamesh]

Neither circular nor fallacious.

"It's right because it's law" is both circular and fallacious.

If the majority of the population want the law on the age of consent changed then that is what will happen.

No. If I want the law changed then that will happen. u mad?

But actually I'm well aware. Why are you even saying that? It has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.

This is preying on the most vulnerable in society - children. That neither you nor Violet see children as being more vulnerable is, frankly astonishing but I, obviously, can't persuade you.

I do think children are more vulnerable then, say, someone over the age of 20, in general.

Anyone is not allowed to hit on anyone by the way. Try it for yourself. Go hang around a kindergarten attempting to lure children into your car and see what happens.

I'll get arrested. I still had the ability to lure them into my car, though, so I was allowed.

Also, I find your use of the word 'child' disingenuous. I don't think most children (by definition, a person who has not reached or finished puberty yet) want to have a sexual relationship. I'm not arguing that it's okay for people to convince those people to have sex (although, I'm not necessarily saying that's wrong, either.) I'm arguing for people who want to have sexual relationships but are being oppressed by other people.

[Foxaèr]

I should read this again.

[Violet]

Violet,

Saying we are never going to agree is not a cop out - its simply a statement of fact.

It's not a statement of fact unless you're specifically never going to agree with me regardless of my views. But that'd be stupid... so it's just not a statement of fact

Society did indeed used to regard homosexuality as wrong but I don't live in that society. The one where I do regards almost all adult sexuality as fine but it recognizes children are a special case. I agree with society - you don't.

And had you been born in that society, you too would regard homosexuality as wrong? Parrots of the people make such bland music.

Foolish consent is only consent if it is reasonable to accept that the person giving their consent understood what that meant. In the case of a smaller child they probably have little to no idea of what they are consenting to. They might simply be agreeing to "Now you do want to make Daddy happy don't you?"

Honey... foolish consent is consent necessarily. If it wasn't so, then it would be foolish nonconsent. I understand that logic is difficult for young people... but bear with me: you'll get it if you keep trying.

Regardless of whatever trickery is performed to put someone in a sexual situation: if both parties consent to the sexual situation, and continue to consent all the way through the activity (if someone says 'no' or otherwise communicates such: the activity ceases)... then they have successfully had a nonabusive sexual experience. Congratulations to them: many adults seem to struggle with this.

Not to say that guilt-tripping a child is a particularly respectable thing to do (it's not)... but I'd only take issue if it was forced upon an unwilling/undesiring participant.

Surely you see the scope for abuse here. Children, despite all your claims to the contrary, are more trusting. Children up to the age of about 6 are not even capable of lying.

Direct challenge: when a toddler breaks something, and is asked if they broke it... the typical answer is 'no'. Children are lying bastards from very early on into their babydom: they realize that adults react to their crying, and then fake-cry to manipulate them into doing something they want. One of the very first things a human learns... is to lie.

Yes, a 6 year old child is capable of lying... more than that: they've been doing it for about 6 years. But surely I don't have to explain science to you: surely you can see that humans are a trusting people *regardless* of their age, and that their being particularly otherwise is considered abnormal. Surely also, you can see the scope for the abuse of people is no different for children than it is for adults (infact, I daresay that you can inflict far more terrifying abuses upon an adult... as they've had years and years to acclimatize to not being horrifically abused. Very good canvas).

Again we are at cross purposes. You are focusing on what I would maintain is a very rare child indeed that wants sex and actually understands what that means. You are ignoring issues such as the physical damage that might do to them and indeed the psychological damage that could affect them their entire lives. I am focusing on the child that gives its consent but doesn't actually know what that means.

Have I ever argued that anyone 'actually understands what <anything> means'? Here I thought I took quite a different stand regarding understanding. Children do want sex, it's enough of an issue that they gave the (cis) girls in my class sexual education in the 4th grade. That would make them 9 and 10, generally. Sexistly, the (cis) boys were given the same class in 5th grade (10, 11 generally)... but I'll never forget that in 4th grade, when I asked if I could go with the other girls: my classmates immediately assured me that I didn't want to go. By 9, they were generally well aware of sex *before* the sexual education class

Am I ignoring the physical damage that might be done to them, and the psychological damage that could affect them their entire lives? Absolutely. But would I ignore physical damage done to them, and psychological damage that does affect them their entire lives? Absolutely not. I'm not a particular fan of punishing people for crimes that haven't happened. I am focusing on the child that gives its consent... regardless of whatever they know or don't know, but you can be sure that I'd attempt to educate them as to some of the basics if they professed to me a desire to bang someone (anyone). Same as I'd do for a teenager, or any adult who also confessed they'd never had sex before. I'm so charitable.

At 6 years old I wouldn't even let my daughter choose her own clothes. "I want to wear this dress." "That's a summer dress and its snowing - you can't."

Funny... I'd be letting them choose what clothes they wanted to wear whenever they communicated that they wished to wear <whatever>. I'd be expecting them to do this task of finding the clothes they wish to wear by four, and certainly dressing themselves in such within a year of that point. Otherwise... I'm pretty sure my child is stupid. Oh well, world needs stupid people too.

Me, I'd let my daughter wear the dress, but if she was going outside in it: I'd tell her that snow is cold, and that she'd probably have a better time if she bundled up. Then I'd keep tabs on her, like any responsible parent, and let her have fun... because snow is fucking awesome.

We do not hold children as responsible for their actions as a society until they reach a certain age. I agree that this is an imperfect rule but its about the best we have.

You don't... I do. There are consequences for our actions. That said, my punishments fit their crimes in my eyes... I'm not about to cut off someone's hand because they took candy from another kid. I might not intervene if they are then punched in the face by the kid they stole from, though.

There are very good reasons for this. I suggest you take a look at how the human brain develops as they are growing up. Decision centres in the brain are different between children and adults. That you think it's fine for a seven year old to drive really says a lot. How do you handle responsibility in this case? The child loses control of the vehicle and ploughs into a bus-stop full of people. Is the child responsible? Do you have no problem imprisoning that child for manslaughter? Do you not hold the parents responsible for allowing their child to drive in the first place?

If there are, I sure have yet to hear one. I suggest that if you base your shit off of the human brain: you mark 25 as your age-line, as it's been routinely asserted that the prefrontal cortex hasn't finished developing until that magic age. You are the property of your parents/the state until you turn 25, you may not drive, drink, smoke, have sex, or so much as eat a carrot without permission from an authorized permission-giver. Don't move... don't even breathe... without permission.

That I think it's fine for a seven year old to drive... if they pass the driving test, 'says a lot'. I'm not okay with a 40 year old driving if he hasn't passed the driving test. Or I should say: I'm okay with it when it's needed, but I prefer people who have demonstrated their ability to drive to be driving, and driving is dangerous, so I like to minimize that anyway.

Same way we do in every case. The child is at least partly responsible... the vehicle is also partly responsible... I could teach you a lot about responsibility and how it's never actually completely and totally on just one thing (outside mathematical hypotheticals), but I don't think you'd understand, and it's really quite a long topic. I have no problem imprisoning that child for manslaughter. I do not hold the parents or society as particularly responsible for allowing the child to drive in the first place. Unless they are, of course... no two cases are identical. If an adult took a gun to the kid's head, and told him to drive, and he then lost control: I'd stick it more onto the gunman than on the kid. We could make a game of it: the blame game

[max-greece]

Gilgamesh,

Why did it become the law?

Other than that it appears you are now massively climbing down from your position. That's a good thing.

Violet,

If your views are as you have, and are, stating then it is a statement of fact that we will never agree.

I have no idea what my opinion of homosexuality would have been had I been borne at a different time in a different place. My entire moral structure would probably have been different. Are you so sure yours is fixed?

Sadly it is not me that has trouble understanding, but I am a patient man and I will go slowly. If I give consent to something, as an adult, that is one thing. I may regret it later and regard my giving consent as a foolish thing to do. With a child however, things are rather different: "Darling - so you mind if I practice my lobotomy skills on you with my new scalpel?" "OK Daddy - what is a lobotomy." "Oh it won't matter in a few minutes." "OK".

According to you I now have the consent of my child to perform a lobotomy on her. The child, however, understood nothing but wants to please Daddy.

Give it a few minutes before replying - you never know - a little knowledge might slip in there during that time.

Consent all the way through the activity is an interesting one: "Daddy - I am not enjoying this." Is that withdrawal of consent? "Oh it will get better darling," might appease it long enough for the act to end. Consent was not withdrawn throughout the duration - according to you. How traumatised might the child be thereafter? Apparently no concern of yours.

As to the direct challenge see http://parenting.stackexchange.com/quest...t-of-lying which starts supporting your position but goes on to explain the world as a 7 year old see it. A child may lie but not to hide the truth as much as to get what it wants.

"Am I ignoring the physical damage that might be done to them, and the psychological damage that could affect them their entire lives? Absolutely. But would I ignore physical damage done to them, and psychological damage that does affect them their entire lives? Absolutely not. " I have no idea what you are saying here. You appear to be contradicting yourself or stating that for this argument you don't care but in reality you do?

As for how we control what our kids wear you do it your way and I'll do it my way. As long as we both have kids outside playing in the snow properly dressed - who cares. My point is simply that the child demonstrates a lack of understanding as to the consequences of their actions. You are corroborating that point even if your method is different. We both have a child on our hands that was initially unable to understand that a summer dress is not suitable for winter conditions. That you think this child might be ready for sex, with an adult no less is astonishing.

Passing a driving test does not prove you can drive - it proves you can pass a test. Ask anyone whether they were as good a driver when they first past their test as they are now and I would be surprised if 1 in 100 answered affirmatively unless they are now incapable for other reasons.

The person that put the 7 year old behind the wheel or allowed it to happen is responsible in my opinion.

" I have no problem imprisoning that child for manslaughter. "

And it is to avoid getting into situations of this ilk that we restrict what children are allowed to do as much as it is whether they actually can or can not do a certain action.